AGRARIAN LAW REVIEWER

Provision Case
Sec. 19 Land Acquisition (Voluntary Offer to Sell)
Sec. 6 Retention Rights Daez et al vs. Court of Appeals: Procedural impediment
to the application filed by Eudosia Daez for the retention of
the subject riceland, even after her appeal for exemption of
the same land was denied in a decision that became final
and executory. The right of retention is a constitutionally
guaranteed right, which is subject to qualification by the
legislature. It serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory
land acquisition by balancing the rights of the landowner
and the tenant by implementing the doctrine that social
justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the
landowner. A retained area as its name denotes, is land
which is not supposed to an ymore leave the landowner's
dominion, thus, sparing the government from the
inconvenience of taking land only to return it to the
landowner afterwards, which would be a pointless process.

Rodriguez v. Salvador: Consent is lacking and sharing of

harvest. Mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural
land will not ipso factor make the tiller an agricultural
tenant. It is incumbent upon a person who claims to be an
agricultural tenant to prove by substantial evidence all the
requisites of agricultural ten ancy.
AGRARIAN LAW REVIEWER

Section 10 (Exemptions & Exclusions) Alita v. CA: 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.

Natalia Realty v. DAR: The underdeveloped portions of the

Antipolo Hills Subdivision cannot be considered as
agricultural lands for this was intended for residential use.

Luz Farm: It was never the intention of the framers of the

Constitution to include the livestock and poultry industry
in the coverage if the agrarian reform program of the
government.

DAR v. Sutton: The respondents land which is devoted to

raising livestock, poultry and swine is not considered an
agricultural land, but an industrial land, which is why it
should be exempted from agrarian reform. Clearly,
petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms
which have been exempted by the Constitution from the
coverage of agrarian reform

Milestone Farms Inc v. Office of the Vice President: The

petitioners lands is not exclusively devoted to raising
livestock, swine or poultry, it was converted to a
residential area and a golf course instead so it should not
be exempted.

Central Mindanao University v. DAR: The land is

exempted from the CARP coverage. Because: (1) It is not
alienable and disposable land of the public domain; (2) The
AGRARIAN LAW REVIEWER

CMU land reservation is not in excess of specific limits as

determined by Congress; (3) It is private land registered
and titled in the name of its lawful owner, the CMU; and
most importantly, (4) It is exempt from coverage under
Section 10 of R.A. 6657 because the lands are actually,
directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary
for school site and campus, including ex perimental farm
stations for educational purposes , and for establishing
seed and seedling research and pilot production centers.

Dar v. DECS: Respondents subject properties continued

to be agricultural lands even if they were leased to the
Anglo Agricultural Corporation (sugarcane). The
respondents cannot use as contention that they should be
exempted from the CARP coverage since the income they
get from the contract with AAC.

Republic v. Salvador : It is not enough that such are used

as seasonal extensions of grazing land. The livestock are
not regularly situated in the land in question, but are only
brought there at times for grazing.

Buklod ng Magbubukid v. EM Ramos and Sons Inc:

EMRASON lands were exempted from CARP because it had
already been re -classified as residential with the approval
of Ordinance No. 29 -A by the Municipality of Dasmarias,
Cavite. The CARL took effect on June 15, 1988. To be
exempt from the CARL, the subject property should have
already been reclassified as residential prior to the said
date.
AGRARIAN LAW REVIEWER
Land Valuation
Section 17 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
t o 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.
Province of Camsur v. CA: The expropriation of the
property authorized by the questioned resolution is for a
public purpose. The establishment of a pilot development
center would inure to the direct benefit and advantage of
the people of the Province of Camarines Sur. Once
operational, the center would make available to the
community invaluable information and technology on
agriculture, fishery and the cottage industry.
Hacienda Luisita vs PARC: For the purpose of determining
just compensation, the date of taking since this is the time
that the FWBs were considered to own and possess the
agricultural lands in Hacienda Luisita.
LBP v. Dumlao: Just compensation should be co mputed in
accordance with RA No. 6657 in order to give full effect to
the principle that the recompense due to the landowner
should be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken
from the owner by the expropriator.
LBP v. Orilla: Prompt payment" of just compensation is
not satisfied by the mere deposit with any accessible bank
of the provisional compensation determined by it or by the
DAR, and its subsequent release to the landowner after
compliance with the legal requirements set by R.A. 6657.
AGRARIAN LAW REVIEWER
Section 18 Mode of Payment
Cash
Shares of stock in government -owned or controlled
corporations, LBP preferred shares, physical assets or
other qualified investments
Tax credits which can be used against any tax liability
Land Bank of the Philippines Bonds
LBP v. Colarina: There shall be one basic formula for the
valuation of lands covered by [Voluntary Offer to Sell] or
[Compulsory Acquisition] regardless of the date of offer or
coverage of the claim.
LBP v. Celada: The valuation of property or determination
of just compensation in eminent domain proceedings is
essentially a judicial function which is vested with the
courts and not with administrative agencies
Lubrica v. LBP: Just compensation should be determined
in accordance with R.A. No. 6657 and not P.D. No. 227 or
E.O. No. 228, is important 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.
Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform: Determination made by the DAR is only preliminary unless
accepted by all parties concerned.
It is noted that the smaller the land, the bigge r the payment
in money, primarily because the small landowner will be
needing it more than the big landowners, who can afford a
bigger balance in bonds and other things of value.
AGRARIAN LAW REVIEWER

LBP v. Pascual: It is the DARAB which has the authority to

determine the initial valuation of lands involving agrarian reform although
such valuation may only be considered preliminary as the final
determination of just compensation is vested in the courts.

Land Redistribution Mago v. Barbin: Emancipation patents issued to agrarian reform

Section 22 (Beneficiaries)
Beneficiaries, in their order of priority, are:
1. Agricultural lessees and share tenants;
2. Regular Farmworkers
3. Seasonal farmworkers
4. Other farmworkers: a farmworker who is not a regular nor a seasonal
farmworker
5. Actual tillers or occupants of public lands
6. Collective or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries
Section 23 (Distribution Limit)
. No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3)
hectares of agricultural land.
beneficiaries may be corrected and cancelled for violations of agrarian
laws, rules and regulations
Padua v. CA: The statutory mechanism for the acquisition of land
through agrarian reform requires full payment of amortization before a
farmer-beneficiary may be issued a CLOA or EP, which, in turn, can
become the basis for issuance in his name of an original or a transfer
certificate of title.
Pasco v. Pison: Ownership of the land is transferred only after the award
of the same to the beneficiary by the Department of Agrarian Reform.

Section 24 (Awards to Beneficiaries)

1. Emancipation Patents (EPs)
2. Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs)
3. Free Patents are issued for public agricultural lands
4. Certificates of Stewardship Contracts

Estribillo v. DAR: a certificate of title issued under an administrative

Section 25 (Award Ceilings for Beneficiaries) proceeding pursuant to a homestead patent, as in the instant case, is as
AGRARIAN LAW REVIEWER

Beneficiaries shall be awarded an area not exceeding three (3) hectares indefeasible as a certificate of title issued under a judicial registration
which may cover a contiguous tract of land or several parcels of land proceeding, provided the land covered by said certificate is a disposable
cumulated up to the prescribed award limits. public land within the contemplation of the Public Land Law.

Section 26 (Payment of Beneficiaries) Estate of Panlilio v. Dizon: ownership of lands granted to tenant-
* Beneficiaries whose land have been the subject of foreclosure by the farmers under PD 27 may not be transferred or conveyed to third parties
Land Bank of the Philippines. except by hereditary succession or to the Government.
* Under the CARL, the LBP may foreclose on the mortgage for non-
payment of the beneficiary of an aggregate of three (3) annual
amortizations.

Section 27 (Transferability of Awarded Lands)

Transferability of Awarded Lands. - Lands acquired by beneficiaries
may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary
succession, or to the government, or to the Land Bank of the
Philippines, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10)
years.

SECTION 12.Determination of Lease Rentals. In order to protect and
improve the tenurial and economic status of the farmers in tenanted lands
under the retention limit and lands not yet acquired under this Act, the DAR is
mandated to determine and fix immediately the lease rentals thereof in
accordance with Section 34 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended: Provided,
That the DAR shall immediately and periodically review and adjust the rental
structure for different crops, including rice and corn, or different regions in
order to improve progressively the conditions of the farmer, tenant or lessee.
Caballes v. DAR: Tenancy status arises only if an occupant of a parcel of
land has been given its possession for the primary purpose of agricultural
production. The circumstances of this case indicate that the private
respondent's status is more of a caretaker who was allowed by the owner out
of benevolence or compassion to live in the premises and to have a garden of
some sort rather than a tenant.
Gelos v. CA: The parties entered into a contract of employment, not a tenancy
agreement. The agreement is a lease of services, not of the land in dispute.

Gabriel v. Pangilinan: A person, in order to be considered a tenant, must

himself and with the aid available from his immediate farm household cultivate
the land. Persons, therefore, who do not actually work the land cannot be
considered tenants; and he who hires others whom he pays for doing the
cultivation of the land, ceases to hold, and is considered as having abandoned
AGRARIAN LAW REVIEWER
Section 31 (Corporate Landowners Stock Distribution Option)
Capital Stock Transfer
a. This is a non-land transfer. Corporations or associations which voluntarily
divest a proportion of their capital stock, equity or participation in favor of their
workers or other qualified beneficiaries shall be deemed to have complied with
CARL.
b. Amount to be divested: Corporations owning agricultural lands may give
their qualified beneficiaries the right to repurchase 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 assets.
SECTION 32.Production-Sharing . Pending final land transfer, individuals
or entities owning, or operating under lease or management contract,
agricultural lands are hereby mandated to execute a production-sharing plan
with their farmworkers or farmworkers' organization, if any, whereby three
percent (3%) of the gross sales from the production of such lands are
distributed within sixty (60) days of the end of the fiscal year as compensation
to regular and other farmworkers in such lands over and above the
compensation they currently receive
the land as tenant within the meaning of sections 5 and 8 of Republic Act. No.
1199, and ceases to enjoy the status, rights, and privileges of one.
Hacienda Luisita: Sec 31 of the CARP Law allows either land transfer
or stock transfer as two alternative modes in distributing land ownership to the
FWBs. Since the stock distribution scheme is the preferred option of TADECO, it
organized a spin-off corporation, the Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI), as vehicle to
facilitate stock acquisition by the farmers.
CREBA: Mere reclassification of an agricultural land does not automatically
allow a landowner to change its use. He has to undergo the process of
conversion before he is permitted to use the agricultural land for other
purpose.
Sta. Rosa v. CA: Watersheds may be defined as "an area drained by a river
and its tributaries and enclosed by a boundary or divide which separates it from
adjacent watersheds." Watersheds generally are outside the commerce of man.
Ros v. DAR: After the passage of RA 6657, otherwise known as CARP,
agricultural lands, though reclassified, have to go through the process of
conversion, jurisdiction over which is vested in the DAR.
Fortich: Converting the land in question from agricultural to agro-industrial
would open great opportunities for employment and bring about real
development in the area towards a sustained economic growth of the
municipality. On the other hand, distributing the land to would-be beneficiaries
AGRARIAN LAW REVIEWER

(who are not even tenants, as there are none) does not guarantee such
benefits.

Resolution of Agrarian Disputes Tangub v. CA: RTC, cannot act as a special agrarian court, and
has jurisdiction over an agrarian case for damages by reason of
Section 50 (Jurisdiction) the peti tioners unlawful dispossession.
A. Jurisdiction: The Department of Agrarian Reform is hereby vested with
primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and
shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matter involving the
implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources.

Section 51 (Finality of Determination)

SECTION 51.Finality of Determination. Any case or controversy before it
shall be decided within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for resolution. Only
one (1) motion for reconsideration shall be allowed. Any order, ruling or
decision shall be final after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy
thereof.

Section 52 (Frivolous Appeals)

SECTION 52.Frivolous Appeals. To discourage frivolous or dilatory appeals
from the decisions or orders on the local or provincial levels, the DAR may
impose reasonable penalties, including but not limited to fines or censures
upon erring parties.

Section 53 (BARC Certificate)

SECTION 53.Certification of the BARC . The DAR shall not take cognizance
of any agrarian dispute or controversy unless a certification from the BARC that
the dispute has been submitted to it for mediation and conciliation without any
success of settlement is presented: Provided, however, That if no certification
is issued by the BARC within thirty (30) days after a matter or issue is submitted
AGRARIAN LAW REVIEWER

to it for mediation or conciliation the case or dispute may be brought before the
PARC.