Professional Documents
Culture Documents
FOCUS ON: Just Compensation, Agrarian Dispute, Land Acquisition, Retention Limits
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”
ESSENTIAL REQUISITIES
landowner
1) Parties
tenants
2) Subject matter is agricultural land
3) Consent of parties
4) Purpose is agricultural production
5) Personal cultivation by tenant
6) Sharing of harvest between parties
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 not present;
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 found no reasons to disturb findings
i. 1. private respondent was in actual possession of land with family in a farmhouse just like what a farm tenant
normally would
ii. Private resp. and wife were personally plowing, planting, weeding and harvesting.
iii. Management was left entirely to private respondent
iv. 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
No proof of sharing in harvest
- while Bejasa testified, SC said only Bejasa’s 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 owner’s share,
yet at one time, he also mentioned that 25% was for Malabanan and 50% for owner.
- 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, owner of land, 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 Valencia’s 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.
ISSUE: Tenancy/Can a contract of civil law lease prohibit a civil law lessee from employing a tenant on the
land subject matter of the lease agreement?
SC:
• An allegation that an agricultural tenant tilled the land in question does not make the case an agrarian dispute.
The elements of tenancy must first be proved in order to entitle the claimant to security of tenure.
• A tenancy relationship cannot be presumed. With respect to the lease agreement between Valencia and Fr.
Flores, the lessee did not have any authority to sublease Valencia's property due to the prohibition in their
lease agreement
• R.A. No. 3844, as amended, does not automatically authorize a civil law lessee to employ a tenant without the
consent of the landowner. The lessee must be so specifically authorized;
• A different interpretation would create a perverse and absurd situation where a person who wants to be a
tenant, and taking advantage of this perceived ambiguity in the law, asks a third person to become a civil law
lessee of the landowner. Incredibly, this tenant would technically have a better right over the property than the
landowner himself
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.
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)”
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) – total not to exceed 5
DAEZ v. CA
Issuance of EPs/CLOA’s 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 landowner’s 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
SANCHEZ VS 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 VS 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 commission’s 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.
STA. ROSA
material is exempted from CARP
Plus 18% slope lands so exempted.
ADMIN ORDER NO. 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 agri activity land is suitable for agriculture presently tilled by
farmers
CHAPTER 4: REGISTRATION
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.
CONFED VS DAR
Compulsory Acquisition
Notice of Acquisition
First step: identification of the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries.
Law is silent
Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989
Valid implementation , two notices
DAR A.O. No.12, Series of 1989, amended in 1990 by DAR A.O. No.9, Series of 1990 and in 1993 by DAR
A.O No.1, Series of 1993
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 landowner’s 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)
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.
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 beneficiary’s 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.)
LAND ACQUISITION
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
Assoc. of Small Landowners:
Upheld validity of Sec. 16 RA 6657 (manner of acquisition of private agricultural lands and ascertainment of
just compensation)
Section 16(e) of the CARP Law provides that:
“Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment, or in case of rejection or no response from the
landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or
in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall
request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic
of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified
beneficiaries”
Sec. 16, RA 6657
The title of the section states: “Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands.”
Section 6, RA 9700
The title was amended: "SEC. 16. Procedure for Acquisition and Distribution of Private Lands."
CONFED VS DAR
Under Section 16 of the CARL, the first step in compulsory acquisition is the identification of the land,
the landowners and the beneficiaries. However, the law is silent on how the identification process must be
made.
Identification process in Sec. 16 is silent so DAR filled gap (AO #12, s. 989)
Notice of Coverage:
Notifies landowner that his property shall be placed under CARP and that he is entitled to exercise his
retention right;
Notifies him that a public hearing shall be conducted where he and representatives of the concerned sectors
of society may attend to discuss the results of the field investigation, the land valuation and other pertinent
matters.
Also informs the landowner that a field investigation of his landholding shall be conducted where he and the
other representatives may be present.
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.
LAND BANK VS 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 VS LBP
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 6: COMPENSATION
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 VS 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.
Petitioner’s 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
AWARD TO BENEFICIARIES
Sec. 9, RA 9700
SEC. 24. Award to Beneficiaries. — The rights and responsibilities of the beneficiaries shall commence
from their receipt of a duly registered emancipation patent or certificate of land ownership award and
their actual physical possession of the awarded land. Such award shall be completed in not more than
one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of registration of the title in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines: Provided, That the emancipation patents, the certificates of land ownership award, and other titles
issued under any agrarian reform program shall be indefeasible and imprescriptible after one (1) year
from its registration with the Office of the Registry of Deeds, subject to the conditions, limitations and
qualifications of this Act, the property registration decree, and other pertinent laws. The emancipation patents
or the certificates of land ownership award being titles brought under the operation of the torrens system, are
conferred with the same indefeasibility and security afforded to all titles under the said system, as
provided for by Presidential Decree No. 1529, as amended by Republic Act No. 6732.
Sec. 9, RA 9700
It is the ministerial duty of the Registry of Deeds to register the title of the land in the name of the Republic
of the Philippines, after the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) has certified that the necessary deposit in the
name of the landowner constituting full payment in cash or in bond with due notice to the landowner and the
registration of the certificate of land ownership award issued to the beneficiaries, and to cancel previous titles
pertaining thereto.
Sec. 9, RA 9700
• "Identified and qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries, based on Section 22 of Republic Act No. 6657, as
amended, shall have usufructuary rights over the awarded land as soon as the DAR takes possession of
such land, and such right shall not be diminished even pending the awarding of the emancipation patent or
the certificate of land ownership award. “
• "All cases involving the cancellation of registered emancipation patents, certificates of land ownership award,
and other titles issued under any agrarian reform program are within the exclusive and original jurisdiction
of the Secretary of the DAR.”
"SEC. 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. — Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act or other
agrarian reform laws shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to
the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries through the DAR for a period of ten (10)
years: Provided, however, That the children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase
the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of the availability of the land
shall be given by the LBP to the BARC of the barangay where the land is situated. The PARCCOM, as herein
provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice thereof by the BARC.
xxx”