Summary of Final

Supreme Court
Decisions which
impact CARP
Implementation
 Right of Retention
DELFINO, ET. AL. -versus- ANASAO AND ANASAO (G.R. No. 197586, September 10, 2014)

The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed. Even landowners

covered under PD 27 who have not exercised such right are entitled to the
new right under Section 6 of RA 6657.
The area to be retained must be compact and contiguous and does not
exceed 5 hectares.
Landowners choice of the area to be retained must prevail.
The DAR Secretary cannot decree which portion of the landholding shall
form part of the landowners retention.
Such Directive encroaches on the prerogative expressly given to
landowners under Section 6 of RA 6657 to choose their area of Retention.
As held in DAEZ v. CA, the right of retention can be exercised over
tenanted lands and even where a CLOA or EP has been issued to tenant
farmers subject to Section 6 of RA 6657.
Land Conversion
KASAMAKA-CANLUBANG, INC., REPRESENTED BY PABLITO M. EGILD -versus- LAGUNA ESTATE
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION (G.R. No. 200491, June 9, 2014)

The Supreme Court said that it had in multiple

occasions, ruled that lands already classified as
commercial, industrial or residential before the
affectivity of the CARL, or June 15, 1988, are outside the
coverage thereof.
In Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform,
for instance, the Supreme Court held that the DAR
committed grave abuse of discretion when it placed
undeveloped portions of land intended for residential
use under the ambit of the CARL
Unregistered Sale
RAFAEL VALES, CECILIA VALES-VALQUEZ, YASMIN VALES-JACINTO, -versus- MARIA LUZ CHORESCA, et.al. (G.R.
No. 180134, March 05, 2015)

The Tenants should (a) have actual knowledge of unregistered transfers of

ownership of lands covered by Torrens Certificate of Titles prior to October
21, 1972, (b) have recognized the persons of the new owners, and (c) have
been paying rentals/amortization to such new owners in order to validate the
transfer and bind the tenants to the same.
Anent the issue on retention, suffice it to state that Sps. Vales had no right to
retain the subject lands considering that their aggregate landholdings,
consisting of 58.6060 has., exceeded the 24-hectare landholding limit as
above-explained. Consequently, the subject lands would fall under the
complete coverage of the OLT Program, without any right of retention on
petitioners part, either under PD 27 or RA 6657, being mere successors-in-
interest of their parents.
Exclusive Jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary
THE HON. SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
-versus- NEMESIO DUMAGPI (G.R. No. 195412, February. 04, 2015)

The Courts have no jurisdiction over a case involving

the nullification of a CLOA through an Accion
Reivindicatoria/Queiting of Title. It is also a collateral
attack on a title which is not allowed.
Issues on validity of DARs actions on determination of
qualified ARBs and validity of CLOAs issued to the ARBs
fall within the exclusive determination of the DAR
Secretary.
Just Compensation
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES -versus- HEIRS OF JESUS ALSUA ( G.R. No. 211351, February 04, 2015)

Settled is the rule that when the agrarian reform process is still incomplete, such as in this case where
the just compensation due the landowner has yet to be settled, just compensation should be
determined and the process be concluded under RA 6657.
The evidence must conform to Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended, prior to its amendment by RA
9700. It bears pointing out that while Congress passed RA 9700 on July 1, 2009, amending certain
provisions of RA 6657, and declaring [t]hat all previously acquired lands wherein valuation is subject
to challenge by landowners shall be completed and finally resolved pursuant to Section 17 of [RA
6657], as amended, the law should not be retroactively applied to pending claims/cases.
RTC is advised that while it should be mindful of the different formulae created by the DAR in arriving
at just compensation, it is not strictly bound to adhere thereto if the situations before it do not warrant
their application. The following is cited from LBP vs Puyat (G.R. No. 175055 June 27, 2012)
The determination of just compensation is a judicial function; hence, courts cannot be unduly
restricted in their determination thereof. To do so would deprive the courts of their judicial prerogatives
and reduce them to the bureaucratic function of inputting data and arriving at the valuation. While the
courts should be mindful of the different formulae created by the DAR in arriving at just compensation,
they are not strictly bound to adhere thereto if the situations before them do not warrant it.
Just Compensation
THE HEIRS OF SPOUSES DOMINGO TRIA and CONSORCIA CAMANO TRIA,Petitioners,
-versus- LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES AND DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
(G.R. No. 170245, July 1, 2013)

In the more recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Maximo Puyat and Gloria Puyat,
the Court again adhered to the ruling laid down in the abovementioned case. Here, the Court ruled
that when the government takes property pursuant to PD No. 27, but does not pay the landowner
his just compensation until after RA No. 6657 has taken effect in 1998, it becomes more equitable
to determine just compensation using RA No. 6657 and not EO No. 228. Hence, the valuation of the
GSP of palay should be based on its value at the time it was ordered paid by the SAC.
Considering that the present case involves a similar factual milieu as the aforementioned cases, the
Court deems it more equitable to determine just compensation due the petitioners using values
pursuant to the standard laid down in Section 17 of RA No. 6657.
Also worth emphasizing is the observation made by the RTC portion of Executive Order No. 228 is
unfair and unjust (The fact that the landowner was not paid in 1972 and he has been deprived of
his 25% share in the net harvest since 1972, until now.)
Needless to say, petitioners have been deprived of the use and dominion over their landholdings for
a substantial period of time, while respondents abjectly failed to pay the just compensation due the
petitioners.
Just Compensation
SPOUSES JOSE M. ESTACION, JR. and ANGELINA T. ESTACION, -versus-THE HONORABLE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REGIONAL DIRECTOR,
DAR, REGION 7, PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF NEGROS ORIENTAL, MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER, DAR, GUIHULNGAN, NEGROS
ORIENTAL, PRESIDENT, LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, and PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK, DUMAGUETE BRANCH (G.R. No. 163361, March 12, 2014)

The determination of just compensation is essentially a
judicial function, which is vested in the RTC acting as
SAC. It cannot be lodged with administrative agencies
such as the DAR. The Court has already settled the rule
that the SAC is not an appellate reviewer of the DAR
decision in administrative cases involving
Laches
CODERIA -versus- ESTATE OF JUAN CIDOCO (G.R. 180476, JUNE 26, 2013)

Rules of Procedure ought not to be applied in a very rigid,

technical sense , for they are adopted to help secure , not
override, substantial justice.
Better rule that courts, under the principle of equity, will
not be guided or bound strictly by the statute of limitations
or the doctrine of laches, when to do so would result to
manifest injustice.
Statute of Limitations has been devised to operate against
those who slept on their rights and not to those who
cannot act for causes beyond their control
Leasehold Tenancy and Civil Law Lease
JUSAYAN -versus- SOMBILLA (G.R. 163928, January 21, 2015)

In Gabriel v Pangilinan (L-27797, Aug. 26, 1974), Leasehold distinguished

from Civil Law Lease, thus: Subject matter of a leasehold tenancy is
agricultural land but a civil law lease is rural/urban property; Leasehold
tenant must personally cultivate /work the land but a civil law lessee need
not to; Leasehold tenancy is devoted to agriculture while civil law lease is
for any other lawful purpose; Tenancy is governed by special laws while
civil law lease is under the Civil Code.
Jurisdiction of Court based on statute in force at the start of the action.
In 1980, Courts of Agrarian Relations were integrated into the RTCs under
the Judiciary Reorganization Act (BP 129).
In August 29, 1987, jurisdiction of regular courts on agrarian reform
matters was transferred to DAR under E.O. 229.
DARAB Jurisdiction
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM -versus- PARAMOUNT HOLDINGS EQUITIES ,
INC., JIMMY CHUA , et.al. (G.R. No. 176838, June 13, 2013)

The action to nullify the sale of the subject landholdings

on the ground of violating AO No. 1 Series of 1989 does
not involve an agrarian suit, hence not under DARAB
jurisdiction.
There must be a tenancy relationship between the party
litigants to the DARAB.
The issue must relate to tenurial arrangements whether
leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise.
Notice to Landowner
CONRADO O. ALMAGRO versus- SPOUSES AMAYA ET.AL. (G.R. No. 179685, June 19, 2013)

Agrarian Reform acquisition of private lands whether PD

27 or RA 6657 is to some extent an exercise of the
power of eminent domain and hence, confiscatory.
Notice must be given to the landowners about the fact
that their property is being placed under the program.
The purpose of notice is at once legal and equitable to
contest the coverage or to make representations for just
compenasation.
Computation of Just Compensation
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES -versus- IBARRA ET.AL. (G.R. No. 182472, November 24, 2014)

If the agrarian reform process is still incomplete as

when just compensation is not settled prior to the
passage of RA 6657, it should be computed in
accordance with said law despite the fact that the
property was acquired under PD No. 27.
RA 6657 includes PD 27 lands among the properties
which DAR shall acquire and distribute to the landless.
DELESTE -versus- LBP (G.R. No. 169913, June 8, 2011)

The mere issuance of an emancipation patent does not

put the ownership of the agrarian reform beneficiary
beyond attack and scrutiny. Emancipation Patents may
be cancelled for violations of agrarian laws, rules and
regulations.
DAR VS. CARIEDO (G.R. NO. 176549, 20 January 2016)

A DAR clearance must be secured before executing any

sale of the land as reflected in Section 70 of RA 6657
A Landowner is granted a retention limit of 5 hectares
once his/her landholding is covered by CARP
Retention right shall only be granted once
FL Properties and Management Corp. and LL Holdings Inc. vs
The Department of Agrarian Reform (CA-G.R. SP. No.
139472)
Revocability of exemption orders of DAR is part and parcel of the
monitoring functions of DAR to validate the grant or reasons for
exemption has been complied or the latest developments or progress
of the landholding(s) undertaken which may result to the revocation of
the exemption
In Orbos v. Civil Service Commission: In such an instance the
government office adversely affected by the position taken by the
Solicitor General, if it still believes in the merit of its case, may appear
in its own behalf through its legal personnel or representative
Sec. 68 of RA 6657. Immunity of Government Agencies for Undue
Intereference No injunction, restraining order, prohibition or
mandamus shall be issued by the lower courts against the
Department of Agrarian Reform (xxx)