4.pdf

13/10/2018

VESTING IN THE LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES THE PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE THE LAND VALUATION AND COMPENSATION FOR ALL LANDS COVERED UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657, KNOWN AS THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988 WHEREAS, Republic Act No. 6657, Chapter VI, provides in part that: 

Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI) vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), et al. – GR No. 171101 BY: EVA ROSE P. VILLARUEL

FACTS: 

In 1958, the Spanish owners of Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas (Tabacalera) sold Hacienda Luisita and the Central Azucarera de Tarlac, the sugar mill of the hacienda, to the Tarlac Development Corporation (Tadeco), then owned and controlled by the Jose Cojuangco Sr. Group. The Central Bank of the Philippines assisted Tadeco in obtaining a dollar loan from a US bank. Also, the GSIS extended a PhP5.911 million loan in favor of Tadeco to pay the peso price component of the sale, with the condition that “the lots comprising the Hacienda Luisita be subdivided by the applicant-corporation and sold at cost to the tenants, should there be any, and whenever conditions should exist warranting such action under the provisions of the Land Tenure Act.” Tadeco however did not comply with this condition.



"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 the 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 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.”

On July 5, 2011, the Supreme Court en banc voted unanimously (11-0) to DISMISS/DENY the petition filed by HLI and AFFIRM with MODIFICATIONS the resolutions of the PARC revoking HLI’s Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) and placing the subject lands in Hacienda Luisita under compulsory coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of the government. The Court however did not order outright land distribution. Voting 6-5, the Court noted that there are operative facts that occurred in the interim and which the Court cannot validly ignore. Thus, the Court declared that the revocation of the SDP must, by application of the operative fact principle, give way to the right of the original 6,296 qualified farmworkersbeneficiaries (FWBs) to choose whether they want to remain as HLI stockholders or [choose actual land distribution]. It thus ordered the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to “immediately schedule meetings with the said 6,296 FWBs and explain to them the effects, consequences and legal or practical implications of their choice, after which the FWBs will be asked to manifest, in secret voting, their choices in the ballot, signing their signatures or placing their thumbmarks, as the case may be, over their printed names.” The parties thereafter filed their respective motions for reconsideration of the Court decision.

13/10/2018

ISSUES AND RULING: 

(1) Is the operative fact doctrine available in this case?



YES, the operative fact doctrine is applicable in this case.



[The Court maintained its stance that the operative fact doctrine is applicable in this case since, contrary to the suggestion of the minority, the doctrine is not limited only to invalid or unconstitutional laws but also applies to decisions made by the President or the administrative agencies that have the force and effect of laws. Prior to the nullification or recall of said decisions, they may have produced acts and consequences that must be respected.

(3) Can’t the Court order that DAR’s compulsory acquisition of Hacienda Lusita cover the full 6,443 hectares allegedly covered by RA 6657 and previously held by Tarlac Development Corporation (Tadeco), and not just the 4,915.75 hectares covered by HLI’s SDP? 3. NO, the Court CANNOT order that DAR’s compulsory acquisition of Hacienda Lusita cover the full 6,443 hectares and not just the 4,915.75 hectares covered by HLI’s SDP. [Since what is put in issue before the Court is the propriety of the revocation of the SDP, which only involves 4,915.75 has. of agricultural land and not 6,443 has., then the Court is constrained to rule only as regards the 4,915.75 has. of agricultural land.Nonetheless, this should not prevent the DAR, under its mandate under the agrarian reform law, from subsequently subjecting to agrarian reform other agricultural lands originally held by Tadeco that were allegedly not transferred to HLI but were supposedly covered by RA 6657.

(2) 2.

Is Sec. 31 of RA 6657 unconstitutional? NO, Sec. 31 of RA 6657 NOT unconstitutional.

[The Court maintained that the Court is NOT compelled to rule on the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, reiterating that it was not raised at the earliest opportunity and that the resolution thereof is not the lis mota of the case. Moreover, the issue has been rendered moot and academic since SDO is no longer one of the modes of acquisition under RA 9700. The majority clarified that in its July 5, 2011 decision, it made no ruling in favor of the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, but found nonetheless that there was no apparent grave violation of the Constitution that may justify the resolution of the issue of constitutionality.]

(4) Is the date of the “taking” (for purposes of determining the just compensation payable to HLI) November 21, 1989, when PARC approved HLI’s SDP? 

YES, the date of “taking” is November 21, 1989, when PARC approved HLI’s SDP.



[For the purpose of determining just compensation, the date of “taking” is November 21, 1989 (the date when PARC approved HLI’s SDP) since this is the time that the FWBs were considered to own and possess the agricultural lands in Hacienda Luisita. To be precise, these lands became subject of the agrarian reform coverage through the stock distribution scheme only upon the approval of the SDP, that is, on November 21, 1989.

13/10/2018

(5) Has the 10-year period prohibition on the transfer of awarded lands under RA 6657 lapsed on May 10, 1999 (since Hacienda Luisita were placed under CARP coverage through the SDOA scheme on May 11, 1989), and thus the qualified FWBs should now be allowed to sell their land interests in Hacienda Luisita to third parties, whether they have fully paid for the lands or not? . NO, the 10-year period prohibition on the transfer of awarded lands under RA 6657 has NOT lapsed on May 10, 1999; thus, the qualified FWBs should NOT yet be allowed to sell their land interests in Hacienda Luisita to third parties. [Under RA 6657 and DAO 1, the awarded lands may only be transferred or conveyed after 10 years from the issuance and registration of the emancipation patent (EP) or certificate of land ownership award (CLOA).

(6) THE CRUCIAL ISSUE: Should the ruling in the July 5, 2011 Decision that the qualified FWBs be given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI be reconsidered? 

YES, the ruling in the July 5, 2011 Decision that the qualified FWBs be given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI should be reconsidered.



[The Court reconsidered its earlier decision that the qualified FWBs should be given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI, in as much as these qualified FWBs will never gain control [over the subject lands] given the present proportion of shareholdings in HLI. The Court noted that the share of the FWBs in the HLI capital stock is [just] 33.296%. Thus, even if all the holders of this 33.296% unanimously vote to remain as HLI stockholders, which is unlikely, control will never be in the hands of the FWBs. Control means the majority of [sic] 50% plus at least one share of the common shares and other voting shares. Applying the formula to the HLI stockholdings, the number of shares that will constitute the majority is 295,112,101 shares (590,554,220 total HLI capital shares divided by 2 plus one [1] HLI share). The 118,391,976.85 shares subject to the SDP approved by PARC substantially fall short of the 295,112,101 shares needed by the FWBs to acquire control over HLI.]

LAGOS, GERALD MARION R AGRARIAL LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION ATTY. DANIEL GUTIERREZ FCJ-205 THURSDAY 5.30PM GROUP 1 LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS LEONILA CELADA G.R. NO. 164876 JUNE 23, 2006 (479 SCRA 495) SECTION 18, R.A. NO. 6657

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LEONILA CELADA FACTS: Celada owns an agricultural land, 60% of which was identified in 1998 by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as suitable for compulsory acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Upon Endorsement to it for Field investigation and valuation, Land Bank valued the said land at P299,569.61.DAR offered the same amount to Celada as just compensation. Celada, however, rejected the offer. The matter was then referred to the DAR Adjudication Board(DARAB) for summary administrative hearing on the determination of just compensation. During the pendency of the DARAB case, Celada filed a petition for judicial determination of just compensation, alleging that the current market value of her land was at least P2,129,085.00. In its answer, Land Bank raised the affirmative defense of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. It contended that Celada must first await the outcome of the DARAB case before taking any judicial recourse. Meanwhile, the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator affirmed the valuation made by Land Bank. Thereafter, the Special Agrarian Court (SAC), where Celada’s petition was filed, rendered judgment fixing the value of the land at P354,847.50, finding that Celada’s evidence showed that the neighboring lands of similar classification were paid higher than what was quoted by Land Bank. It denied Land Bank’s affirmative defense. The Court of Appeals dismissed Land Bank’s appeal. Land Bank maintains that the SAC erred in assuming jurisdiction over Celada’s petition for judicial determination of just compensation despite the pendency of the administrative proceedings before the DARAB. It also contends that the SAC erred in fixing the just compensation of the land based on the valuation of neighboring lands instead of its actual land use. ISSUES: 1.) Whether or not the SAC erred in assuming jurisdiction over the petition for judicial determination of just compensation pending administrative proceedings before the DARAB; 2.) Whether or not the SAC erred in fixing the just compensation of the land based on the valuation of neighboring lands HELD: The petition is GRANTED. SAC correctly assumed jurisdiction over determination of just compensation The SAC did not err in assuming jurisdiction over the petition for determination of just compensation despite the pendency of the administrative proceedings before the DARAB. As the Court

held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, the RTC, sitting as a SAC, has ‘original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions forthe determination of just compensation to landowners.’ This ‘original and exclusive’ jurisdiction of the RTC would be undermined if DAR would vest in administrative officials original jurisdiction in compensation cases and make the RTC an appellate court for the review of administrative decision. Although the new rules speak of directly appealing the decision of adjudicators to the RTCs sitting as SACs, the original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine such cases is in the RTCs. It should be emphasized that the taking of property under the CARP is an exercise of the power of eminent domain by the State. The valuation of property or determination of just compensation is a judicial function. Thus, the SAC properly took cognizance of Celada’s petition for determination of just compensation. SAC erred in fixing just compensation based on valuation of neighboring lands The SAC, however, erred in setting aside Land Bank’s valuation of the land on the sole basis of the higher valuation given for neighboring properties. It did not apply the DAR valuation formula which considers capitalized net income, comparable sales and market value per tax declaration as components of land value.

SECTION 18, R.A. 6657 CHAPTER VI COMPENSATION SECTION 18. VALUATION AND MODE OF COMPENSATION. SECTION 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. —The LBP shall compensate the landowner in such amounts as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and the LBP, in accordance with the criteria provided for in Sections 16 and 17, and other pertinent provisions hereof, or as may be finally determined by the court, as the just compensation for the land. The compensation shall be paid on one of the following modes, at the option of the landowner:

(1) Cash payment, under the following terms and conditions; (a) For lands above — Twenty-five percent fifty (50) hectares, insofar (25%) cash, the balance to as the excess hectarage is be paid in government concerned. financial instruments negotiable at any time. (b) For lands above — Thirty percent (30%) cash, twenty-four (24) hectares the balance to be paid in and up to fifty (50) hectares. government financial instruments negotiable at any time. (c) For lands twenty-four — Thirty-five percent (35%) (24) hectares and below. cash, the balance to be paid in government financial instruments negotiable at any time. (2) Shares of stock in government-owned or controlled corporations, LBP preferred shares, physical assets or other qualified investments in accordance with guidelines set by the PARC; (3) Tax credits which can be used against any tax liability; (4) LBP bonds, which shall have the following features:

(a) Market interest rates aligned with 91-day treasury bill rates. Ten percent (10%) of the face value of the bonds shall mature every year from the date of issuance until the tenth (10th) year: Provided, That should the landowner choose to forego the cash portion, whether in full or in part, he shall be paid correspondingly in LBP bonds; (b) Transferability and negotiability. Such LBP bonds may be used by the landowner, his successors in interest or his assigns, up to the amount of their face value, for any of the following:

(i) Acquisition of land or other real properties of the government, including assets under the Asset Privatization Program and other assets foreclosed by government financial institutions in the same province or region where the lands for which the bonds were paid are situated; (ii) Acquisition of shares of stock of government owned or -controlled corporations or shares of stocks owned by the government in private corporations; (iii) Substitution for surety or bail bonds for the provisional release of accused persons, or performance bonds; (iv) Security for loans with any government financial institution, provided the proceeds of the loans shall be invested in an economic enterprise, preferably in a small-and medium-scale industry, in the same province or region as the land for which the bonds are paid; (v) Payment for various taxes and fees to government; Provided, That the use of these bonds for these purposes will be limited to a certain percentage of the outstanding balance of the financial instruments: Provided, further, That the PARC shall determine the percentage mentioned above; (vi) Payment for tuition fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in government universities, colleges, trade schools, and other institutions; (vii) Payment for fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in government hospitals; and (viii) Such other uses as the PARC may from time to time allow. In case of extraordinary inflation, the PARC shall take appropriate measures to protect the economy.

END OF REPORT

10/13/2018

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. RIZALINA GUSTILO BARRIDO AND HEIRS OF ROMEO BARRIDO G.R. NO. 183688 AUGUST 18, 2010 Reported by: ANGELICA DIAZ

ISSUE/S: W/N the CA committed serious errors of law when it affirmed the decision and order of the RTC, finding that the applicable law is R.A. No. 6657 and not P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228. W/N the CA committed serious errors of law when it affirmed the trial court that fixed the just compensation which is not in accordance with the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 as translated into a basic formula under DAR Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1998.

FA C T S : Rizalina Gustilo Barrido and the Heirs of Romeo Barrido are the registered owners of a parcel of land with an area of 89,204 sq.m. covered by Original Certificate of Title No. 0-6318 in Brgy. Apologista, Sara, Iloilo. The government expropriated a portion of the property consisting of 43,461 sq.m. for distribution to the farmer-beneficiaries under the Land Reform Program. LBP offered Barrido a total amount of ₱60,385.49 as just compensation, but rejected the offer.

LBP and the DAR insisted that the valuation made is correct based on the formula in P.D. No. 27 as supplemented by E.O. No. 228. The prescribed formula is as follows: Land Value = Average Gross Production (AGP) x 2.5 x Government Support Price (GSP)

The RTC rendered compensation at ₱94, awarded 12% interest view of the delay compensation.

a Decision fixing the just 797.09 per hectare. It also in the form of damages in in the payment of just

HELD: If just compensation is not settled prior to the passage of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, it should be computed in accordance with said law even if the property was acquired under P.D. No. 27. The fixing of just compensation should, therefore, be based on the parameters prescribed in R.A. No. 6657, with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 having only suppletory effect. Specifically, Section 17 of R.A. 6657 is the principal basis of the computation for just compensation.

Special Agrarian Courts are not at liberty to disregard the formula laid down in DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998, because unless an administrative order is declared invalid, courts have no option but to apply it. The courts cannot ignore, without violating the agrarian law, the formula provided by the DAR for the determination of just compensation.

10/13/2018

FA C T S : As the RTC based its valuation on a different formula and without taking into consideration the factors in Section 17 of R.A. 6657, the case is REMANDED to the court of origin of the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, which is directed to determine with dispatch the just compensation due respondents Barrido in accordance with the formula laid down in DAR Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1998.

• Upon acquisition thereof, respondent manifested his voluntary offer to sell the properties to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for coverage under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Respondent’s assessment value of the properties was ₱45,000.00 per hectare. • The DAR, through petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), assessed the properties and offered to purchase only 57.2047 hectares out of the 97.2047 hectares voluntarily offered for sale by respondent. The excluded area (40 hectares) fell under the exemptions and exclusions provided in Section 10 of the CARL, i.e., all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over.

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. CONRADO O. COLARINA

• Conrado O. Colarina is the registered owner of three (3) parcels of agricultural land which he acquired from their former owner, Damiana Arcega. The parcels of land have a total area of 972,047 square meters with the following description:

G.R. NO. 176410 SEPTEMBER 1, 2010

• As the LBP’s assessment and valuation of the properties was unacceptable to, and rejected by, respondent, he elevated the determination of just compensation of the properties to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD). Unfortunately for respondent, the PARAD affirmed the valuation set forth by the LBP. Respondent filed a Complaint before the RTC, Branch 3, Legazpi, Albay, for the judicial determination of just compensation. • LBP manifested that the subject properties may be reassessed and revaluated based on the new guidelines set forth in DAR A.O. No. 11, Series of 1994. Intent on finding a common ground between petitioner and respondent and to amicably settle the case, the SAC ordered the revaluation.

• Respondent presented in evidence his own testimony and that of Carlito M. Oliva (Oliva), then Assistant Provincial Assessor of Camarines Sur and President of the Camarines Chapter of the National Real Estate Association. • As for petitioner, it presented the testimonies of Armel Alcantara (Alcantara), Chief of the Landowners Assistance Division of the LBP, and Melchor Balmaceda, officer of LBP, Sipocot Branch.

10/13/2018

ISSUE/S: • After determining the existence of the property, the DAR, Land Bank and the other agencies concerned conducted an ocular inspection of the property being offered for sale under CARP or covered by the CARP. The data in-put were gathered in the field including the number of fruit bearing trees also determined. The production data was also taken and a survey was being conducted in the field on adjacent properties. • The SAC rendered a decision reconciling the conflicting evidence of the parties. The SAC followed the formula of the LBP and its land use classification of the subject properties; the appraisal report on the valuation thereof.

• In the proceedings before the RTC, it is mandated to apply the Rules of Court and, on its own initiative or at the instance of any of the parties, "appoint one or more commissioners to examine, investigate and ascertain facts relevant to the dispute, including the valuation of properties, and to file a written report thereof x x x." In determining just compensation: • "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 farmworkers 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."

W/N the CA committed serious errors of law when it treated the taking of agricultural lands for agrarian reform purposes as an ordinary expropriation of private property for public use. Whether the lower courts’ computation of just compensation for the subject properties is correct.

• These factors have been translated into a basic formula in DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended by DAR Administrative Order No. 11, Series of 1994, issued pursuant to the DAR’s rule-making power to carry out the object and purposes of R.A. 6657, as amended. • While SAC is required to consider the acquisition cost of the land, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declaration and the assessments made by the government assessors to determine just compensation, it is equally true that these factors have been translated into a basic formula by the DAR pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of RA No. 6657. As the government agency principally tasked to implement the agrarian reform program, it is the DAR’s duty to issue rules and regulations to carry out the object of the law. DAR AO No. 5, s. of 1998 precisely "filled in the details" of Section 17, RA No. 6657 by providing a basic formula by which the factors mentioned therein may be taken into account. The SAC was at no liberty to disregard the formula which was devised to implement the said provision.

HELD: • To begin with, under Section 1 of Executive Order No. 405 (1990), the Landbank is charged "primarily" with "the determination of the land valuation and compensation for all private lands suitable for agriculture under the Voluntary Offer to Sell or Compulsory Acquisition arrangement…" For its part, the DAR relies on the determination of the land valuation and compensation by the Landbank. • A party who disagrees with the decision of the DAR adjudicator may bring the matter to the RTC designated as a Special Agrarian Court "for final determination of just compensation."

• The factors for the determination of just compensation in Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657, and consequently converted into a formula in A.O. No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended by A.O. No. 11, Series of 1994, is mandatory. • We note that A.O. No. 6, Series of 1992 (as amended by A.O. No. 11, Series of 1994) has been superseded by A.O. No. 5, Series of 1998. However, A.O. No. 5, Series of 1998, is not applicable to the present case as the subject properties were assessed and valued prior to its effectivity.

10/13/2018

• While we commend respondent in readily participating in the government’s agrarian reform program, our previous rulings preclude us from validating the valuation of the subject properties proffered to, and affirmed by, the SAC. The government cannot be forced to purchase land which it finds no need for, regardless of Oliva’s unschooled opinion. Considering respondent’s belief that the properties are worth more than the valuation made by the DAR, he can proceed to develop the land excluded by the DAR from expropriation into its potential use as assessed by Oliva.

• WHEREFORE, the petition is hereby GRANTED. The Decision of the Court of Appeals and the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Legazpi City, Albay are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. Petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines is hereby ordered to pay respondent Conrado O. Colarina the following amounts: 1. ₱259,525.41 for 28.3062 hectares of TCT No. 86448; 2. ₱217,223.60 for 22.3267 hectares of TCT No. 86449; and 3. ₱51,762.90 for 6.5718 hectares of TCT No. 86402. • Petitioner shall pay twelve percent (12%) interest per annum from finality of this judgment until complete satisfaction thereof.

13/10/2018

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS LEONILA CELADA

G.R. NO. 164876 JUNE 23, 2006 (479 SCRA 495)

FACTS: Celada owns an agricultural land, 60% of which was identified in 1998 by the Department of

ISSUES: 1.) Whether or not the SAC erred in assuming jurisdiction over the petition for judicial determination of just compensation pending administrative proceedings before the DARAB; 2.) Whether or not the SAC erred in fixing the just compensation of the land based on the valuation of neighboring lands

Agrarian Reform (DAR) as suitable for compulsory acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Upon Endorsement to it for Field investigation and valuation, Land Bank valued the said land at P299,569.61.DAR offered the same amount to Celada as just compensation. Celada, however, rejected the offer. The matter was then referred to the DAR Adjudication Board(DARAB) for summary administrative hearing on the determination of just compensation.

HELD: The petition is GRANTED. SAC correctly assumed jurisdiction over determination of just compensation The SAC did not err in assuming jurisdiction over the petition for determination of just compensation despite the pendency of the administrative proceedings before the DARAB. As the Court held in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, the RTC, sitting as a SAC, has “original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions forthe determination of just compensation to landowners.” This “original and exclusive” jurisdiction of the RTC would be undermined if DAR would vest in administrative officials original jurisdiction in compensation cases and make the RTC an appellate court for the review of administrative decision. Although the new rules speak of directly appealing the decision of adjudicators to the RTCs sitting as SACs, the original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine such cases is in the RTCs. It should be emphasized that the taking of property under the CARP is an exercise of the power of eminent domain by the State. The valuation of property or determination of just compensation is a judicial function. Thus, the SAC properly took cognizance of Celada’s petition for determination of just compensation.

During the pendency of the DARAB case, Celada filed a petition for judicial determination of just compensation, alleging that the current market value of her land was at least P2,129,085.00. In its answer, Land Bank raised the affirmative defense of non-exhaustion of administrative remedies. It contended that Celada must first await the outcome of the DARAB case before taking any judicial recourse. Meanwhile, the DARAB Provincial Adjudicator affirmed the valuation made by Land Bank. Thereafter, the Special Agrarian Court (SAC), where Celada’s petition was filed, rendered judgment fixing the value of the land at P354,847.50, finding that Celada’s evidence showed that the neighboring lands of similar classification were paid higher than what was quoted by Land Bank. It denied Land Bank’s affirmative defense. The Court of Appeals dismissed Land Bank’s appeal. Land Bank maintains that the SAC erred in assuming jurisdiction over Celada’s petition for judicial determination of just compensation despite the pendency of the administrative proceedings before the DARAB. It also contends that the SAC erred in fixing the just compensation of the land based on the valuation of neighboring lands instead of its actual land use.

SECTION 18, R.A. 6657 CHAPTER VI COMPENSATION

SAC erred in fixing just compensation based on valuation of neighboring lands The SAC, however, erred in setting aside Land Bank’s valuation of the land on the sole basis of the higher valuation given for neighboring properties. It did not apply the DAR valuation formula which considers capitalized net income, comparable sales and market value per tax declaration as components of land value.

(4) LBP bonds, which shall have the following features:

(a) Market interest rates aligned with 91-day treasury bill rates. Ten percent (10%) of the face value of the bonds shall mature every year from the date of issuance until the tenth (10th) year: Provided, That should the landowner choose to forego the cash portion, whether in full or in part, he shall be paid correspondingly in LBP bonds;

SECTION 18. VALUATION AND MODE OF COMPENSATION SECTION 18. Valuation and Mode of Compensation. —The LBP shall compensate the landowner in such amounts as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and the LBP, in accordance with the criteria provided for in Sections 16 and 17, and other pertinent provisions hereof, or as may be finally determined by the court, as the just compensation for the land.

(b) Transferability and negotiability. Such LBP bonds may be used by the landowner, his successors in interest or his assigns, up to the amount of their face value, for any of the following:

i.

The compensation shall be paid on one of the following modes, at the option of the landowner:

Acquisition of land or other real properties of the government, including assets under the Asset Privatization Program and other assets foreclosed by government financial institutions in the same province or region where the lands for which the bonds were paid are situated;

ii. Acquisition of shares of stock of government owned or -controlled corporations or shares of stocks owned by the government in private corporations;

(1) Cash payment, under the following terms and conditions;

iii. Substitution for surety or bail bonds for the provisional release of accused persons, or performance bonds;

(a)

For lands above — Twenty-five percent fifty (50) hectares, insofar (25%) cash, the balance to as the excess hectarage is be paid in government concerned. financial instruments negotiable at any time.

iv. Security for loans with any government financial institution, provided the proceeds of the loans shall

(b)

For lands above — Thirty percent (30%) cash, twenty-four (24) hectares the balance to be paid in and up to fifty (50) hectares. government financial instruments negotiable at any time.

v. Payment for various taxes and fees to government; Provided, That the use of these bonds for these

(c)

For lands twenty-four — Thirty-five percent (35%) (24) hectares and below. cash, the balance to be paid in government financial instruments negotiable at any time.

be invested in an economic enterprise, preferably in a small-and medium-scale industry, in the same province or region as the land for which the bonds are paid; purposes will be limited to a certain percentage of the outstanding balance of the financial instruments: Provided, further, That the PARC shall determine the percentage mentioned above;

vi. Payment for tuition fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in government universities, colleges, trade schools, and other institutions;

(2) Shares of stock in government-owned or controlled corporations, LBP preferred shares, physical assets or other qualified investments in accordance with guidelines set by the PARC;

vii. Payment for fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder in government hospitals; and viii. Such other uses as the PARC may from time to time allow.

(3) Tax credits which can be used against any tax liability; 

In case of extraordinary inflation, the PARC shall take appropriate measures to protect the economy.

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner, vs. HON. ELI G. C. NATIVIDAD and JOSE R. CAGUIAT G.R. No. 127198. May 16, 2005 FACTS: Private respondents filed a petition before the trial court for the determination of just compensation for their agricultural lands in Arayat, Pampanga, which were acquired by the government pursuant to PD 27. The RTC ordered Land Bank and DAR to pay respondents' land for P30 per square meters as just compensation. Land Bank argues that the property was acquired on 21 October 1972, the effectivity date of PD 27, therefore just compensation should be based on the value of the property as of that time and on the rules provided by PD 27 NOT at the time of possession in 1993.

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 farmworkers 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. Therefore, the petition was denied. The trial court is correct in having taken into account the land’s nature as irrigated land, location along the highway, market value, assessor’s value, and the volume and value of its produce, based on RA 6657.

ISSUE: Whether or not land valuation should be based on the formula provided in PD 27. Ruling: No. Although the property was acquired on October 1972, the seizure of the landholding DID NOT take place upon the date of effectivity of PD 27 but would take effect on the payment of just compensation (OP v. CA). The agrarian reform process is still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid the landowners has yet to be settled. Considering the passage of RA 6657 before the completion of this process the computation of just compensation should be based upon the said Act and the process finalized based on it. It would be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR’s failure to determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time. Just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent (real, substantial, full, and ample) of the property TAKEN from its owner by the expropriator. Land valuation should be based on Section 17 of RA 6657, the prevailing agricultural reform law: Section 17. Determination of Just Compensation. — In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of the like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation

G.R. No. 170220 November 20, 2006 JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA, in her capacity as Assignee of FEDERICO C. SUNTAY, NENITA SUNTAY TAÑEDO and EMILIO A.M. SUNTAY III, Petitioners, vs. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Respondent. FACTS: Petitioner Josefina S. Lubrica is the assignee of Federico C. Suntay over certain parcels of agricultural land located at Sta. Lucia, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, with an area of 3,682.0285 hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT). In 1972, a portion of the said property with an area of 311.7682 hectares, was placed under the land reform program pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 (1972) and Executive Order No. 228 (1987). The land was thereafter subdivided and distributed to farmer beneficiaries. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the LBP fixed the value of the land at P5,056,833.54 which amount was deposited in cash and bonds in favor of Lubrica.

Nenita Suntay-Tañedo and Emilio A.M. Suntay III inherited from Federico Suntay a parcel of agricultural land consisting of two lots, namely, Lot 1 with an area of 45.0760 hectares and Lot 2 containing an area of 165.1571 hectares or a total of 210.2331 hectares. Lot 2 was placed under the coverage of P.D. No. 27 but only 128.7161 hectares was considered by LBP and valued the same at P1,512,575.05. Petitioners rejected the valuation of their properties, hence the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) conducted summary administrative proceedings for determination of just compensation then fixed the preliminary just compensation at P51.8 M for the 311.77 hectares of land and P21.608 M for the 128.72 hectares of land. LBP filed petitions for the judicial determination of just compensation with the RTC. The landowners then filed motions to deposit the preliminary compensation determined by the PARAD. The RTC ordered LBP to deposit the provisional compensation as determined by the PARAD as there is no law which prohibits LBP to make a deposit pending the fixing of the final amount of just compensation. There is no reason for LBP to further delay the deposits considering that the DAR already took possession of the properties and distributed the same to FBs as early as 1972. The CA held that the immediate deposit of the preliminary value of the expropriated properties is improper because it was erroneously computed (citing Gabatin v. LBP). The PARAD incorrectly used the amounts of P500 and P300 which are the prevailing GSP for palay and corn at the time of payment instead of P35 and P31, the prevailing GSP at the time of taking in 1972. ISSUE: Whether or not the determination of just compensation should be based on the value of the expropriated properties at the time of payment. HELD: Yes. The expropriation of the landholding DID NOT take place upon the date of effectivity of PD 27 on 21 October 1972 but would take effect on the payment of just compensation judicially determined (citing LBP v. Natividad, OP v. CA). Expropriation of landholdings covered by RA 6657 takes place, NOT on the effectivity of the Act on 15 June 1988 but on the payment of just compensation.

Petitioners were deprived of their properties without payment of just compensation which, under the law, is a prerequisite before the property can be taken away from its owners. The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title remains with the landowner. No outright change of ownership is contemplated either. Petitioners were deprived of their properties way back in 1972, yet to date, they have not yet received just compensation. Thus, it would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided by P.D. No. 227 and E.O. No. 228 considering the failure to determine just compensation for a considerable length of time. That 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. In determining just compensation, the following factors should be considered (based on Sec. 17 of RA 6657): •

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

•

the assessment made by the government assessors

•

the social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and farmworkers and by the government to the property

•

non payment of taxes or loans secured from a government financing institution

This has been converted into formula by the DAR with AO 5, series of 1998: LV = (Capitalized Net Income x 0.6) + (Comparable Sales x 0.3) + (Market Value per Tax Declaration x 0.1)

13/10/2018

ARSENIO AL. ACUNA (petitioners) vs. JOKER ARROYO (respondents) G.R. No. 79310

July 14, 1989

RAFAEL ANDREW VILLANUEVA

G.R. No. 79310 July 14, 1989 ARSENIO AL. ACUNA (petitioners) vs. JOKER ARROYO (respondents)

FACTS:  Petitioner also allege that Proclamation No. 131 and E.O No. 229 should be annulled for:  Violation of the constitutional provisions on just compensation;  Violation of the constitutional provisions on Due process;  Violation of the constitutional provisions on Equal protection; and  Taking must be simultaneous with payment of just compensation which such payment is not contemplated in Section 5 of the E.O No. 229.

FACTS:

G.R. No. 79310 July 14, 1989

 The petitioners are landowners and sugar planters in Negros Occidental.

ARSENIO AL. ACUNA (petitioners) vs. JOKER ARROYO (respondents)

 The petitioner claims that the power to provide for a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program as decreed by the Constitution belongs to the Congress and not the President.

 This petition prohibits the implementation of Proc. No. 131 (i.e., INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM) and E.O. No. 229 (i.e., PROVIDING THE MECHANISMS FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM).

G.R. No. 79310 July 14, 1989 ARSENIO AL. ACUNA (petitioners) vs. JOKER ARROYO (respondents)

ISSUES:  Whether the president have the power to provide for CARP.  Whether Proclamation No. 131 and E.O No. 229 should be annulled.

13/10/2018

G.R. No. 79310 July 14, 1989 ARSENIO AL. ACUNA (petitioners) vs. JOKER ARROYO (respondents)

RULING:  President could exercise legislative power until the congress was convened (i.e., interim legislative power).  Content and manner of the just compensation provided in Section 18 of the CARP law is not violative of the Constitution.  On the alleged equal protection clause, the sugar planters have failed to show that they belong to a different class and should be treated differently.

G.R. No. 79310 July 14, 1989 ARSENIO AL. ACUNA (petitioners) vs. JOKER ARROYO (respondents)

G.R. No. 118712 October 6, 1995

G.R. No. 118712 October 6, 1995

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (petitioners) vs. CA, PEDRO YAP (respondents)

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (petitioners) vs. CA, PEDRO YAP (respondents)

RULING:  WHEREFORE, the Court holds that Proclamation No. 131 and E.O No. 229 are SUSTAINED against all the constitutional objections raised in the herein petitions.

FACTS:  Yap and Santiago are landowners whose landholdings were acquired by the DAR, subjecting it for transfer to qualified CARP beneficiaries. Aggrieved by the compensation valuation of DAR and LBP, respondents filed a petition for certiorari and mandamus with a preliminary mandatory injunction. The case was referred to CA for proper determination and disposition.

13/10/2018

G.R. No. 118712 October 6, 1995 LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (petitioners) vs. CA, PEDRO YAP (respondents)

FACTS:  Respondents argued that DAR and LBP committed grave abuse of discretion and acted without jurisdiction when they opened trusts accounts in lieu of the depositing in cash or bonds, before the lands was taken and the titles are cancelled. Respondents claim that before the taking of the property, the compensation must be deposited in cash or bonds.  DAR, maintained that the certificate of deposit was a substantial compliance with the rule on taking and compensation. LBP confirms that the certificate of deposit expresses "reserved/deposited".

G.R. No. 118712 October 6, 1995 LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (petitioners) vs. CA, PEDRO YAP (respondents)

G.R. No. 118712 October 6, 1995

G.R. No. 118712 October 6, 1995

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (petitioners) vs. CA, PEDRO YAP (respondents)

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (petitioners) vs. CA, PEDRO YAP (respondents)

ISSUE:  Whether the opening of trust account tantamount to deposit.

CA RULING:  CA ruled in favor of Yap and Santiago. DAR filed a petition. DAR, maintain that the word "deposit" referred merely to the act of depositing and in no way excluded the opening of a trust account as form of deposit.

RULING:  Contention of DAR is untenable.  Section 16 of RA 6657 provides:  (e) 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.

 It is very explicit that the deposit must be made only in cash or LBP bonds, there is no ambiguity.

10/13/2018

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS COURT OF APPEALS AND JOSE PASCUAL G.R. NO. 128557

By: MA PRINCESS DORIA

 LBP consistently refused to comply with its obligation

 Pascual then filed an action for Mandamus in the Court of Appeals which was later granted.  LBP averred the CA’s issuance of the Writ of Mandamus

FACTS

 Private respondent Jose Pascual owned 3 parcels of land located in Guttaran, Cagayan  Pursuant to the Land Reform Program, his lands were placed under its Operation Land Transfer

 Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued an order requiring petitioner LBP to pay Pascual

 However, Pascual filed a petition for annulment opposing the recommended average gross product (AGP). He then presented evidences before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD)  PARAD ruled in favor Pascual

According to LBP, CA cannot issue the said Writ due to the following reasons: 1.

It cannot enforce PARAD’s valuation due to lack of jurisdiction. Hence, void.

3.

Writ of Mandamus cannot be issued where there is plain, adequate and complete remedy in the ordinary course of law.

2.

CA cannot issue the Writ of Mandamus because it cannot be compelled to perform an act which is beyond its legal duty.

10/13/2018

ISSUE

Whether or not, LBP’s contentions are correct and that the CA erred in rendering its judgments.

RULING 1. 2.

3.

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) has the authority to determine the initial valuation of lands involving agrarian reform.

LBP cannot be compelled to obey the Secretary of Agrarian Reform since the bank did not merely exercise its ministerial function. Instead, it had an independent discretionary role in land valuation and that the only time a Writ of Mandamus could be issued against the LBP was when it agreed to the amount of compensation determined by the DAR.

The assailed decision of the CA granting the Writ of Mandamus directing petitioner LBP to pay Pascual is AFFIRMED, with the modification that the 6% compounded interest per annum is DELETED, the same being no longer applicable.

Private respondent’s remedies are far from plain, adequate and complete.

EDGARDO SANTOS VS LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, JESUS DIAZ, ROBERTO ONG AND AUGUSTO AQUINO G.R. NO. 137431

FACTS

 Petitioner Edgardo Santos filed an Agrarian case for the determination of just compensation regarding his properties that were taken by the DAR

 As ordered by the RTC and in accordance with RA 6657, a preliminary valuation was released by the LBP in cash and in bond

 However, Santos filed a motion for release of the balance of the garnished amount with a claim that the bond was not acceptable to him and that the said amount should be paid in cash or certified check  LBP opposed the motion contending that the judgment amount had already been satisfied

 RTC issued an order to release the balance from the garnished amount in cash or certified check

10/13/2018

 CA also upheld the RTC’s order with the following statement:

“RA 6657 is clear and leaves no doubt as to its interpretation regarding the manner of payment of just compensation. The provision allows the landowner to choose the manner of payment from the list provided therein, but since plaintiff had obviously wanted to be made in cash, the trial court had only to apply Section 18 RA 6657 which provides for the payment of a percentage in cash and the balance in bond, in the exercise of her ministerial duty to execute decision which had become final and executory.

Hence, its compliance with the Writ of Execution and the Notice of Garnishment ought to have been construed as an agreement to pay petitioner in a manner set forth in the RA 6657. Its compliance was not an undertaking to pay in cash because such act would have been a deviation from the dictum of the final judgment, to which execution must conform. Paying in cash, as petitioner demands, is not compatible with such judgment.

The Petition is hereby DENIED and the assailed decision AFFIRMED.

ISSUE

Whether or not, Petitions for Certiorari and Mandamus filed by the petitioner is valid

RULING

The Court finds no merit in the said petitions. Respondent was obliged to follow the mandate of the August 12, 1997 judgment [compensation to the petitioner “in the manner mandated by RA 6657” pursuant to Section 18 – The LBP shall compensate the landowner in such amount as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and LBP, in accordance with the criteria provided for in Sections 16 and 17, and other pertinent provisions hereof, or as may be finally determined by the court, as the just compensation for the land.]

10/13/2018

Section 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. — 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:

AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION, PROVIDING THE MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES Republic Act No. 6657 Land Redistribution Sections 22-24

By: OLIVER WILLIAM YU

A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude, and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. The DAR shall adopt a system of monitoring the record or performance of each beneficiary, so that any beneficiary guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended to him shall forfeit his right to continue as such beneficiary. The DAR shall submit periodic reports on the performance of the beneficiaries to the PARC. 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 this Act, at the option of the beneficiaries. Farmers already in place and those not accommodated in the distribution of privately-owned lands will be given preferential rights in the distribution of lands from the public domain.

(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. Provided, however, that the children of landowners who are qualified under Section 6 of this Act shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents: and provided, further, that actual tenant-tillers in the landholdings shall not be ejected or removed therefrom.Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No. 27 who have culpably sold, disposed of, or abandoned their land are disqualified to become beneficiaries under this Program.

Section 23. Distribution Limit. — No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land. Section 24. Award to Beneficiaries. — 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 one hundred eighty (180) days from the time the DAR takes actual possession of the land. Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award, which shall contain the restrictions and conditions provided for in this Act, and shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title.

10/13/2018

FACTS: Respondent filed an action for Cancellation of Emancipation Patents, Disqualification of Tenant-Beneficiary, Repossession and Damages. Respondent alleged that she is the owner of an irrigated riceland and that petitioners were tenants of the subject landholding. October 12, 2009, 603 SCRA 232

Respondent further alleged that petitioners violated the terms of their leasehold contracts when they failed to pay lease rentals for more than two years, which is a ground for their dispossession of the landholding.

By: JESSA MAY T. MACABALLUG

ISSUE:

HELD:

Whether or not the emancipation title issued to the petitioners-farmer benificiaries shall be indefeasable pursuant to the law and jurisprudence

Mere issuance of an emancipation patent does not put the ownership of the agrarian reform beneficiary beyond attack and scrutiny. Emancipation patents issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries may be corrected and cancelled for violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations.

On the other hand, petitioners alleged that the subject landholding was placed under the Operation Land Transfer program of the government pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27). Respondent title was then cancelled and the subject landholding was transferred to petitioners, who were issued Emancipation Patents on 20 February 1987 by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). The Transfer Certificates of Title issued to petitioners emanating from the Emancipation Patents were registered with the Registry of Deeds on 9 February 1989. Petitioners averred that prior to the issuance of the Emancipation Patents, they already delivered their lease rentals to respondent. They further alleged that after the issuance of the Emancipation Patents, the subject landholding ceased to be covered by any leasehold contract.

One of the grounds for cancellation of registered Emancipation Patents or Certificates of Landownership Award in DAR Administrative Order No. 02, series of 1994 is default in the obligation to pay an aggregate of three (3) consecutive amortizations in case of voluntary land transfer/direct payment scheme, except in cases of fortuitous events and force majeure.

10/13/2018

When the subject landholding was placed under the Operation Land Transfer, the tenancy relationship between the parties ceased and the tenantbeneficiaries were no longer required to pay lease rentals to the landowner. However, when petitioners entered into an agreement with respondent for a direct payment scheme embodied in the Deeds of Transfer. The petitioners failed to pay the amortizations for more than three (3) consecutive years to respondent landowner in accordance with their agreed direct payment scheme. There is no substantial evidence on record that the petitioners had remitted the amortizations due to the landowner in accordance with their agreed direct payment scheme embodied in their deeds of transfer.

The emancipation patents issued respondents are therefore annulled.

While P.D. 27 aims to emancipate landless farmers, it does not also allow unjust treatment of landowners by depriving the latter of the just compensation due. The Emancipation Patents and the Transfer Certificates of Title should not have been issued to petitioners without full payment of the just compensation.

FACTS:

to

Upon the request of Mayor Cruz, Dela Cruz, et al. agreed to donate said properties to the municipality on the condition that these be used as school sites.

The subject lands shall be reallocated to qualified beneficiaries. The proper recourse of respondent is to file a claim for just compensation.

Under Section 2 of Presidential Decree No. 266, the DAR will issue the Emancipation Patents only after the tenant-farmers have fully complied with the requirements for a grant of title under PD 27. Although PD 27 states that the tenant-farmers are already deemed owners of the land they till, it is understood that full payment of the just compensation has to be made first before title is transferred to them. Thus, Section 6 of EO 228 provides that ownership of lands acquired under PD 27 may be transferred only after the agrarian reform beneficiary has fully paid the amortizations.

March 2, 2017, 517 SCRA 232

The project did not materialize and Dela Cruz, et al. asked that the properties be returned to them. However, they found out that Mayor Cruz had distributed Lot No. 68 to Labagnoy and Lot No. 90 to Cruz who were each issued a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT).

10/13/2018

Upon Petition for Cancellation of CLT filed by Dela Cruz, et al., DAR Secretary Estrella issued an Order cancelling the CLT issued to Labagnoy and Cruz. The latter filed a Petition for Relief from Judgment for lack of due process but the same was denied by Secretary Estrella. Labagnoy and Cruz appealed to the Office of the President (OP) which dismissed the same in an Order. OP Order became final and the same was partially executed with the restoration of Lot No. 68 in the possession of Dela Cruz, et al.

HELD: Padua's contention that his status in relation to Lot No. 90 was no longer that of a mere potential agrarian reform farmer-beneficiary but a civil law vendor dealing directly with the LBP in the payment of amortizations on the property is incorrect. The statutory mechanism for the acquisition of land through agrarian reform requires full payment of amortization before a farmer-beneficiary may be issued a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) or Emancipation Patent (EP), which, in turn, can become the basis for issuance in his name of an original or a transfer certificate of title. As Padua himself admitted that he is still paying amortization on Lot No. 90 to LBP, his status in relation to said property remains that of a mere potential farmer-beneficiary whose eligibilities DAR may either confirm or reject. In fact, under Section 2 (d) of Administrative Order No. 06-00, DAR has authority to issue, recall, or cancel a Certificate of Land Title (CLT), CARP Beneficiary Cerificate (CBC), EP, or CLOA issued to potential farmer-beneficiaries but not yet registered with the Register of Deeds. WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED for lack of merit.

During the pendency of the appeal before the OP, Cruz executed an Affidavit of Waiver over his interest in Lot No. 90 on the basis of which DAR Regional Office III issued an Order cancelling the CLT of Cruz and declaring Lot No. 90 open for disposition. DAR Secretary Santiago issued an Order awarding Lot No. 90 to herein petitioner Padua who had been occupying said property and paying the amortization thereon to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP).

Aggrieved, Dela Cruz, et al., filed with the DAR Secretary a Letter-Petition for Cancellation of Order cancelling the CLT of Cruz and declaring Lot No. 90 open for disposition and the Order awarding Lot 90 to petitioner. WHEREFORE, premises considered, Order is hereby issued by DAR Secretary Garilao cancelling the Order of Award issued in favor of Padua involving Lot No. 90 and directing the Regional Director to cause the restoration of possession of said lot in favor of the herein respondents. All payments made by Padua on account of said lot as rentals for the use thereof are forfeited in favor of the government. Accordingly, DAR Director Acosta issued a Memorandum directing herein public respondent Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) Inocencio to implement the Order by DAR Secretary Garilao. In turn, PARO Inocencio instructed Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Mabborang to issue the necessary documents to award Lot No. 90 to Dela Cruz, et al.

10/13/2018

LAND REDISTRIBUTION •

PASCO VS. PISON-ARCEA AGRI. DEV. CORP. G.R. NO. 165501, MARCH 28, 2006

•

SEC 25

•

SEC 26

•

SEC 27

PASCO VS. PISON-ARCEO AGRI. DEV. CORP. “As potential CARP beneficiaries, they are included in the list of those who may be awarded land under the CARP. Nothing in the records of the case shows that the DAR has made an award in favor of petitioners, hence, no rights over the land they occupy can be considered to have vested in their favor in accordance with Section 24 of the CARL”

FACTS

 Respondent Pison-Arceo Agri. Dev. Corp is the registered owner of a parcel of land  Petitioners, are employees of the Respondent, who by reason of their employment were provided a place to stay  Due to the cessation of the employment of Petitioners by the Respondent, Petitioners were asked to vacate the

said property (House)

 Petitioners refused  Thus, Respondent instituted an action for unlawful detainer  During the pendency of the case, MARO/ DAR sent a Notice of Coverage to Respondents, advising Respondent

BY: GERALD ARCHIE AGUSTIN

that its parcel of land is now covered under CARL

 Lower Courts rendered judgment in favor of Respondent  Thus, this case

ARGUMENTS:  Petitioners: 

The house was initially constructed by the Respondent, but a typhoon destroyed the house, compelling petitioners to rebuild the house at their own expense, thus are entitled to reimbursement before they can be lawfully ejected



In view of the Agrarian Dispute arising from the inclusion of the subject property under CARL, and identifying the Petitioners as potential beneficiary, the lower court has no jurisdiction to decide on the Ejectment Case until after the resolution of the Agrarian Dispute

RULING  The issuance during the pendency of the case of a Notice of Coverage to respondent does not automatically

make the ejectment case an agrarian dispute over which the DARAB has jurisdiction.

 The issuance of a Notice of Coverage is merely a preliminary step for the State’s acquisition of the land for

agrarian reform purposes and it does not automatically vest title or transfer the ownership of the land to the government.

 Since after Notice, DAR and other concerned sectors will conduct a hearing, determining among others things:

ISSUE  Whether or not one who has been identified by the DAR as potential agrarian reform beneficiary may be ejected

from the land where he is identified as such, by the landowner, who has already been notified by the DAR of the coverage of his land by CARP of the Government



Whether the land will be places under agrarian reform



The lands suitability to agriculture

 A Notice of Coverage does not ipso facto render the land subject to land reform area  Thus,The owner retains its right to eject unlawful possessors of his land.

10/13/2018

LEGAL BASIS

SEC. 25 AWARD CEILINGS FOR BENEFICIARIES  Beneficiaries’ award shall not exceed an accumulated parcel/s of land of 3 hectares  Beneficiaries under this law are allowed to own the parcel of land collectively (Co-ownership, as Farmers

Cooperative or other form of collective organization)

 Petitioners inclusion to the list as potential CARP beneficiaries does not vest any right as since, they are included

in the list of those who may be awarded land under CARP;

 There is not record of any award by DAR of the land in favor of the petitioners, hence no rights over the land

Petitioners occupy can be considered to have vested in their favor in accordance with Sec. 24 which reads:

 “Sec. 24. Award to beneficiaries. The rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence from the time

the DAR makes an award of the land to him…”

 The limit then shall apply as follows:Total number of co-owners/members of coop multiplied by 3 hectares  Title to the land shall be issued in the name of the co-owners or COOP or Collective Organization

SEC. 26 PAYMENT BY BENEFICIARIES

 Lands awarded pursuant to this Act shall be paid for by the beneficiaries to the LBP in 30 annual amortizations at

6% interest per annum

 Payment for the first 3 years after the award may be at reduced amounts as established by the PARC  Provided, the first 5 annual payments may not be more than 5% of the value of the annual gross production

established by DAR

 Should the scheduled annual payments after the 5th year exceed 10% of 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 obligations to make the repayment affordable

SEC. 26

SEC. 27

 LBP shall have a lien by way of mortgage on the land awarded to the beneficiary  This mortgage may be foreclosed by the LBP for non-payment of an aggregate of 3 annual amortizations  LBP shall advise the DAR of such proceedings and the latter shall subsequently award the forfeited landholdings

to other qualified beneficiaries

 A beneficiary, whose land has been foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently disqualified from becoming a

beneficiary under this Act

SEC. 27 TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LANDS  Lands acquired under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed for a period of 10 years  Except through hereditary succession or to the government, or the LBP or to other qualified beneficiaries  Right to repurchase: Children or Spouse of the transferor shall have the right to repurchase the land from the

Government or LBP within a period of 2 years

 Due notice of the availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to BARC

 BARC (Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee) shall in turn notify Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating

Committee

 If the land is not yet fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights to the land may be transferred or conveyed to any heir

of the beneficiary or to any other beneficiary, provided; 

As a condition, such beneficiary shall cultivate the land himself



There is a prior approval of the DAR

 Failure to comply to the conditions, the land shall be transferred to the LBP provided; 

LBP shall compensate the beneficiary in one lump sum for the amounts already paid, together with the value of improvements he has made on the land

10/13/2018

FACTS:

ESTRIBILLO VS. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM G.R. NO. 159674, JUNE 30, 2006

ISSUE: WON the EPs have become indefeasible upon the expiration of one year from the date of issuance? YES!

• Petitioners are the Recipients of the Emancipation Patents (EPs) over parcels of Land. The other 2 petitioners are the surviving spouses of deceased recepients of EPs. The parcels of land were formerly part of a forested area which have been denuded as a result of logging operations of Respondend Hacienda Maria, Inc. (HMI) Petitioners occupied and tilted the land believing that the same were public lands. HMI never disturbed petitioners. Then, HMI acquired the land from the RPh through a Sales Patent, by virtue of which it was issued a title. Subsequently, P.D. 27 was issued mandating that tenanted rice and corn lands be brought under Operation Land Transfer and awarded to farmer beneficiaries. Hence, HMI allowed Petitioners and other occupants to cultivate the land. However, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) conducted a survey over the entire land and awarded the TCTs and EPs were issued to the Petitioners.

HELD: • Where land is granted by the government to a private individual, the corresponding patent therefore is recorded, and the certificate of title is issued to the grantee; hence, the land is automatically brought within the operation of the Land Registration Act, the title issued to the grantee becoming entitled to all safeguards provided in Section 38 of the Act. Upon expiration of one year from its issuance the certificate of title shall become irrevocable and indefeasible like a certificate issued in a registration proceeding.

Respondent HMI: • Filed with the RARAD seeking the declaration of erroneous coverage under P.D. 27 of 227 hectares of its former landholdings. It claimed that the area was not devoted to either rice or corn, that the area was untenanted, and no compensation was paid for. Hence, it sought for the cancellation of the EPs. PETITIONERS: • They claim that the EPs have become indefeasible upon the expiration of one (1) year at the date of issuance.

• The date of issuance of the patent corresponds to the date of the issuance of the decree in ordinary registration cases because the decree finally awards the land applied for registration to the party entitled to it, and the patent issued by the Director of Lands equally and finally grants, awards and conveys the land applied for to the applicant. If the title to the land grant in favor of the homesteader would be subjected to inquiry, contest and decision after it has been given by the Government through the process of proceeedings in accordance with the Public Land Act would arise to uncertainty, confusion and suspicion on the government’s system of distributing public agricultural lands.

10/13/2018

FACTS:

ESTATE OF VDA. DE PANLILIO VS. DIZON G.R. NO. 148777, OCTOBER 18, 2007

PETITIONER: • The land being planted by sugarcane is covered by P.D. 27 and that there was no valid waiver under P.D. 27 • The transfer made by Private Respondent Dizon et.al to 3rd Persons is not valid, he asserts that the ownership of lands granted to tenant-farmers under PD 27 may not be transferred or conveyed to third parties except by hereditary succession or to the Government.

• Encarnacion Vda. De Panlilio is the owner of Hacienda Masamat, she entered into a contract of lease over the hacienda with Paulina Mercado. • Pursuant to P.D. 27, the DAR issued Certificate of Land Transfer (CLTs) to Panlilio’s tenants. • The lessess Paulina filed a complaint questioning the issuance of the CLTs to Panlilio’s tenants, alleging that the land was principally being planted with sugar and was outside the coverage of P.D. 27 and that it was planted palay and not of sugar.

ISSUE/S: 1 WON the subject land is covered by P.D. 27 since Panlilio surrendered said lot to the DAR by virtue of her Affidavit? YES! 2 WON the ownership of lands granted to tenant-farmers may be transferred or conveyed to 3rd parties? NO!

• The tenants of the land planted with sugar cane petitioned the DAR to cause the reversion of their Sugarland to Riceland so that it may be covered by the Agrarian Reform Law. • Thus, Panlilio executed an Affidavit, and by virtue of the same, the DAR ordered to distribute all land transfer certificates, in view to the desire of Panlilio to place her property under the Land Transfer Program of the Government. Thereafter, Panlilio died. The DAR issued EPs to the tenants of Panlilio. • Subsequently, Petioner George Lizares as executor of the estate of Panlilio filed a complaint for the annulment of coverage of the hacienda under P.D. 27 and ejectment against the tenants.

HELD: 1 While PD 27 clearly applies to private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of sharecrop or lease-tenancy, whether classified as landed estate or not, it does not preclude nor prohibit the disposition of landholdings planted with other crops to the tenants by express will of the landowner under PD 27.

10/13/2018

• In the instant case, a large portion of Hacienda Masamat was planted with sugar cane. In Panlilio’s Affidavit, she expressed her intent to include the 65.19 hectares to be placed under the OLT pursuant to PD 27 in favor of her tenants which otherwise would have been exempt. Indeed, waiver or an intentional and voluntary surrender of a right can give rise to a valid title or ownership of a property in favor of another under Article 6 of the Civil Code. Thus, such disposition through the OLT pursuant to PD 27 is indeed legal and proper and no irregularity.

2 The prohibition in PD 27, the Tenants Emancipation Decree, states that “title to land acquired pursuant to this Decree or the Land Reform Program of the Government shall not be transferable except by hereditary succession or to the Government in accordance with the provisions of this Decree, the Code of Agrarian Reforms and other existing laws and regulations." • Hereditary succession means succession by intestate succession or by will to the compulsory heirs under the Civil Code, but does not pertain to testamentary succession to other persons. "Government" means the DAR through the Land Bank of the Philippines which has superior lien by virtue of mortgages in its favor.

• Thus, PD 27 is clear that after full payment and title to the land is acquired, the land shall not be transferred except to the heirs of the beneficiary or the Government. If the amortizations for the land have not yet been paid, then there can be no transfer to anybody since the lot is still owned by the Government. The prohibition against transfers to persons other than the heirs of other qualified beneficiaries stems from the policy of the Government to develop generations of farmers to attain its avowed goal to have an adequate and sustained agricultural production.