agri reviewer.pdf

AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION Atty. Mercano Notes and Reviewer for Midterm Exam

I.

LEANGIE L. MORA SSCRM College of Law 1st Sem, SY 2015-2016

and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF AGRARIAN REFORM A. DEFINITION OF ESSENTIAL TERMS









Agrarian Reform – redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced to farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement, to include the totality of factors and support services designed to lift the economic status of the beneficiaries and all other arrangements alternative to the physical redistribution of lands, such as production or profit-sharing, labor administration, and the distribution of shares of stocks, which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of the lands they work Agriculture, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity – cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish, including the harvesting of such farm products, and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by person whether natural or juridical Agricultural Land – land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land Agrarian Dispute – refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act



Farmer – refers to a natural person whose primary livelihood is cultivation of land or the production of agricultural crops, either by himself, or primarily with the assistance of his immediate farm household, whether the land is owned by him, or by another person under a leasehold or share tenancy agreement or arrangement with the owner thereof



Farmworker – natural person who renders service for value as an employee or laborer in an agricultural enterprise or farm regardless of whether his compensation is paid on a daily, weekly, monthly or "pakyaw" basis. The term includes an individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, a pending agrarian dispute and who has not obtained a substantially equivalent and regular farm employment



Regular Farmworker – natural person who is employed on a permanent basis by an agricultural enterprise or farm



Seasonal Farmworker – natural person who is employed on a recurrent, periodic or intermittent basis by an agricultural enterprise or farm, whether as a permanent or a nonpermanent laborer, such as "dumaan", "sacada", and the like



Other Farmworker – farmworker who does not fall under paragraphs

Is Agrarian Reform confined to distribution of lands to landless? No. There are other alternative modes mentioned in the CARL.

Page 1 of 31



What are the alternative modes of Agrarian Reform mentioned in the CARL aside from land distribution? (LPS) a) Labor Administration b) Profit sharing c) Stock distribution Who are the qualified beneficiaries of the CARL? a) Landless farmers b) Landless farmworkers Does CARL applicable to all lands in the Philippines? No. The CARL applies only to Agricultural lands. It does not apply to lands classified as residential, commercial, industrial, mineral or forest land. What are those disputes classified as Agrarian Dispute under the CARL? (TACT) a) Controversy relating to Tenurial arrangements b) Disputes concerning farmworkers’ Associations or representation of persons c) Controversy relating to Compensation of agricultural lands d) Conditions of Transfer of ownership under the agrarian law

B. CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS Article XII, Section 4-6, 1987 constitution Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as

the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing. Section 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers' organizations to participate in the planning, organization, and management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services. Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law.

Section 2, CARL, as amended under RA no. 9700 "SEC. 2. Declaration of Principles and Policies. — It is the policy of the State to pursue a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). The welfare of the landless farmers and farmworkers will receive the highest consideration to promote social justice and to move the nation toward sound rural development and industrialization, and the establishment of owner cultivatorship of

Page 2 of 31



of economic-size farms as the basis of Philippine agriculture. "The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets: Provided, That the conversion of agricultural lands into industrial, commercial or residential lands shall take into account, tillers' rights and national food security. Further, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against unfair foreign competition and trade practices.

case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to the priorities and retention limits set forth in this Act, taking into account ecological, developmental, and equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. The State shall respect the right of small landowners, and shall provide incentive for voluntary land-sharing. "As much as practicable, the implementation of the program shall be community-based to assure, among others, that the farmers shall have greater control of farmgate prices, and easier access to credit.

"The State recognizes that there is not enough agricultural land to be divided and distributed to each farmer and regular farmworker so that each one can own his/her economic-size family farm. This being the case, a meaningful agrarian reform program to uplift the lives and economic status of the farmer and his/her children can only be achieved through simultaneous industrialization aimed at developing a self-reliant and independent national economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. "To this end, the State may, in the interest of national welfare or defense, establish and operate vital industries. "A more equitable distribution and ownership of land, with due regard to the rights of landowners to just compensation, retention rights under Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, and to the ecological needs of the nation, shall be undertaken to provide farmers and farmworkers with the opportunity to enhance their dignity and improve the quality of their lives through greater productivity of agricultural lands. "The agrarian reform program is founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or, in the

"The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers and landowners, as well as cooperatives and other independent farmers' organizations, to participate in the planning, organization, and management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing and other support services. "The State shall recognize and enforce, consistent with existing laws, the rights of rural women to own and control land, taking into consideration the substantive equality between men and women as qualified beneficiaries, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof, and to be represented in advisory or appropriate decision-making bodies. These rights shall be independent of their male relatives and of their civil status. "The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform, or stewardship, whenever applicable, in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain, under lease or concession, suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights,

Page 3 of 31



homestead rights of small settlers and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. "The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates, which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law. "By means of appropriate incentives, the State shall encourage the formation and maintenance of economic-size family farms to be constituted by individual beneficiaries and small landowners. "The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production and marketing assistance and other services. The State shall also protect, develop and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources. "The State shall be guided by the principles that land has a social function and land ownership has a social responsibility. Owners of agricultural land have the obligation to cultivate directly or through labor administration the lands they own and thereby make the land productive. "The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, employment and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as payment for lands shall contain features that shall enhance negotiability and acceptability in the marketplace. "The State may lease undeveloped lands of

the public domain to qualified entities for the development of capital-intensive farms, and traditional and pioneering crops especially those for exports subject to the prior rights of the beneficiaries under this Act." What are the rights of landless farmers and farmworkers? a) to own directly or collectively the lands they till (for famers and regular farmworkers only) b) to receive a just share of the fruits of the lands they work (for farmers and all kinds of farmworkers) What are the limitations of taking in the land mentioned in the constitution? a) Priorities and reasonable retention limits to be prescribed by the Congress b) Payment of just compensation Who are the persons whose rights shall be respected by the state in the determination of retention limits? Small landowners What right of farmers, farmworkers, and landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers' organizations shall be recognized in the agrarian reform as provided by the constitution? Right to participate in the planning, organization, and management of the program How can the state provide support to the agriculture? Through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support service.

C. CONSTITUTIONALITY OF THE CARL Association of Small Landowners v. DAR, 175 SCRA 343 What are the inherent powers of the state? a) Police Power

Page 4 of 31



b) Power of Eminent Domain c) Power of Taxation Power of Eminent Domain Inherent power of the state that enables it to forcibly acquire private lands intended for public use upon payment of just compensation What are the requirements for the proper exercise of the power of eminent domain? a) Public use b) Just compensation What are the elements of Police Power? a) Lawful means b) Lawful subject Can the state exercise two inherent powers at the same time? Yes by mingling the two inherent powers. In the mingling of the police power and the power of eminent domain, the latter is being used as an implement of the former. Distinctions between the police power and the power of eminent domain a) The property condemned under the police power is noxious or intended for noxious purpose while in the power of eminent domain, the property is wholesome and intended for a public use. b) The confiscation of property in the exercise of police power is not compensable, unlike the taking of property under the power of eminent domain, which requires the payment of just compensation to the owner. What inherent power did the state exercised in the CARL? Power of eminent domain or police power? Both. The measures under challenge merely prescribe retention limits for landowners, there is an exercise of the police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, it becomes necessary to deprive

such owners of whatever lands they may own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is definitely taking under the power of eminent domain for which payment of just compensation is imperative. Since the power to determine just compensation is vested in courts, was the just compensation determined under the CARL a violation of the constitution? No. It is true that the determination of just compensation is a power lodged in the courts. However, there is no law which prohibits administrative bodies like the DAR from determining just compensation. In fact, just compensation can be that amount agreed upon by the landowner and the government – even without judicial intervention so long as both parties agree. The DAR can determine just compensation through appraisers and if the landowner agrees, then judicial intervention is not needed. What is contemplated by law however is that, the just compensation determined by an administrative body is merely preliminary. If the landowner does not agree with the finding of just compensation by an administrative body, then it can go to court and the determination of the latter shall be the final determination. This is even so provided by RA 6657 In the implementation of the agrarian reform, what are the modes of compensation provided under the CARL? a) Cash payment  Lands above 50 hectares – 25% cash, 75% gov’t financial instruments negotiable at any time  Lands above 24 hectares & up to 50 hectares – 30% cash, 70% gov’t financial instruments negotiable at any time  Lands 24 hectares & below – 35% cash, 65% gov’t financial instruments negotiable at any time b) Shares of stock in GOCC, LBP preferred shares, physical assets or other qualified investments in accordance with guidelines set by the PARC

Page 5 of 31



c) Tax credits which can be used against any tax liability d) LBP bonds Were the modes of compensation provided under the CARL unconstitutional? No. It cannot be denied that the traditional medium for the payment of just compensation is money and no other. However agrarian reform is not a traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain. It is not an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of relatively limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a specific and perhaps local purpose but a revolutionary kind of expropriation. It includes all agricultural lands nationwide and it will involve not mere millions of pesos. The cost will be tremendous and it may bankrupt the government. For this reason, the framers of the CARL only chose the more practical method.

Page 6 of 31


II.


A. AS TO COVERED LANDS

SCOPE OF THE CARL

Section 4, CARL, as amended by RA No. 9700 SEC. 4. Scope. — The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture: Provided, That landholdings of landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and below shall not be covered for acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries. IHAcCS "More specifically, the following lands are covered by the CARP: "(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into account ecological, developmental and equity considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific limits of the public domain; "(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph; "(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and "(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon. "A comprehensive inventory system in consonance with the national land use plan shall be instituted by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), in accordance with the Local Government Code, for the purpose of properly identifying and classifying farmlands within one (1) year from effectivity of this Act, without prejudice to the implementation of the land acquisition and distribution."

What are the lands covered by the CARP a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture. b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by Congress c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon What are the lands not covered by the CARP a) Ancestral lands of each indigenous cultural community b) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds d) Lands with at least 18% slope e) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used an found to be necessary for  national defense  school sites and campuses  experimental farm stations operated for educational purposes  seeds and seedling research and pilot production center  church sites and convents  mosque sites and Islamic centers  communal burial grounds and cemeteries  penal colonies and penal farms  gov’t and private research and quarantine centers f) landholdings of landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and below g) lands devoted to the raising of livestock, poultry and swine [Luz Farms v. Sec. of DAR] h) lands obtained through homestead patent [Alita v. CA]

Page 7 of 31



EXCEPTION: lands obtained through homestead patent that are not being personally cultivated by original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs [Paris v. Alfeche] CASES: 1. Luz Farms v. Sec. of DAR “Section 2 of RA 6657 which includes private agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising in the definition of commercial farms is invalid. Transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning of the word “agricultural”, clearly show that it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program of the Government.” 2. Alita vs. CA “The Philippine constitution respects the superiority of the homesteaders’ right over the rights of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform statute. In point is Section 6 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution which provides that the state shall apply the principles of Agrarian Reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands. Additionally, it is worthy of note that the newly promulgated Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998 or RA 6657 likewise contains a proviso supporting the inapplicability of PD 27 to lands covered by homestead patents. Section 6 of RA 6657 provides that original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.”

3. Paris v. Alfeche “As an exception to the rule laid down in the case of Alita vs. CA, homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heir can own and retain the original homesteads only for as long as they continue to personally cultivate them. That parcels of land are covered by homestead patents will not automatically exempt them from the operation of land reform. It is the fact of continued personally cultivation by the original grantees or their direct compulsory heir that shall exempt their lands from land reform coverage. In the case at bar, the petitioner herself admitted that the subject parcels are fully tenanted, thus she is clearly not cultivating them, nor will she personally cultivate any part thereof. Therefore, she has no right to retain any portion of her landholdings.”

B. AS TO CONTROVERSY What are the matters that fall under the jurisdiction of the DAR/DARAB? a) Adjudication of all matters involving implementation of agrarian reform [Stanfilco Employees v. Dole Phil.] b) Resolution of agrarian disputes and disputes arising from tenurial arrangements [Stanfilco Employees v. Dole Phil.] c) Approval and disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into residential, commercial, industrial and other non-agricultural uses. [Stanfilco Employees v. Dole Phil.] d) Disputes arising from joint venture agreements [Cubero v. Laguna West] e) Disputes relating to the rights and obligations of two juridical persons engaged in the management, cultivation and use of agricultural lands acquired through CARP [Islanders CARP-Farmers v. Lapanday]

Page 8 of 31



What are the matters not falling under the jurisdiction of the DAR/DARAB? a) Cases involving breaches of contract and the parties have no tenurial, leasehold, or any other agrarian relationship [Stanfilco Employees v. Dole Phil.] b) Criminal cases even if it involves agricultural land and the relation over this land [People v. Vanzuela] c) Cases involving action for recovery of possession and juridical tie of landownership and tenancy are not present [DEARBC v. Sangunay] What is the basis in the determination of whether a matter falls under the jurisdiction of DARAB? Agricultural land and the relationship over this land What are those disputes classified as Agrarian Dispute under the CARL? (TACT) 1) Controversy relating to Tenurial arrangements 2) Disputes concerning farmworkers’ Associations or representation of persons 3) Controversy relating to Compensation of agricultural lands 4) Conditions of Transfer of ownership under the agrarian law What are the indispensable elements for tenancy relationship to exist? [Stanfilco Employees v. Dole Phil. & Mendoza v. Germino]  Parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee  Subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land  There is consent between the parties to the relationship  The purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production  There is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee  The harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or the agricultural lessee

What are the important requisites in order that a court may acquire criminal jurisdiction? [People v. Vanzuela] a) Jurisdiction over subject matter b) Jurisdiction over territory where the offense was committed c) Jurisdiction over the person of the accused

CASES: 1. Stanfilco Employees v. Dole Philippines The controversy involved in this case does not fall under the jurisdiction of DARAB. Under RA 6657 and its implementing rules, agricultural lands and the relationship over this land serves as the basis in the determination of whether a matter falls under the jurisdiction of DARAB. The parties in this case have no tenurial, leasehold, or any other agrarian relationship that could bring their controversy within the ambit of agrarian reform laws and within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. The resolution of this case would involve the application of civil law on breaches of contract rather than agrarian reform principles. 2. People v. Vanzuela The crime of stafa committed by a tenant or lessee does not fall under the jurisdiction of DARAB. Jurisdiction of a tribunal over the subject matter of an action is conferred by law. It is determined by the material allegations of the complaint or information and the law at the time the action was commenced. EO 229 vested the DAR with quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters; and jurisdiction over matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of the DA and DENR. Under RA 6657, the DAR retains jurisdiction over all agrarian reform matters. Clearly the law is deafeningly silent on the conferment of any criminal jurisdiction in favor of the DARAB. No law has conferred the DARAB of the jurisdiction to try criminal cases even if it involves agricultural land

Page 9 of 31



and the relation over this land. Therefore the DARAB has no authority to try criminal cases at all. 3. Mendoza vs. Germino Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. It is determined exclusively by the constitution and the law. It cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties or acquired through a waived, enlarged or diminished by their act or omission, nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court. Under Section 50 of RA 6657, as well as Section 34 of EO 129-A, the DARAB has primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. And under BP 129, as amended by RA 7691, the MTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer. Therefore MTC has the jurisdiction since the law exclusively conferred it the authority to try cases involving forcible entry. Furthermore, although respondent averred tenancy as an affirmative defense in his answer, this did not automatically divest the MTC of jurisdiction to dispose of the ejectment suit on its merits because allegation of tenancy does not divest the MTC of jurisdiction. 4. DEARBC v. Sangunay and Labunos Controversy in this case does not fall under the jurisdiction of DARAB. Jurisdiction of tribunal, including a quasi-judicial office or government agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is entitled to any or all such reliefs. Sec. 50 of RA 6657 provides that DARAB is vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have the exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of the Agrarian Reform Program. Only the DARAB can adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the CARP. All that DEARBC prayed for was the ejectment of the

respondents from the respective portions of the subject lands they allegedly entered and occupied illegally. Clearly no agrarian dispute exist between the parties. The absence of tenurial arrangements whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise cannot be overlooked. In this case, no juridical tie of landownership and tenancy was alleged between the parties which would so categorize the controversy as an agrarian dispute. It is clearly an action for recovery of possession and not an agrarian dispute. 5. Islanders CARP-Farmers v. Lapanday Controversy in this case falls under the jurisdiction of DARAB. Sec. 50 of RA 6657 and sec. 17 of EO 229 vest in the DAR the primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform. Through EO 129-A, DARAB was created to assume the powers and functions of the DAR pertaining to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases. Moreover Revised Rules of the DARAB provides that the DARAB shall have the primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the CARP and its implementing rules and regulation. Citing the definition of Agrarian dispute under Sec. 3 of RA 6657, it is clear that the definition is broad enough to include disputes arising from any tenurial arrangements beyond that in the traditional landowner-tenant or lessor-lessee relationship. Therefore disputes relating to the rights and obligations of two juridical persons engaged in the management, cultivation and use of agricultural lands acquired through CARP fall within the ambit of the phrase “any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements”. 6. Cubero v. Laguna West DARAB has jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving implementation of the CARL. Included in the definition of agrarian disputes are those arising from tenurial arrangements beyond

Page 10 of 31



the traditional landowner-tenant or lessor-lessee relationship such as disputes arising from joint venture agreements. Thus, the DARAB has jurisdiction over disputes arising from the instant Joint Production Agreement entered into by the parties in this case.

Page 11 of 31



Section 5, CARL

III. ACQUISITION OF LANDS UNDER THE CARL

Section 5. Schedule of Implementation. — The distribution of all lands covered by this Act shall be implemented immediately and completed within ten (10) years from the effectivity thereof.

Section 4, CARL, as amended by RA No. 9700 SEC. 4. Scope. — The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture: Provided, That landholdings of landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and below shall not be covered for acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries. IHAcCS "More specifically, the following lands are covered by the CARP: "(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into account ecological, developmental and equity considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific limits of the public domain; "(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph; "(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and "(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon. "A comprehensive inventory system in consonance with the national land use plan shall be instituted by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), in accordance with the Local Government Code, for the purpose of properly identifying and classifying farmlands within one (1) year from effectivity of this Act, without prejudice to the implementation of the land acquisition and distribution."

*NOTE: Sec. 7 of RA 9700 extended the implementation of the CARL, particularly the acquisition and distribution of agricultural lands to June 30, 2014

Section 7, CARL, as amended SEC. 7. Priorities. - The DAR, in coordination with the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) shall plan and program the final acquisition and distribution of all remaining unacquired and undistributed agricultural lands from the effectivity of this Act until June 30, 2014. Lands shall be acquired and distributed as follows: Phase One: During the five (5)-year extension period hereafter all remaining lands above fifty (50) hectares shall be covered for purposes of agrarian reform upon the effectivity of this Act. All private agricultural lands of landowners with aggregate landholdings in excess of fifty (50) hectares which have already been subjected to a notice of coverage issued on or before December 10, 2008; rice and corn lands under Presidential Decree No. 27; all idle or abandoned lands; all private lands voluntarily offered by the owners for agrarian reform: Provided, That with respect to voluntary land transfer, only those submitted by June 30, 2009 shall be allowed Provided, further, That after June 30, 2009, the modes of acquisition shall be limited to voluntary offer to sell and compulsory acquisition: Provided, furthermore, That all previously acquired lands wherein valuation is subject to challenge by landowners shall be completed and finally resolved pursuant to Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended: Provided, finally, as mandated by the lic Act No.

Page 12 of 31



Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, and Republic Act No. 3844,as amended, only farmers (tenants or lessees) and regular farmworkers actually tilling the lands, as certified under oath by the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) and attested under oath by the landowners, are the qualified beneficiaries. The intended beneficiary shall state under oath before the judge of the city or municipal court that he/she is willing to work on the land to make it productive and to assume the obligation of paying the amortization for the compensation of the land and the land taxes thereon; all lands foreclosed by government financial institutions; all lands acquired by the Presidential Commission on Good Government (PCGG); and all other lands owned by the government devoted to or suitable for agriculture, which shall be acquired and distributed immediately upon the effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to be completed by June 30, 2012;

"(b) All remaining private agricultural lands of landowners with aggregate landholdings in excess of twenty-four (24) hectares, regardless as to whether these have been subjected to notices of coverage or not, with the implementation to begin on July 1, 2012 and to be completed by June 30, 2013; Phase Three: All other private agricultural lands commencing with large landholdings and proceeding to medium and small landholdings under the following schedule: "(a) Lands of landowners with aggregate landholdings above ten (10) hectares up to twenty- four (24)hectares, insofar as the excess hectarage above ten (10) hectares is concerned, to begin on July 1,2012 and to be completed by June 30, 2013; and "(b) Lands of landowners with aggregate landholdings from the retention limit up to ten (10) hectares, to begin on July 1, 2013 and to be completed by June 30, 2014; to implement principally the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till.

Phase Two: (a) Lands twenty-four (24) hectares up to fifty (50) hectares shall likewise be covered for purposes of agrarian reform upon the effectivity of this Act. All alienable and disposable public agricultural lands; all arable public agricultural lands under agro-forest, pasture and agricultural leases already cultivated and planted to crops in accordance with Section 6, Article XIII of the Constitution; all public agricultural lands which are to be opened for new development and resettlement: and all private agricultural lands of landowners with aggregate landholdings above twenty-four (24) hectares up to fifty (50) hectares which have already been subjected to a notice of coverage issued on or before December 1O, 2008, to implement principally the rights of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till, which shall be distributed immediately upon the effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to be completed by June 30, 2012; and

The schedule of acquisition and redistribution of all agricultural lands covered by this program shall be made in accordance with the above order o f priority, which shall be provided in the implementing rules to be prepared by the PARC, taking into consideration the following: the landholdings wherein the farmers are organized and understand ,the meaning and obligations of farmland ownership; the distribution of lands to the tillers at the earliest practicable time; the enhancement of agricultural productivity; and the availability of funds and resources to implement and support the program: Provided, That the PARC shall design and conduct seminars, symposia, information campaigns, and other similar programs for farmers who are not organized or not covered by any landholding

Page 13 of 31



Completion by these farmers of the aforementioned seminars, symposia, and other similar programs shall be encouraged in the implementation of this Act particularly the provisions of this Section. "Land acquisition and distribution shall be completed by June 30, 2014 on a province-byprovince basis. In any case, the PARC or the PARC Executive Committee (PARC EXCOM), upon recommendation by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM), may declare certain provinces as priority land reform areas, in which case the acquisition and distribution of private agricultural lands therein under advanced phases may be implemented ahead of the above schedules on the condition that prior phases in these provinces have been completed: Provided, That notwithstanding the above schedules, phase three (b) shall not be implemented in a particular province until at least ninety percent (90%) of the provincial balance of that particular province as of January 1, 2009 under Phase One, Phase Two (a), Phase Two (b),,and Phase Three (a), excluding lands under the jurisdiction of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), have been successfully completed.

That in no case should the agrarian reform beneficiaries' sex, economic, religious, social, cultural and political attributes adversely affect the distribution of lands.

Order of Priorities of Coverage  PHASE 1 – public lands  PHASE 2 – public lands  PHASE 3 –private agricultural lands

Section 16, CARL SECTION 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. — For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed: (a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof.

The PARC shall establish guidelines to implement the above priorities and distribution scheme, including the determination of who are qualified beneficiaries: Provided, That an owner-tiller may be a beneficiary of the land he/she does not own but is actually cultivating to the extent of the difference between the area of the land he/she owns and the award ceiling of three (3) hectares: Provided, further, That collective ownership by the farmer beneficiaries shall be subject to Section 25 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended: Provided, furthermore, That rural women shall be given the opportunity to participate in the development planning and implementation of this Act: Provided, finally,

(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer. (c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.

Page 14 of 31



a) Landowner accepts – Landbank will pay the landowner within 30 days from execution & delivery of Deed of Transfer b) Landowner rejects – DAR will determine the just compensation thru the summary administrative proceedings c) Landowner disagrees with the DAR decision – landowner may bring the matter to the regular courts of justice for final determination of just compensation 4) Taking of immediate possession of the land by the DAR a) If the landowner receives the corresponding payment; or b) if the landowner does not respond to the Notice of Acquisition 5) Request by the DAR to Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title to the Republic of the Phil. 6) Distribution of lands to then qualified beneficiaries

(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision. (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. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries. (f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.

What are the 2 notices required for the validity of implementation? a) Notice of coverage [DAR AO no. 12] b) Notice of acquisition [Sec. 16, CARL]

What are the procedures in compulsory land acquisition 1) Identification by the DAR of the land, landowner & beneficiary 2) Notice by the DAR to the landowner about the compulsory acquisition and the price offer thru: a) Personal notice or by registered mail b) Posting of notice in a conspicuous place in the brgy hall & municipal hall where the land is located 3) Reply by the landowner about his acceptance or rejection of the offered price

When no notice of coverage has been issued or if notice of coverage has been issued but did not particularly state the portions of land that will be included, what would be the effect? It should be treated as violation of constitutional due process and should be deemed arbitrary, capricious, whimsical and tainted with grave abuse of discretion When does the title or ownership of the land transfer to the state? Only upon full payment of the just compensation. Until the just compensation is finally determined and fully paid, the title and ownership remains with the landowners even if the DAR has deposited the offered

Page 15 of 31



price with the Landbank. The mere fact that the DAR has deposited the offered price does not warrant the cancellation of the owner’s title.

(b) The terms and conditions of such transfer shall not be less favorable to the transferee than those of the government's standing offer to purchase from the landowner and to resell to the beneficiaries, if such offers have been made and are fully known to both parties.

Does opening of trust account constitute payment? No because the law requires just compensation to be paid in cash and Landbank bonds and not by trust account.

(c) The voluntary agreement shall include sanctions for non-compliance by either party and shall be duly recorded and its implementation monitored by the DAR.

Section 19, CARL SECTION 19. Incentives for Voluntary Offers for Sales. — Landowners, other than banks and other financial institutions, who voluntarily offer their lands for sale shall be entitled to an additional five percent (5%) cash payment.

*NOTE: Sec. 7 of CARL, as amended by RA 9700, allowed voluntary land transfer up to June 30, 2009 only. After the said date, modes of acquisition are limited to voluntary offer to sell and compulsory acquisition

What are the documentary requirements for voluntary offer to sell? a) Title or proof of ownership, if untitled b) Tax declaration c) Approved survey plan *NOTE: if the landowner fails to submit the documentary requirements the land will be subjected to compulsory acquisition.

Section 20, CARL ECTION 20. Voluntary Land Transfer. — Landowners of agricultural lands subject to acquisition under this Act may enter into a voluntary arrangement for direct transfer of their lands to qualified beneficiaries subject to the following guidelines: (a) All notices for voluntary land transfer must be submitted to the DAR within the first year of the implementation of the CARP. Negotiations between the landowners and qualified beneficiaries covering any voluntary land transfer which remain unresolved after one (1) year shall not be recognized and such land shall instead be acquired by the government and transferred pursuant to this Act.

What are the modes of land acquisition? a) Voluntary offer to sell b) Compulsory acquisition c) Voluntary land transfer CASE: Roxas & Co., Inc. v. CA The acquisition Proceedings over the haciendas in this case were not valid. For a valid implementation of the CAR Program, two notices are required first the Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent to the landowner, the representatives of the BARC, LBP, farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties and second, the Notice of Acquisition sent to the landowner under Section 16 of the CARL. The importance of the first notice, the Notice of Coverage and the letter of invitation to the conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated. They are steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The implementation of the CARL is an exercise of the State’s police power and the power of eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry

Page 16 of 31



out such regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also a taking under the power of eminent domain. In this case, respondent DAR claims that it sent a letter of invitation to petitioner corporation, through Jaime Pimentel, the administrator of Hacienda Palico but he was not authorized as such by the corporation. The SC stressed that the failure of respondent DAR to comply with the requisites of due process in the acquisition proceedings does not give the SC the power to nullify the CLOA’s already issued to the farmer beneficiaries. The Court said, to assume the power is to short-circuit the administrative process, which has yet to run its regular course. Respondent DAR must be given the chance to correct its procedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings. In Hacienda Palico alone, CLOA's were issued to 177 farmer beneficiaries in 1993. Since then until the present, these farmers have been cultivating their lands. It goes against the basic precepts of justice, fairness and equity to deprive these people, through no fault of their own, of the land they till. The petition is granted in part and the acquisition proceedings over the three haciendas are nullified for respondent DAR's failure to observe due process.

IV. ALTERNATIVES TO LAND ACQUISITION Section 31, CARL SECTION 31. Corporate Landowners. — Corporate landowners may voluntarily transfer ownership over their agricultural landholdings to the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to Section 20 hereof or to qualified beneficiaries, under such terms and conditions, consistent with this Act, as they may agree upon, subject to confirmation by the DAR. Upon certification by the DAR, corporations owning agricultural lands may give their qualified beneficiaries the right to purchase such proportion of the capital stock

Page 17 of 31

of the corporation that the agricultural land, actually devoted to agricultural activities, bears in relation to the company's total assets, under such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by them. In no case shall the compensation received by the workers at the time the shares of stocks are distributed be reduced. The same principle shall be applied to associations, with respect to their equity or participation. Corporations or associations which voluntarily divest a proportion of their capital stock, equity or participation in favor of their workers or other qualified beneficiaries under this section shall be deemed to have complied with the provisions of the Act: Provided, That the following conditions are complied with: a) In order to safeguard the right of beneficiaries who own shares of stocks to dividends and other financial benefits, the books of the corporation or association shall be subject to periodic audit by certified public accountants chosen by the beneficiaries; b) Irrespective of the value of their equity in the corporation or association, the beneficiaries shall be assured of at least one (1) representative in the board of directors, or in a management or executive committee, if one exists, of the corporation or association; and c) Any shares acquired by such workers and beneficiaries shall have the same rights and features as all other shares. d) Any transfer of shares of stocks by the original beneficiaries shall be void ab initio unless said transaction is in favor of a qualified and registered beneficiary within the same corporation. If within two (2) years from the approval of this Act, the land or stock transfer envisioned above is not made or realized or the plan for such stock distribution approved by the PARC within the same period, the agricultural land of the corporate owners or corporation shall be subject to the compulsory coverage of this Act.



CASE: Hacienda Luisita v. PARC Guide Questions: 1) Who can approve and revoke Stock Distribution Plans under the CARL? With respect to revocation, what according to the court, was the basis of this authority? The Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) has jurisdiction, power and authority to approve and nullify or revoke Stock Distribution Plans. RA 6657 explicitly vested the PARC with the power to approve stock distribution plans however it is silent when it comes to revoking or recalling an approved SDP. According to the court, such power or authority is deemed possessed under the doctrine of necessary implication, a basic postulate that what is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as that which is expressed. Applying the said doctrine, the conferment of express power to approve a SDP necessarily includes the power to revoke the approval of the plan. 2) In the case, did the supreme court declare Sec. 31 of the CARL unconstitutional? No, SC did not declare Sec. 31 unconstitutional because of the following reasons:  Constitutional question was not raised at the earliest possible opportunity.  The resolution of the constitutional issue is not the lis mota of the case  Sec. 31 simply implements sec. 4 of art. XIII of the constitution that land can be owned collectively by farmers. 3) Did the SC uphold the revocation of the SDP? Yes, SC upheld the revocation because of the 3 objectionable features of the SDP:  “Man days”. In using “man days” as the basis for the acquisition of shares, HLI violated the rule on stock distribution

Page 18 of 31





and effectively deprived the beneficiaries of equal shares of stock in the corporation, for, in net effect, these 6,296 qualified beneficiaries, who theoretically had given up their rights to the land that could have been distributed to them, suffered a dilution of their due share entitlement. Watering down of the shares of stock. HLI has chosen to use the shares earmarked for farmworkers as reward system chips to water down the shares of the original 6,296 beneficiaries. It is clear that the original 6,296 beneficiaries, who were qualified at the time of the approval of the SDP, suffered from watering down of shares. Each original beneficiary is entitled to 18,804.32 HLI shares. The original beneficiaries got less than the guaranteed no. of share. Time frame of the implementation of the SDP. Par. 3 of the SDOA expressly providing for 30-year timeframe for HLIto-beneficiaries stock transfers an arrangement contrary to what Sec. 11 of DAO10 prescribes. Said sec. 11 provides for the implementation of the approved SDP within 3 months from receipt by the corporate landowner of the approval of the plan by PARC.

4) Does the non-impairment clause bar the court from reviewing the validity of a partially implemented SDP? No because the non-impairment protection is applicable only to laws that derogate prior acts or contracts by enlarging, abridging or in any manner changing the intention of the parties and SDOA is not a law.



IV. RETENTION RIGHTS, EXEMPTIONS, EXCLUSIONS Section 6, of RA 6657 as amended by RA 9700 SECTION 6. Retention Limits. — Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm: Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the areas originally retained by them thereunder: Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead. The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner: Provided, however, That in case the area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be considered

Page 19 of 31

a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention. In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on the land prior to the approval of this Act shall be respected. Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management, contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of the Act shall be null and void: Provided, however, That those executed prior to this Act shall be valid only when registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3) months after the effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds shall inform the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) within thirty (30) days of any transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares. SEC. 6-A. Exception to Retention Limits. — Provincial, city and municipal government units acquiring private agricultural lands by expropriation or other modes of acquisition to be used for actual, direct and exclusive public purposes, such as roads and bridges, public markets, school sites, resettlement sites, local government facilities, public parks and barangay plazas or squares, consistent with the approved local comprehensive land use plan, shall not be subject to the five (5)-hectare retention limit under this Section and Sections 70 and 73(a) of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended: Provided, That lands subject to CARP shall first undergo the land acquisition and distribution process of the program: Provided, further, That when these lands have been subjected to expropriation, the agrarian reform beneficiaries therein shall be paid just compensation.



Exceptions: 1. Through hereditary succession 2. To the government 3. To the LBP 4. To other qualified beneficiaries

SEC. 6-B. Review of Limits of Land Size. — Within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act, the DAR shall submit a comprehensive study on the land size appropriate for each type of crop to Congress for a possible review of limits of land sizes provided in this Act

What are the factors governing a viable family size farms? a) Commodity produced b) Terrain c) Infrastructure d) Soil fertility What are the lands covered by the retention limit under section 6 of RA 6657? a) Public agricultural lands b) Private agricultural lands What is the maximum size of the land can a landowner retain? 5 hectares What is the size of the land that can be awarded to each child of the landowner? 3 hectares What are the qualifications should a child of a landowner met in order to be awarded with a land under section 6 of RA 6657? a) At least 15 years of age b) He is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm Does the child need to directly or personally till the land? No. it is enough the he directly manages the farm. Can lands awarded to qualified children of landowners be sold, transferred, or conveyed? No. it cannot be sold, transferred or conveyed within 10 years

What are the condition imposed by RA 6657 to original homestead grantees or their compulsory heirs in order to retain their land? a) They are still the original owner of the original homestead at the time of the approval of RA 6657 b) They still continue to cultivate the said homestead

What is the right vested by RA 6657 to the landowners with respect to the retention limit? Right to choose the area to be retained What is the period should the landowner exercise his right to choose the area to be retained? Within 60 days from receipt of the Notice of Coverage What is the effect if the landowner failed to exercise his right to choose within the specified period? The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer will designate the retained area for the landowner. If the landowner disagrees he may file a protest with the MARO What is the condition imposed by RA 6657 with regards to the right of a landowner to choose the area to be retained? The land should be compact or contiguous Will a mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land make a tiller an agricultural tenant? No What are the options given to the tenants of the retained area? a) To remain in the said land

Page 20 of 31



b) be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features What are the effects if a tenant chooses to remain in the retained area? a) He shall be considered a leaseholder or a lessee b) He shall lose his rights to be a beneficiary under RA 6657 What are the rights entitled to a lessee? a) Peaceful possession & enjoyment of the land b) Manage and work on the land in a manner and method of cultivation and harvest which conform to proven farm practices c) Mechanize all or any phase of his farm work d) Deal with millers and processors and attend to the issuance quedans and warehouse receipts for the produce due him e) Be afforded a homelot f) Be indemnified for the cost and expenses incurred in the cultivation, planting or harvesting and other expenses incidental to the improvement of his crop in case he surrenders or abandons his landholding for just cause or ejected therefrom g) Buy the agricultural landholding under reasonable terms and conditions in case the agricultural lessor decides to sell the same h) Redeem the landholding at a reasonable price and consideration in case the agricultural lessor sold the same to a third person without his knowledge

What is the effect if a tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land? He shall lose his rights as a leaseholder to the land retained by the owner What is the period given to the tenants to exercise their option? Within 1 year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention

Under section 6, what shall be respected in the implementation of the retention limit? Security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on the land prior to the approval of RA 6657 Under section 6, should the retained area be personally cultivated by the landowner? No, the retained area need not be personally cultivated by the landowner. Cultivation can be done indirectly through labor administration Can a landowner who has already exercised his retention rights under PD 27 be entitled to the retention rights under RA 6657? No. He can no longer exercise the retention right under RA 6657. However if the landowner chooses to retain 5 hectares under RA 6657, the 7 hectares previously retained by him under PD 27 shall be immediately placed under the coverage of the RA 6657 Can spouses retain 5 hectares each under RA 6657? It depends on the property regime of the spouses: a) Conjugal or absolute community – the spouses can retain only 5 hectares b) Separation of property – spouses can retain 5 hectares each What are the lands included in the exception to retention limits? Private agricultural lands acquired by provincial, city and municipal gov’t units through expropriation or other modes of acquisition used for actual, direct and exclusive public purposes such as: a) Roads and bridges b) Public markets c) School sites d) Resettlement sites e) Local gov’t facilities f) Public parks g) Barangay plazas or squares

Page 21 of 31



Section 28 of RA 6657

c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds d) Lands with at least 18% slope e) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used an found to be necessary for  national defense  school sites and campuses  experimental farm stations operated for educational purposes  seeds and seedling research and pilot production center  church sites and convents  mosque sites and Islamic centers  communal burial grounds and cemeteries  penal colonies and penal farms  gov’t and private research and quarantine centers f) landholdings of landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and below g) lands devoted to the raising of livestock, poultry and swine [Luz Farms v. Sec. of DAR] h) lands obtained through homestead patent [Alita v. CA] EXCEPTION: lands obtained through homestead patent that are not being personally cultivated by original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs [Paris v. Alfeche]

SECTION 28. Standing Crops at the Time of Acquisition. —The landowner shall retain his share of any standing crops unharvested at the time the DAR shall take possession of the land under Section 16 of the Act, and shall be given a reasonable time to harvest the same.

What will happen to the crops at the time the DAR took possession of the land? The landowner retains his rights over crops not yet harvested Section 10 of RA 6657 SECTION 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. — Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds, and mangroves, national defense, school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research and pilot production centers, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and quarantine centers and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed shall be exempt from the coverage of the Act.

CASES: 1. Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres v DAR Secretary Facts:

What are the lands not subject to retention limit a) Ancestral lands of each indigenous cultural community b) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves

Archbishop is the registered owner of several properties in Camarines Sur, with a total area of 268.5668 hectares. Of that land, 249.0236 hectares are planted with rice and corn, while the remaining 19.5432 hectares are planted with coconut trees. In 1985, Archbishop several petitions for exemption of certain properties located in various towns of Camarines Sur from the coverage of Operation Land Transfer under

Page 22 of 31



Presidential Decree No. 27. Two of these petitions were denied in an Order dated November 6, 1986, issued by the Regional Director of DAR, Region V, Juanito L. Lorena. Archbishop appealed from the order of the Regional Director contending, inter alia, that they are used for charitable and religious purposes. The appeal was denied by the DAR Secretary. On appeal to the CA, the same was dismissed.

Are lands already classified for residential, commercial or industrial use, as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board and its precursor agencies 1 prior to 15 June 1988, 2 covered by R.A. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988? RULING: NO

Issue: Whether or not the subject lands are exempt from the coverage of CARP Held: Archbishop cannot claim exemption in behalf of the millions of Filipino faithful, as the lands are clearly not exempt under the law. The laws simply speak of the landowner without qualification as to under what title the land is held or what rights to the land the landowner may exercise. There is no distinction made whether the landowner holds naked title only or can exercise all the rights of ownership. Archbishop would have the Court read deeper into the law, to create exceptions that are not stated in PD 27 and RA 6657, and to do so would be to frustrate the revolutionary intent of the law, which is the redistribution of agricultural land for the benefit of landless farmers and farmworkers. 2. Natalia Realty vs. DAR FACTS: Petitioner NATALIA is the owner of three (3) contiguous parcels of land with a total of 125.0078 hectares and embraced in a TCT of the ROD. Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land located in the Municipalities of Antipolo, San Mateo and Montalban as townsite areas to absorb the population overspill in the metropolis which were designated as the Lungsod Silangan Townsite. The NATALIA properties are situated within the areas proclaimed as townsite reservation. ISSUE:

Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides that the CARL shall "cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands." As to what constitutes "agricultural land," it is referred to as "land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land." 16 The deliberations of the Constitutional Commission confirm this limitation. "Agricultural lands" are only those lands which are "arable and suitable agricultural lands" and "do not include commercial, industrial and residential lands." 17 Based on the foregoing, it is clear that the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision cannot in any language be considered as "agricultural lands." These lots were intended for residential use. They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of their inclusion in the Lungsod Silangan Reservation. Even today, the areas in question continued to be developed as a low-cost housing subdivision, albeit at a snail's pace. This can readily be gleaned from the fact that SAMBA members even instituted an action to restrain petitioners from continuing with such development. The enormity of the resources needed for developing a subdivision may have delayed its completion but this does not detract from the fact that these lands are still residential lands and outside the ambit of the CARL. Indeed, lands not devoted to agricultural activity are outside the coverage of CARL. These include lands previously converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of CARL by government agencies other than respondent DAR. In its Revised Rules and Regulations

Page 23 of 31



Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses, 18 DAR itself defined "agricultural land" thus —

4. DAR vs. Delia Sutton FACTS:

. . . Agricultural lands refers to those devoted to agricultural activity as defined in R.A. 6657 and not classified as mineral or forest by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its predecessor agencies, and not classified in town plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding competent authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential, commercial or industrial use. Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June 1988, respondent DAR is bound by such conversion. It was therefore error to include the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision within the coverage of CARL. 3. LUZ FARMS vs. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM FACTS: On June 10, 1988, the President of the Philippines approved R.A. No. 6657, which includes the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage ISSUE: Whether or not Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988) unconstitutional, insofar as the said law includes the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage as well as the Implementing Rules and Guidelines promulgated in accordance therewith. RULING: Section II of R.A. 6657 which includes "private agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising" in the definition of "commercial farms" is invalid, to the extent that the aforecited agro-industrial activities are made to be covered by the agrarian reform program of the State. There is simply no reason to include livestock and poultry lands in the coverage of agrarian reform.

Respondents herein inherited a land which has been devoted exclusively to cow and calf breeding. Pursuant to the then existing agrarian reform program of the government, respondents made a voluntary offer to sell (VOS) their landholdings to petitioner DAR to avail of certain incentives under the law. a new agrarian law, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988, took effect. It included in its coverage farms used for raising livestock, poultry and swine. Thereafter, in an en banc decision in the case of Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR this Court ruled that lands devoted to livestock and poultry-raising are not included in the definition of agricultural land. Hence, we declared as unconstitutional certain provisions of the CARL insofar as they included livestock farms in the coverage of agrarian reform. Thus, respondents filed with petitioner DAR a formal request to withdraw their VOS as their landholding was devoted exclusively to cattle-raising and thus exempted from the coverage of the CARL. However, DAR issued A.O. No. 9, series of 1993 which provided that only portions of private agricultural lands used for the raising of livestock, poultry and swine as of June 15, 1988 shall be excluded from the coverage of the CARL. The DAR Secretary issued an Order partially granting the application of respondents for exemption from the coverage of CARL but applying the retention limits outlined in the DAR A.O. No. 9. Respondents moved for reconsideration. They contend that their entire landholding should be exempted as it is devoted exclusively to cattle-raising and appealing that the DAR A.O. No. 9 be declared unconstitutional. ISSUE: Whether or not DAR Administrative Order No. 09, Series of 1993 which prescribes a maximum retention for owners of lands devoted to livestock raising is constitutional? HELD:

Page 24 of 31



The A.O. sought to regulate livestock farms by including them in the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retention limit for their ownership is invalid as it contravenes the Constitution. . The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock, swine and poultry-raising are industrial activities and do not fall within the definition of “agriculture” or “agricultural activity.” The raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. It is an industrial, not an agricultural activity. DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. It has exceeded its power in issuing the assailed A.O. The assailed A.O. of petitioner DAR was properly stricken down as unconstitutional as it enlarges the coverage of agrarian reform beyond the scope intended by the 1987 Constitution 5. Milestone Farms Inc. v. Office of the President FACTS: Petitioner Milestone Farms, Inc. (petitioner) was incorporated with the Securities and Exchange Commission on January 8, 1960. Among its pertinent secondary purposes are: (1) to engage in the raising of cattle, pigs, and other livestock; to acquire lands by purchase or lease, which may be needed for this purpose; and to sell and otherwise dispose of said cattle, pigs, and other livestock and their produce when advisable and beneficial to the corporation; (2) to breed, raise, and sell poultry; to purchase or acquire and sell, or otherwise dispose of the supplies, stocks, equipment, accessories, appurtenances, products, and by-products of said business; and (3) to import cattle, pigs, and other livestock, and animal food necessary for the raising of said cattle, pigs, and other livestock as may be authorized by law.

of the Department of Agrarian Reform that agricultural lands devoted to livestock, poultry, and/or swine raising are excluded from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Meanwhile, on December 27, 1993, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993 (DAR A.O. No. 9), setting forth rules and regulations to govern the exclusion of agricultural lands used for livestock, poultry, and swine raising from CARP coverage. The LUCEC, thus, recommended the exemption of petitioner’s 316.0422-hectare property from the coverage of CARP. he Southern Pinugay Farmers MultiPurpose Cooperative, Inc. (Pinugay Farmers), represented by Timiano Balajadia, Sr. (Balajadia), moved for the reconsideration of the said Order, but the same was denied by Director Dalugdug in his Order. In the meantime, R.A. No. 6657 was amended by R.A. No. 7881, which was approved on February 20, 1995. Private agricultural lands devoted to livestock, poultry, and swine raising were excluded from the coverage of the CARL. On April 29, 2005, the CA found that, based on the documentary evidence presented, the property subject of the application for exclusion had more than satisfied the animal-land and infrastructure-animal ratios under DAR A.O. No. 9. The CA also found that petitioner applied for exclusion long before the effectivity of DAR A.O. No. 9, thus, negating the claim that petitioner merely converted the property for livestock, poultry, and swine raising in order to exclude it from CARP coverage. Petitioner was held to have actually engaged in the said business on the property even before June 15, 1988. ISSUE:

On June 10, 1988, a new agrarian reform law, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), took effect, which included the raising of livestock, poultry, and swine in its coverage. However, on December 4, 1990, this Court, sitting en banc, ruled in Luz Farms v. Secretary

WON the DAR has the power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. HELD:

Page 25 of 31

No.



The instant case does not rest on facts parallel to those of Sutton because, in Sutton, the subject property remained a livestock farm. It is established that issues of Exclusion and/or Exemption are characterized as Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) cases which are well within the DAR Secretary’s competence and jurisdiction. Section 3, Rule II of the 2003 Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board Rules of Procedure provides: Section 3. Agrarian Law Implementation Cases. The Adjudicator or the Board shall have no jurisdiction over matters involving the administrative implementation of RA No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 and other agrarian laws as enunciated by pertinent rules and administrative orders, which shall be under the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the Office of the Secretary of the DAR in accordance with his issuances, to wit: 3.8 Exclusion from CARP coverage of agricultural land used for livestock, swine, and poultry raising. Thus, we cannot, without going against the law, arbitrarily strip the DAR Secretary of his legal mandate to exercise jurisdiction and authority over all ALI cases. To succumb to petitioner’s contention that “when a land is declared exempt from the CARP on the ground that it is not agricultural as of the time the CARL took effect, the use and disposition of that land is entirely and forever beyond DAR’s jurisdiction” is dangerous, suggestive of self-regulation. Precisely, it is the DAR Secretary who is vested with such jurisdiction and authority to exempt and/or exclude a property from CARP coverage based on the factual circumstances of each case and in accordance with law and applicable jurisprudence. In addition, albeit parenthetically, Secretary Villa had already granted the conversion into residential and golf courses use of nearly one-half of the entire area originally claimed as exempt

from CARP coverage because it was allegedly devoted to livestock production. 7. Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Department of Education Culture and Sports FACTS: In controversy are Lot No. 2509 and Lot No. 817D consisting of an aggregate area of 189.2462 hectares located at Hacienda Fe, Escalante, Negros Occidental and Brgy. Gen. Luna, Sagay, Negros Occidental, respectively. On October 21, 1921, these lands were donated by the late Esteban Jalandoni to respondent DECS (formerly Bureau of Education).2 Consequently, titles thereto were transferred in the name of respondent DECS under Transfer Certificate of Title No. 167175.3 On July 15, 1985, respondent DECS leased the lands to Anglo Agricultural Corporation for 10 agricultural crop years, commencing from crop year 1984-1985 to crop year 1993-1994. The contract of lease was subsequently renewed for another 10 agricultural crop years, commencing from crop year 1995-1996 to crop year 2004-2005.4 On June 10, 1993, Eugenio Alpar and several others, claiming to be permanent and regular farm workers of the subject lands, filed a petition for Compulsory Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of Escalante. After investigation, MARO Jacinto R. Piñosa, sent a "Notice of Coverage" to respondent DECS, stating that the subject lands are now covered by CARP and inviting its representatives for a conference with the farmer beneficiaries.6 Then, MARO Piñosa submitted his report to OIC-PARO Stephen M. Leonidas, who recommended to the DAR Regional Director the approval of the coverage of the landholdings. On August 7, 1998, DAR Regional Director Dominador B. Andres approved the recommendation, the dispositive portion of which reads:

Page 26 of 31



WHEREFORE, all the foregoing premises considered, the petition is granted. Order is hereby issued: 1. Placing under CARP coverage Lot 2509 with an area of 111.4791 hectares situated at Had. Fe, Escalante, Negros Occidental and Lot 817-D with an area of 77.7671 hectares situated at Brgy. Gen. Luna, Sagay, Negros Occidental; Respondent DECS appealed the case to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform which affirmed the Order of the Regional Director. 8 Aggrieved, respondent DECS filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which set aside the decision of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform.9

Clearly, a reading of the paragraph shows that, in order to be exempt from the coverage: 1) the land must be "actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to be necessary;" and 2) the purpose is "for school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes." The importance of the phrase "actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to be necessary" cannot be understated, as what respondent DECS would want us to do by not taking the words in their literal and technical definitions. The words of the law are clear and unambiguous. Thus, the "plain meaning rule" or verba legis in statutory construction is applicable in this case. Where the words of a statute are clear, plain and free from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied without attempted interpretation.

Hence, the instant petition for review. ISSUE: Whether or not the subject properties are exempt from the coverage of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998 (CARL). RULING: NO. THE SUBJECT PROPERTIES ARE NOT EXEMPT FROM THE COVERAGE OF RA 6657 (CARL) Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 enumerates the types of lands which are exempted from the coverage of CARP as well as the purposes of their exemption, viz: xxxxxxxxx c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for national defense, school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, … , shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.13 xxxxxxxxx

We are not unaware of our ruling in the case of Central Mindanao University v. Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board,15 wherein we declared the land subject thereof exempt from CARP coverage. However, respondent DECS’ reliance thereon is misplaced because the factual circumstances are different in the case at bar. Firstly, in the CMU case, the land involved was not alienable and disposable land of the public domain because it was reserved by the late President Carlos P. Garcia under Proclamation No. 476 for the use of Mindanao Agricultural College (now CMU).16 In this case, however, the lands fall under the category of alienable and disposable lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture. Secondly, in the CMU case, the land was actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for school sites and campuses. Although a portion of it was being used by the Philippine Packing Corporation (now Del Monte Phils., Inc.) under a "Management and Development Agreement", the undertaking was that the land shall be used by the Philippine Packing Corporation as part of the CMU research program, with direct

Page 27 of 31



participation of faculty and students. Moreover, the land was part of the land utilization program developed by the CMU for its "Kilusang Sariling Sikap Project" (CMU-KSSP), a multi-disciplinary applied research extension and productivity program.17 Hence, the retention of the land was found to be necessary for the present and future educational needs of the CMU. On the other hand, the lands in this case were not actually and exclusively utilized as school sites and campuses, as they were leased to Anglo Agricultural Corporation, not for educational purposes but for the furtherance of its business. Also, as conceded by respondent DECS, it was the income from the contract of lease and not the subject lands that was directly used for the repairs and renovations of the schools in the locality. 8. PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR vs. CA FACTS: On December 22, 1988, the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the Province of Camarines Sur passed Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988, authorizing the Provincial Governor to purchase or expropriate property contiguous to the provincial capitol site, in order to establish a pilot farm for non-food and non-traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial government employees. Pursuant to the Resolution, the Province of Camarines Sur, through its Governor, Hon. Luis R.Villafuerte, filed two separate cases for expropriation against Ernesto N. San Joaquin and Efren N. San Joaquin, docketed as Special Civil Action Nos. P-17-89 and P-1989 of the Regional Trial Court, Pili, Camarines Sur, presided by the Hon. Benjamin V. Panga. Forthwith, the Province of Camarines Sur filed a motion for the issuance of writ of possession. The San Joaquins failed to appear at the hearing of the motion. The San Joaquins moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of inadequacy of the price offered for their property. In an order dated December 6, 1989, the trial court denied the motion to dismiss and

authorized the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of the property upon the deposit with the Clerk of Court of the amount of P5,714.00, the amount provisionally fixed by the trial court to answer for damages that private respondents may suffer in the event that the expropriation cases do not prosper. The trial court issued a writ of possession in an order dated January18, 1990. The San Joaquins filed a motion for relief from the order, authorizing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of their property and a motion to admit an amended motion to dismiss. Both motions were denied in the order dated February 1990. In their petition before the Court of Appeals, the San Joaquins asked: (a) that Resolution No. 129, Series of 1988 of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan be declared null and void; (b) that the complaints for expropriation be dismissed; and (c) that the order dated December 6, 1989 (i) denying the motion to dismiss and (ii) allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of the property subject of the expropriation and the order dated February 26, 1990, denying the motion to admit the amended motion to dismiss, be set aside. They also asked that an order be issued to restrain the trial court from enforcing the writ of possession, and thereafter to issue a writ of injunction. In its answer to the petition, the Province of Camarines Sur claimed that it has the authority to initiate the expropriation proceedings under Sections 4 and 7 of Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337) and that the expropriations are for a public purpose. Asked by the Court of Appeals to give his Comment to the petition, the Solicitor General stated that under Section 9 of the Local Government Code (B.P. Blg. 337), there was no need for the approval by the Office of the President of the exercise by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan of the right of eminent domain. However, the Solicitor General expressed the view that the Province of Camarines Sur must first secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform of

Page 28 of 31



the plan to expropriate the lands of petitioners for use as a housing project. The Court of Appeals set aside the order of the trial court Hence this petition. ISSUE: whether the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units is subject, to the prior approval of the Secretary of the Agrarian Reform, as the implementator of the agrarian reform program. RULING: NO. Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337 does not intimate in the least that local government, units must first secure the approval of the Department of Land Reform for the conversion of lands from agricultural to non-agricultural use, before they can institute the necessary expropriation proceedings. Likewise, there is no provision in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which expressly subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units to the control of the Department of Agrarian Reform. The closest provision of law that the Court of Appeals could cite to justify the intervention of the Department of Agrarian Reform in expropriation matters is Section 65 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, which reads: Sec. 65. Conversion of Lands. — After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for, agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition: Provided, That the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation. The opening, adverbial phrase of the provision sends signals that it applies to lands previously placed under

the agrarian reform program as it speaks of "the lapse of five (5) years from its award." The rules on conversion of agricultural lands found in Section 4 (k) and 5 (1) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987, cannot be the source of the authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform to determine the suitability of a parcel of agricultural land for the purpose to which it would be devoted by the expropriating authority. While those rules vest on the Department of Agrarian Reform the exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversions of agricultural lands for residential, commercial or industrial uses, such authority is limited to the applications for reclassification submitted by the land owners or tenant beneficiaries. Statutes conferring the power of eminent domain to political subdivisions cannot be broadened or constricted by implication (Schulman v. People, 10 N.Y. 2d. 249, 176 N.E. 2d. 817, 219 NYS 2d. 241). To sustain the Court of Appeals would mean that the local government units can no longer expropriate agricultural lands needed for the construction of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc, without first applying for conversion of the use of the lands with the Department of Agrarian Reform, because all of these projects would naturally involve a change in the land use. In effect, it would then be the Department of Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use. Ordinarily, it is the legislative branch of the local government unit that shall determine whether the use of the property sought to be expropriated shall be public, the same being an expression of legislative policy. The courts defer to such legislative determination and will intervene only when a particular undertaking has no real or substantial relation to the public use (United States Ex Rel Tennessee Valley Authority v. Welch, 327 US 546, 90 L. ed. 843, 66 S Ct 715; State ex rel Twin City Bldg. and Invest. Co. v. Houghton, 144 Minn. 1, 174 NW 885, 8 ALR 585).

Page 29 of 31



WHEREFORE, the petition is GRANTED and the questioned decision of the Court of Appeals is set aside insofar as it (a) nullifies the trial court's order allowing the Province of Camarines Sur to take possession of private respondents' property; (b) orders the trial court to suspend the expropriation proceedings; and (c) requires the Province of Camarines Sur to obtain the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform to convert or reclassify private respondents' property from agricultural to non-agricultural use. 9. SAMAHAN NG MAGSASAKA SA SAN JOSEP V. MARIETTA VALISNO, ET AL FACTS: Dr. Nicolas Valisno, Sr. is the registered owner of a 57-hectare property situated in La Fuente, Sta. Rosa, Nueva. Dr. Valisno mortgaged 12 hectares of his property to the Angelo and Renato Banting. Thereafter, the property was subdivided into ten lots and individual titles were issued in the name of the eight children of Dr. Valisno, to Angelito Banting and to Renato Banting. The mortgage on the 12 hectare portion was foreclosed and the property sold at public auction. Four grandchildren of Dr. Valisno redeemed the property. At the time of the redemption, only one was of legal age, the others were only minors. Subsequently, petitioner SMSP filed a petition for coverage of the subject property. The petition was dismissed but DAR Secretary ultimately held that the property was covered by CARP subject to the retention rights of the heirs of Nicolas, Sr.

ISSUE: Whether or not the grandchildren of the landowner are still entitled to retention rights? HELD: As owners in their own right, the redemptionergrandchildren enjoyed the right of retention granted to all the landowners. This right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subject to qualification by balancing the rights of the landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner. A retained area, as its name denotes, is land which is not supposed to leave the landowner's dominion, thus, sparing the government from the inconvenience of taking land only to return it to the landowners afterwards, which would be a pointless process. The fact that the grandchildren are minors at the time the redemption was made does not make the contract void but only voidable or valid until annulled. Under the Civil Code, the action to annul the minors' redemption could only have been initiated by the minors themselves, as the victims or the aggrieved parties in whom the law itself vests the right to file suit. This action was never initiated by the minors.

The Valisno heirs including the four grandchildren-redemptioners filed a consolidated Application for Retention and Award under R.A. No. 6657. The Regional Director approved the retention of the Valisno children. The request for the award to the grandchildren-redemptioners’ retention rights of three hectares each was approved on appeal to the CA. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration holding that the redemptioners are not entitled to retention rights. The said motion same was denied. Hence, this Appeal.

Page 30 of 31



Page 31 of 31

agri reviewer.pdf

Recommend Documents