You are on page 1of 38

Week 6 -Land Tenure Improvement accept some of the produce of his land from

someone who plants certain crops thereon. This


LAND TENURE IMPROVEMENT the is a typical and laudable provinciano trait of
improvement of the tenurial and socio-economic sharing or patikim, a native way of expressing
status of the farmers short of transferring full gratitude for favor received. This, however, does
ownership of the land. not automatically make the tiller-sharer a tenant
thereof specially when the area tilled is only 60,
SECTION 12. Determination of Lease or even 500, square meters and located in an
Rentals. In order to protect and improve the urban area and in the heart of an industrial or
tenurial and economic status of the farmers in commercial zone at that. Tenancy status arises
tenanted lands under the retention limit and only if an occupant of a parcel of land has been
lands not yet acquired under this Act, the DAR is given its possession for the primary purpose of
mandated to determine and fix immediately the agricultural production. The circumstances of this
lease rentals thereof in accordance with Section case indicate that the private respondent's status
34 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended: is more of a caretaker who was allowed by the
Provided, That the DAR shall immediately and owner out of benevolence or compassion to live
periodically review and adjust the rental structure in the premises and to have a garden of some
for different crops, including rice and corn, or sort at its southwestern side rather than a tenant
different regions in order to improve of the said portion. cdphil
progressively the conditions of the farmer, tenant
or lessee. Agricultural production as the primary purpose
being absent in the arrangement, it is clear that
What constitutes a leasehold relationship? the private respondent was never a tenant of the
former owner, Andrea Millenes. Consequently,
Caballes vs. DAR, GR No. 78214, December Sec. 10 of RA of 3844, as amended, does not
5, 1988 (168 SCRA 247) apply. Simply stated, the private respondent is
not a tenant of the herein petitioner.
The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship
are: Gelos vs. Court of Appeals (208 SCRA 608,
1992)
1. The parties are the landowner and the tenant;
As this Court has stressed in a number of cases,
2. The subject is agricultural land; "tenancy is not a purely factual relationship
dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon
3. There is consent; the land. It is also a legal relationship. The intent
of the parties, the understanding when the
4. The purpose is agricultural production; farmer is installed, and as in this case, their
written agreements, provided these are complied
5. There is personal cultivation; and with and are not contrary to law, are even more
important.
6. There is sharing of harvests.
The petitioner's payment of irrigation fees from
All these requisites must concur in order to 1980 to 1985 to the National Irrigation
create a tenancy relationship between the Administration on the said landholding is
parties. The absence of one does not make an explained by the fact that during the pendency of
occupant of a parcel of land, or a cultivator the CAR case, the Agrarian Reform Office fixed a
thereof, or a planter thereon, a de jure tenant. provisional leasehold rental after a preliminary
This is so because unless a person has finding that Gelos was the tenant of the private
established his status as a de jure tenant, he is respondent. As such, it was he who had to pay
not entitled to security of tenure nor is he the irrigation fees.
covered by the Land Reform Program of the
Government under existing tenancy laws. 10 Section 12, subpar. (r) of PD 946 provides that
the Secretary's determination of the tenancy
Therefore, the fact of sharing alone is not relationship is only preliminary and cannot be
sufficient to establish a tenancy relationship. conclusive on the lower court.
Certainly, it is not unusual for a landowner to
1
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
A tenant is defined under Section 5(a) of Republic
Act No. 1199 as a person who himself and with Gabriel vs. Pangilinan (58 SCRA 590, 1974)
the aid available from within his immediate farm
household cultivates the land belonging to or The subject matter of leasehold tenancy is limited
possessed by another, with the latter's consent, to agricultural land; that of civil law lease may be
for purposes of production, sharing the produce either rural or urban property. As to attention
with the landholder under the share tenancy and cultivation, the law requires the leasehold
system, or paying to the landholder a price- tenant to personally attend to, and cultivate the
certain or ascertainable in produce or in money agricultural land, whereas the civil law lessee
or both, under the leasehold tenancy system. need not personally cultivate or work the thing
On the other hand, the indications of an leased. As to purpose, the landholding in
employer-employee relationship are: 1) the leasehold tenancy is devoted to agriculture,
selection and engagement of the employee; 2) whereas in civil law lease, the purpose may be
the payment of wages; 3) the power of dismissal; for any other lawful pursuits. As to the law that
and 4) the power to control the employee's governs, the civil law lease is governed by the
conduct although the latter is the most Civil Code, whereas leasehold tenancy is
important element. governed by special laws. 3

According to a well-known authority on the In order that leasehold tenancy under the
subject, tenancy relationship is distinguished Agricultural Tenancy Act may exist, the following
from farm employer-farm worker relationship in requisites must concur:
that: "In farm employer-farm worker
relationship, the lease is one of labor with the 1. That the land worked by the tenant is an
agricultural laborer as the lessor of his services agricultural land;
and the farm employer as the lessee thereof. In
tenancy relationship, it is the landowner who is 2. That the land is susceptible of cultivation by a
the lessor, and the tenant the lessee of single person together with members of his
agricultural land. The agricultural worker works immediate farm household;
for the farm employer and for his labor he
receives a salary or wage regardless of whether 3. That the land must be cultivated by the tenant
the employer makes a profit. On the other hand, either personally or with the aid of labor available
the tenant derives his income from the from members of his immediate farm household;
agricultural produce or harvest.
4. That the land belongs to another; and
The other issue raised by the petitioner, which is
decidedly legal, is easily resolved. There being no 5. That the use of the land by the tenant is for a
tenancy relationship, the contention that the consideration of a fixed amount in money or in
private respondent's complaint has prescribed produce or in both. 4
under Section 38 of R.A. 3844 must also fail.
That section is not applicable. It must be noted Were the foregoing requisites present in the
that at the very outset, Alzona rejected the instant case?
petitioner's claim of agricultural tenancy and
immediately instituted his action for unlawful There is no doubt that the land in question is
detainer in accordance with Section 1, Rule 70 of agricultural land. It is a fishpond and the
the Rules of Court. As it happened, the said case Agricultural Tenancy Act, which refers to
was held not proper for trial by the Ministry of "agricultural land", specifically mentions
Agrarian Reform. He then resorted to other fishponds and prescribes the consideration for
remedies just so he could recover possession of the use thereof. Thus Section 46 (c) of said Act
his land and, finally, in 1979, he yielded to the provides that "the consideration for the use of
jurisdiction of the defunct Court of Agrarian sugar lands, fishponds, saltbeds and of lands
Relations by filing there an action for declaration devoted to the raising of livestock shall be
of non-tenancy. The action, which was governed by stipulation between the parties".
commenced in 1979, was within the ten-year This Court has already ruled that "land in which
prescriptive period provided under Article 1144 of fish is produced is classified as agricultural land."
the Civil Code for actions based on a written 5 The mere fact, however, that a person works
contract. an agricultural land does not necessarily make
2
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
him a leasehold tenant within the purview of Republic Act No. 1199, and ceases to enjoy the
section 4 of Republic Act No. 1199. He may still status, rights, and privileges of one.
be a civil law lessee unless the other requisites as
above enumerated are complied with. We are, therefore, construed to agree with the
court a quo that the relationship between the
Regarding the second requisite, it is to be noted appellee Trinidad Gabriel and appellant Eusebio
that the land in question has an area of 169,507 Pangilinan was not a leasehold tenancy under
square meters, or roughly 17 hectares of Republic Act No. 1199.
fishpond. The question of whether such a big
parcel of land is susceptible of being worked by Section 32 Production sharing
the appellant's family or not has not been raised, Administrative Order No. 2, s, 2006, Revised
and We see no need of tarrying on this point. So, Rules and Procedures Governing
We pass to the third requisite, to wit, whether Leasehold Implementation in Tenanted
the tenant himself personally or with the aid of Agricultural Lands
his immediate family worked the land.

The law is explicit in requiring the tenant and his Week 7 Conversion of Agricultural Lands
immediate family to work the land. This Section 5
(a) of Republic Act No. 1199, as amended, CONVERSION The actual change of the land
defines a "tenant" as a person who, himself and use from agricultural, to residential, industrial or
with the aid available from within his immediate commercial, of lands which could have potentially
farm household, cultivates the land belonging to, been covered under the CARP.
or possessed by another, with the latter's
consent for purposes of production sharing the Section 65. Conversion of Lands. After the
produce with the landholder under the share lapse of five (5) years from its award, when the
tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a land ceases to be economically feasible and
price certain in produce or in money or both, sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality
under the leasehold tenancy system. Section 8 of has become urbanized and the land will have a
the same Act limits the relation of landholder and greater economic value for residential,
tenant to the person who furnishes the land and commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon
to the person who actually works the land himself application of the beneficiary or the landowner,
with the aid of labor available from within his with due notice to the affected parties, and
immediate farm household. Finally, Section 4 of subject to existing laws, may authorize the
the same Act requires for the existence of reclassification or conversion of the land and its
leasehold tenancy that the tenant and his disposition: provided, that the beneficiary shall
immediate farm household work the land. It have fully paid his obligation.
provides that leasehold tenancy exists when a
person, who either personally or with the aid of Conversion of Agricultural Lands: What is the
labor available from members of his immediate difference between exemption, conversion and
farm household, undertakes to cultivate a piece reclassification?
of agricultural land susceptible of cultivation by a
single person together with members of his (Ros v. Department of Agrarian Reform,
immediate farm household, belonging to, or G.R. No. 132477, [August 31, 2005], 505
legally possessed by, another in consideration of PHIL 558-572)
a fixed amount in money or in produce or in
both. After the passage of Republic Act No. 6657,
otherwise known as Comprehensive Agrarian
A person, in order to be considered a tenant, Reform Program, agricultural lands, though
must himself and with the aid available from his reclassified, have to go through the process of
immediate farm household cultivate the land. conversion, jurisdiction over which is vested in
Persons, therefore, who do not actually work the the DAR. However, agricultural lands already
land cannot be considered tenants; 8 and he who reclassified before the effectivity of Rep. Act No.
hires others whom he pays for doing the 6657 are exempted from conversion. . . . The
cultivation of the land, ceases to hold, and is authority of the DAR to approve conversions of
considered as having abandoned the land as agricultural lands covered by Rep. Act No. 6657
tenant within the meaning of sections 5 and 8 of to non-agricultural uses has not been pierced by
3
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
the passage of the Local Government Code. The agrarian reform matters. The pertinent provision
Code explicitly provides that "nothing in this reads: "Section 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the
section shall be construed as repealing or DAR. The DAR is hereby vested with the
modifying in any manner the provisions of Rep. primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
Act No. 6657. agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive
original jurisdiction over all matters involving the
The requirement that agricultural lands must go implementation of agrarian reform, except those
through the process of conversion despite having falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
undergone reclassification was underscored in the Department of Agriculture and the Department of
case of Alarcon v. Court of Appeals, where it was Environment and Natural Resources. "It shall not
held that reclassification of land does not suffice: be bound by technical rules of procedure and
"In the case at bar, there is no final order of evidence but shall proceed to hear and decide all
conversion. The subject landholding was merely cases, disputes or controversies in a most
reclassified. Conversion is different from expeditious manner, employing all reasonable
reclassification. Conversion is the act of changing means to ascertain the facts of every case in
the current use of a piece of agricultural land into accordance with justice and equity and the merits
some other use as approved by the Department of the case. Toward this end, it shall adopt a
of Agrarian Reform. Reclassification, on the other uniform rule of procedure to achieve a just,
hand, is the act of specifying how agricultural expeditious and inexpensive determination of
lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses every action or proceeding before it.
such as residential, industrial, commercial, as
embodied in the land use plan, subject to the || (Chamber of Real Estate and Builders
requirements and procedure for land use Associations, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian
conversion. Accordingly, a mere reclassification Reform, G.R. No. 183409, [June 18, 2010],
of agricultural land does not automatically allow a 635 PHIL 283-315)
landowner to change its use and thus cause the
ejectment of the tenants. He has to undergo the
process of conversion before he is permitted to Executive Order No. 129-A 37 vested upon the
use the agricultural land for other purposes. DAR the responsibility of implementing the CARP.
Pursuant to the said mandate and to ensure the
It being settled that jurisdiction over conversion successful implementation of the CARP, Section 5
of land is vested in the DAR, the complaint for (c) of the said executive order authorized the
injunction was correctly dismissed by the trial DAR to establish and promulgate operational
and appellate courts under the doctrine of policies, rules and regulations and priorities for
primary jurisdiction. This Court, in Bautista v. agrarian reform implementation. Section 4 (k)
Mag-isa Vda. De Villena, found occasion to thereof authorized the DAR to approve or
reiterate the doctrine of primary jurisdiction disapprove the conversion, restructuring or
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the readjustment of agricultural lands into non-
courts from resolving a controversy over which agricultural uses. Similarly, Section 5 (1) of the
jurisdiction has initially been lodged with an same executive order has given the DAR the
administrative body of special competence. For exclusive authority to approve or disapprove
agrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is vested in conversion of agricultural lands for residential,
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR); more commercial, industrial, and other land uses as
specifically, in the Department of Agrarian may be provided for by law. Section 7 of the
Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). Executive aforesaid executive order clearly provides that
Order 229 vested the DAR with (1) quasi-judicial "the authority and responsibility for the exercise
powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian of the mandate of the [DAR] and the discharge of
reform matters; and (2) jurisdiction over all its powers and functions shall be vested in the
matters involving the implementation of agrarian Secretary of Agrarian Reform . . . ."
reform, except those falling under the exclusive
original jurisdiction of the Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Environment Under DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, "lands
and Natural Resources. This law divested the not reclassified as residential, commercial,
regional trial courts of their general jurisdiction to industrial or other non-agricultural uses before
try agrarian reform matters. Under Republic Act 15 June 1988" have been included in the
6657, the DAR retains jurisdiction over all definition of agricultural lands. In so doing, the
4
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
Secretary of Agrarian Reform merely acted within definition of agricultural lands. Such inclusion
the scope of his authority stated in the aforesaid does not unduly expand or enlarge the definition
sections of Executive Order No. 129-A, which is of agricultural lands; instead, it made clear what
to promulgate rules and regulations for agrarian are the lands that can be the subject of DAR's
reform implementation and that includes the conversion authority, thus, serving the very
authority to define agricultural lands for purposes purpose of the land use conversion provisions of
of land use conversion. Further, the definition of Republic Act No. 6657.
agricultural lands under DAR AO No. 01-02, as
amended, merely refers to the category of
agricultural lands that may be the subject for This Court held in Alarcon v. Court of Appeals 43
conversion to non-agricultural uses and is not in that reclassification of lands does not suffice.
any way confined to agricultural lands in the Conversion and reclassification differ from each
context of land redistribution as provided for other. Conversion is the act of changing the
under Republic Act No. 6657. current use of a piece of agricultural land into
some other use as approved by the DAR while
More so, Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, reclassification is the act of specifying how
Series of 1990, which Opinion has been agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-
recognized in many cases decided by this Court, agricultural uses such as residential, industrial,
clarified that after the effectivity of Republic Act and commercial, as embodied in the land use
No. 6657 on 15 June 1988 the DAR has been plan, subject to the requirements and procedures
given the authority to approve land conversion. for land use conversion. In view thereof, a mere
38 Concomitant to such authority, therefore, is reclassification of an agricultural land does not
the authority to include in the definition of automatically allow a landowner to change its
agricultural lands "lands not reclassified as use. He has to undergo the process of conversion
residential, commercial, industrial or other non- before he is permitted to use the agricultural land
agricultural uses before 15 June 1988" for for other purposes. 44.
purposes of land use conversion.
In the same vein, the authority of the Secretary It is clear from the aforesaid distinction between
of Agrarian Reform to include "lands not reclassification and conversion that agricultural
reclassified as residential, commercial, industrial lands though reclassified to residential,
or other non-agricultural uses before 15 June commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural
1988" in the definition of agricultural lands finds uses must still undergo the process of conversion
basis in jurisprudence. In Ros v. Department of before they can be used for the purpose to which
Agrarian Reform, 39 this Court has enunciated they are intended.
that after the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, Nevertheless, emphasis must be given to the fact
agricultural lands, though reclassified, have to go that DAR's conversion authority can only be
through the process of conversion, jurisdiction exercised after the effectivity of Republic Act No.
over which is vested in the DAR. However, 6657 on 15 June 1988. 45 The said date served
agricultural lands, which are already reclassified as the cut-off period for automatic reclassification
before the effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 or rezoning of agricultural lands that no longer
which is 15 June 1988, are exempted from require any DAR conversion clearance or
conversion. 40 It bears stressing that the said authority. 46 Thereafter, reclassification of
date of effectivity of Republic Act No. 6657 agricultural lands is already subject to DAR's
served as the cut-off period for automatic conversion authority. Reclassification alone will
reclassifications or rezoning of agricultural lands not suffice to use the agricultural lands for other
that no longer require any DAR conversion purposes. Conversion is needed to change the
clearance or authority. 41 It necessarily follows current use of reclassified agricultural lands.
that any reclassification made thereafter can be
the subject of DAR's conversion authority. Having Nevertheless, emphasis must be given to the fact
recognized the DAR's conversion authority over that DAR's conversion authority can only be
lands reclassified after 15 June 1988, it can no exercised after the effectivity of Republic Act No.
longer be argued that the Secretary of Agrarian 6657 on 15 June 1988. 45 The said date served
Reform was wrongfully given the authority and as the cut-off period for automatic reclassification
power to include "lands not reclassified as or rezoning of agricultural lands that no longer
residential, commercial, industrial or other non- require any DAR conversion clearance or
agricultural uses before 15 June 1988" in the authority. 46 Thereafter, reclassification of
5
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
agricultural lands is already subject to DAR's conversion before the DAR in order to use the
conversion authority. Reclassification alone will same for the said purpose.
not suffice to use the agricultural lands for other Any reclassification, therefore, of agricultural
purposes. Conversion is needed to change the lands to residential, commercial, industrial or
current use of reclassified agricultural lands. other non-agricultural uses either by the LGUs or
It is of no moment whether the reclassification of by way of Presidential Proclamations enacted on
agricultural lands to residential, commercial, or after 15 June 1988 must undergo the process
industrial or other non-agricultural uses was done of conversion, despite having undergone
by the LGUs or by way of Presidential reclassification, before agricultural lands may be
Proclamations because either way they must still used for other purposes.
undergo conversion process. It bears stressing
that the act of reclassifying agricultural lands to Land Reclassification per Sec. 20 of RA 7160
non-agricultural uses simply specifies how (Local Government Code of 1991)
agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-
agricultural uses and does not automatically Section 20. Reclassification of Lands.
convert agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses
or for other purposes. As explained in DAR (a) A city or municipality may, through an
Memorandum Circular No. 7, Series of 1994, ordinance passed by the sanggunian after
cited in the 2009 case of Roxas & Company, Inc. conducting public hearings for the purpose,
v. DAMBA-NFSW and the Department of Agrarian authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands
Reform, 47 reclassification of lands denotes their and provide for the manner of their utilization or
allocation into some specific use and providing for disposition in the following cases: (1) when the
the manner of their utilization and disposition or land ceases to be economically feasible and
the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall sound for agricultural purposes as determined by
be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as the Department of Agriculture or (2) where the
residential, industrial, or commercial, as land shall have substantially greater economic
embodied in the land use plan. For reclassified value for residential, commercial, or industrial
agricultural lands, therefore, to be used for the purposes, as determined by the sanggunian
purpose to which they are intended there is still a concerned: Provided, That such reclassification
need to change the current use thereof through shall be limited to the following percentage of the
the process of conversion. The authority to do so total agricultural land area at the time of the
is vested in the DAR, which is mandated to passage of the ordinance:
preserve and maintain agricultural lands with
increased productivity. Thus, notwithstanding the (1) For highly urbanized and independent
reclassification of agricultural lands to non- component cities, fifteen percent (15%);
agricultural uses, they must still undergo
conversion before they can be used for other (2) For component cities and first to the third
purposes. class municipalities, ten percent (10%); and
Even reclassification of agricultural lands by way
of Presidential Proclamations to non-agricultural (3) For fourth to sixth class municipalities, five
uses, such as school sites, needs conversion percent (5%): Provided, further, That agricultural
clearance from the DAR. We reiterate that lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries
reclassification is different from conversion. pursuant to Republic Act Numbered Sixty-six
Reclassification alone will not suffice and does not hundred fifty-seven (R.A. No. 6657). otherwise
automatically allow the landowner to change its known as The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
use. It must still undergo conversion process Law, shall not be affected by the said
before the landowner can use such agricultural reclassification and the conversion of such lands
lands for such purpose. 48 Reclassification of into other purposes shall be governed by Section
agricultural lands is one thing, conversion is 65 of said Act.
another. Agricultural lands that are reclassified to
non-agricultural uses do not ipso facto allow the (b) The President may, when public interest so
landowner thereof to use the same for such requires and upon recommendation of the
purpose. Stated differently, despite having National Economic and Development Authority,
reclassified into school sites, the landowner of authorize a city or municipality to reclassify lands
such reclassified agricultural lands must apply for in excess of the limits set in the next preceding
paragraph.
6
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
Land Bank of the Philippines; Administrator,
(c) The local government units shall, in National Irrigation Administration; and three (3)
conformity with existing laws, continue to representatives of affected landowners to
prepare their respective comprehensive land use represent Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao; six (6)
plans enacted through zoning ordinances which representatives of agrarian reform beneficiaries,
shall be the primary and dominant bases for the two (2) each from Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao,
future use of land resources: Provided. That the provided that one of them shall be from the
requirements for food production, human cultural communities.
settlements, and industrial expansion shall be
taken into consideration in the preparation of Section 42. Executive Committee. There shall
such plans. be an Executive Committee (EXCOM) of the PARC
composed of the Secretary of the DAR as
(d) Where approval by a national agency is Chairman, and such other members as the
required for reclassification, such approval shall President may designate, taking into account
not be unreasonably withheld. Failure to act on a Article XIII, Section 5 of the Constitution. Unless
proper and complete application for otherwise directed by PARC, the EXCOM may
reclassification within three (3) months from meet and decide on any and all matters in
receipt of the same shall be deemed as approval between meetings of the PARC: provided,
thereof. however, that its decisions must be reported to
the PARC immediately and not later than the next
(e) Nothing in this Section shall be construed as meeting.
repealing, amending, or modifying in any manner
the provisions of R.A. No. 6657. Section 43. Secretariat. A PARC Secretariat is
hereby established to provide general support
\ and coordinative services such as inter-agency
linkages; program and project appraisal and
evaluation and general operations monitoring for
the PARC.

The Hon. Carlos Fortich et. al. vs. The Hon. The Secretariat shall be headed by the Secretary
Renato Corona GR. No. 131457, April 24, of Agrarian Reform who shall be assisted by an
1998 (Decision, Opinion and Resolution of Undersecretary and supported by a staff whose
the Motion for Reconsideration) composition shall be determined by the PARC
Executive Committee and whose compensation
Decision of the Office of the President on shall be chargeable against the Agrarian Reform
the Sumilao Case (on the Revocation of the Fund. All officers and employees of the
Conversion Order) Secretariat shall be appointed by the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform.
Week 8 Mechanisms for Program
Implementation X x x.

The Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (Secs. Section 49. Rules and Regulations. The PARC
41, 42, 43, 49) and the DAR shall have the power to issue rules
and regulations, whether substantive or
ection 41. The Presidential Agrarian Reform procedural, to carry out the objects and purposes
Council. The Presidential Agrarian Reform of this Act. Said rules shall take effect ten (10)
Council (PARC) shall be composed of the days after publication in two (2) national
President of the Philippines as Chairman, the newspapers of general circulation.
Secretary of Agrarian Reform as Vice-Chairman
and the following as members; Secretaries of the The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating
Departments of Agriculture; Environment and Committee (Sec. 44-45)
Natural Resources; Budget and Management;
Local Government: Public Works and Highways; Section 44. Provincial Agrarian Reform
Trade and Industry; Finance; Labor and Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM). A
Employment; Director-General of the National Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating
Economic and Development Authority; President, Committee (PARCCOM) is hereby created in each
7
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
province, composed of a Chairman, who shall be (a) Mediate and conciliate between parties
appointed by the President upon the involved in an agrarian dispute including matters
recommendation of the EXCOM, the Provincial related to tenurial and financial arrangements;
Agrarian Reform Officer as Executive Officer, and
one representative each from the Departments of (b) Assist in the identification of qualified
Agriculture, and of Environment and Natural beneficiaries and landowners within the
Resources and from the LBP, one representative barangay;
each from existing farmers organizations,
agricultural cooperatives and non-governmental (c) Attest to the accuracy of the initial parcellary
organizations in the province; two mapping of the beneficiarys tillage;
representatives from landowners, at least one of
whom shall be a producer representing the (d) Assist qualified beneficiaries in obtaining
principal crop of the province, and two credit from lending institutions;
representatives from farmer and farmworker-
beneficiaries, at least one of whom shall be a (e) Assist in the initial determination of the value
farmer or farmworker representing the principal of the land;
crop of the province, as members: provided, that
in areas where there are cultural communities, (f) Assist the DAR representatives in the
the latter shall likewise have one representative. preparation of periodic reports on the CARP
implementation for submission to the DAR;
The PARCCOM shall coordinate and monitor the
implementation of the CARP in the province.t (g) Coordinate the delivery of support services to
shall provide information on the provisions of the beneficiaries; and
CARP, guidelines issued by the PARC and on the
progress of the CARP in the province. (h) Perform such other functions as may be
assigned by the DAR.
Section 45. Province-by-Province
Implementation. The PARC shall provide the (2) The BARC shall endeavor to mediate,
guidelines for a province-by-province conciliate and settle agrarian disputes lodged
implementation of the CARP. The ten-year before it within thirty (30) days from its taking
program of distribution of public and private cognizance thereof.f after the lapse of the thirty
lands in each province shall be adjusted from day period, it is unable to settle the dispute, it
year by the provinces PARCCOM in accordance shall issue a certificate of its proceedings and
with the level of operations previously shall furnish a copy thereof upon the parties
established by the PARC, in every case ensuring within seven (7) days after the expiration of the
that support services are available or have been thirty-day period.
programmed before actual distribution is
effected. Section 48. Legal Assistance. The BARC or any
member thereof may, whenever necessary in the
exercise of any of its functions hereunder, seek
Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) the legal assistance of the DAR and the
Secs. 46 to 48 of RA 6657 provincial, city, or municipal government..

Section 46. Barangay Agrarian Reform The Department of Agrarian Reform (Executive
Committee (BARC). Unless otherwise provided Order 129-A, dated July 26, 1987)
in this Act, the provisions of Executive Order No.
229 regarding the organization of the Barangay
Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) shall be in The DAR Adjudication Board (Sec. 13, EO 129-A)
effect.
Financing the Program
Section 47. Functions of the BARC. In addition
to those provided in Executive Order No. 229, the Funding Source per Sec. 63 of RA 6657 and
BARC shall have the following functions: Financing under Secs. 20 and 21 of EO 229
(1987)

Funding Source Sec. 63 of RA 6657


8
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
government may deem appropriate. The amount
Section 63. Funding Source. The initial amount collected and accruing to this special fund shall
needed to implement this Act for the period of be considered automatically appropriated for the
ten (10) years upon approval hereof shall be purpose authorized in this Order.
funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund created
under Sections 20 and 21 of Executive Order No. Sec. 21. Supplemental Appropriations. The
229. amount of TWO BILLION SEVEN HUNDRED
MILLION PESOS (P2.7 billion) is hereby
Additional amounts are hereby authorized to be appropriated to cover the supplemental
appropriated as and when needed to augment requirements of the CARP for 1987, to be
the Agrarian Reform Fund in order to fully sourced from the receipts of the sale of ill-gotten
implement the provisions of this Act. wealth recovered through the Presidential
Commission on Good Government and the
Sources of funding or appropriations shall include proceeds from the sale of assets by the APT. The
the following: amount collected from these sources shall accrue
to The Agrarian Reform Fund and shall likewise
(a) Proceeds of the sales of the Assets be considered automatically appropriated for the
Privatization Trust; purpose authorized in this Order.

(b) All receipts from assets recovered and from Republic Act No. 8532 February 23, 1998
sales of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the
Presidential Commission on Good Government; AN ACT STRENGTHENING FURTHER THE
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM
(c) Proceeds of the disposition of the properties (CARP), BY PROVIDING AUGMENTATION FUND
of the Government in foreign countries; THEREFOR, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE
SECTION 63 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657,
(d) Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines OTHERWISE KNOWN AS "THE CARP LAW OF
from all sources of official foreign grants and 1988"
concessional financing from all countries, to be
used for the specific purposes of financing Be it enacted by the Senate and House of
production credits, infrastructures, and other Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
support services required by this Act; assembled::

(e) Other government funds not otherwise Section 1. Sec. 63 of Republic Act No. 6657,
appropriated. otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988 is hereby amended to read
All funds appropriated to implement the as follows:
provisions of this Act shall be considered
continuing appropriations during the period of its "Sec. 63. Funding source. The amount needed
implementation. to implement this Act until the year 2008 shall be
funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund.
Financing Secs. 20 and 21 of EO 229 (1987)
"Additional amounts necessary for this purpose
CHAPTER V. FINANCING are hereby authorized to be appropriated in
excess of the initial funds, amounting to Fifty
Sec. 20. Agrarian Reform Fund. As provided in billion pesos (P50,000,000,000.00) provided
Proclamation No. 131 dated July 22, 1987, a under Sections 20 and 21 of Executive Order No.
special fund is created, known as The Agrarian 229.
Reform Fund, an initial amount of FIFTY BILLION
PESOS (P50 billion) to cover the estimated cost "The additional amount hereby authorized to be
of the CARP from 1987 to 1992 which shall be appropriated shall in no case exceed Fifty billion
sourced from the receipts of the sale of the pesos (P50,000,000,000.00).
assets of the Asset Privatization Trust (APT) and
receipts of sale of ill-gotten wealth recovered "Sources of funding or appropriations shall
through the Presidential Commission on Good include the following:
Government and such other sources as
9
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
"a) Proceeds of the sales of the Assets following: "(a) Proceeds of the sales of the
Privatization Trust; Privatization and Management Office (PMO); "(b)
All receipts from assets recovered and from sales
"b) All receipts from assets recovered and from of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the PCGG
sales of ill-gotten wealth recovered through the excluding the amount appropriated for
Presidential Commission on Good Government; compensation to victims of human rights
violations under the applicable law; ITCcAD "(c)
"c) Proceeds of the disposition of the properties Proceeds of the disposition and development of
of the Government in foreign countries, for the the properties of the Government in foreign
specific purposes of financing production credits, countries, for the specific purposes of financing
infrastructure and other support services required production credits, infrastructure and other
by this Act; support services required by this Act; "(d) All
income and collections of whatever form and
"d) All income and collections arising from the nature arising from the agrarian reform
agrarian reform operations, projects and operations, projects and programs of the DAR
programs of CARP implementing agencies; and other CARP implementing agencies; "(e)
Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines
"e) Portion of amounts accruing to the Philippines from all sources of official foreign aid grants and
from all sources of official foreign aid grants and concessional financing from all countries, to be
concessional financing from all countries, to be used for the specific purposes of financing
used for the specific purposes of financing productions, credits, infrastructures, and other
production, credits, infrastructures, and other support services required by this Act; "(f) Yearly
support services required by this Act; appropriations of no less than Five billion pesos
(P5,000,000,000.00) from the General
"f) Yearly appropriations of no less than Three Appropriations Act; "(g) Gratuitous financial
billion pesos (P3,000,000,000.00) from the assistance from legitimate sources; and (h) Other
General Appropriations Act; government funds not otherwise appropriated.
"All funds appropriated to implement the
"g) Other government funds not otherwise provisions of this Act shall be considered
appropriated." continuing appropriations during the period of its
implementation: Provided, That if the need
Section 2. This Act shall take effect within fifteen arises, specific amounts for bond redemptions,
(15) days following the completion of its interest payments and other existing obligations
publication in at least two (2) newspapers of arising from the implementation of the program
general circulation. shall be included in the annual General
Appropriations Act: Provided, further, That all
just compensation payments to landowners,
CARPER (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform including execution of judgments therefor, shall
Program Extension with Reforms) RA 9700 only be sourced from the Agrarian Reform Fund:
Provided, however, That just compensation
SECTION 21. Section 63 of Republic Act No. payments that cannot be covered within the
6657, as amended, is hereby further amended to approved annual budget of the program shall be
read as follows: "SEC. 63. Funding Source. chargeable against the debt service program of
The amount needed to further implement the the national government, or any unprogrammed
CARP as provided in this Act, until June 30, 2014, item in the General Appropriations Act: Provided,
upon expiration of funding under Republic Act No. finally, That after the completion of the land
8532 and other pertinent laws, shall be funded acquisition and distribution component of the
from the Agrarian Reform Fund and other funding CARP, the yearly appropriation shall be allocated
sources in the amount of at least One hundred fully to support services, agrarian justice delivery
fifty billion pesos (P150,000,000,000.00). and operational requirements of the DAR and the
"Additional amounts are hereby authorized to be other CARP implementing agencies."
appropriated as and when needed to augment
the Agrarian Reform Fund in order to fully Week 9 Agrarian Justice or the Resolution of
implement the provisions of this Act during the Agrarian Disputes
five (5)-year extension period. "Sources of
funding or appropriations shall include the
10
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
Quasi Judicial Powers of the DAR (Agrarian ruling or decision shall be final after the lapse of
Justice) the mechanisms to determine the fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof.
status of the land, entitlements of beneficiaries,
and other agrarian matters and disputes which SECTION 52. Frivolous Appeals. To discourage
may require mediation, conciliation, frivolous or dilatory appeals from the decisions or
determination or adjudication. This topic includes orders on the local or provincial levels, the DAR
actions by the DAR, the DAR Adjudication Board may impose reasonable penalties, including but
and the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court. not limited to fines or censures upon erring
parties.

SECTION 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. SECTION 53. Certification of the BARC. The
The DAR is hereby vested with the primary DAR shall not take cognizance of any agrarian
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian dispute or controversy unless a certification from
reform matters and shall have exclusive original the BARC that the dispute has been submitted to
jurisdiction over all matters involving the it for mediation and conciliation without any
implementation of agrarian reform except those success of settlement is presented: Provided,
falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the however, That if no certification is issued by the
Department of Agriculture (DA) and the BARC within thirty (30) days after a matter or
Department of Environment and Natural issue is submitted to it for mediation or
Resources (DENR). It shall not be bound by conciliation the case or dispute may be brought
technical rules of procedure and evidence but before the PARC.
shall proceed to hear and decide all cases,
disputes or controversies in a most expeditious Distinction between Cases in the
manner, employing all reasonable means to Administrative Implementation of the
ascertain the facts of every case in accordance Program (ALI) and Cases for Adjudication :
with justice and equity and the merits of the DAR Adm. Order No. 3, s. 2003 (2003 Rules
case. Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform on Agrarian Law Implementation [ALI] Case
rule of procedure to achieve a just, expeditious
and inexpensive determination for every action or While the DARAB may entertain petitions for
proceeding before it. It shall have the power to cancellation of CLOAs, as in this case, its
summon witnesses, administer oaths, take jurisdiction is, however, confined only to agrarian
testimony, require submission of reports, compel disputes. As explained in the case of Heirs of
the production of books and documents and Dela Cruz v. Heirs of Cruz 16 and reiterated in
answers to interrogatories and issue subpoena, the recent case of Bagongahasa v. Spouses Cesar
and subpoena duces tecum, and enforce its writs Caguin, 17 for the DARAB to acquire jurisdiction,
through sheriffs or other duly deputized officers. the controversy must relate to an agrarian
It shall likewise have the power to punish direct dispute between the landowners and tenants in
and indirect contempts in the same manner and whose favor CLOAs have been issued by the DAR
subject to the same penalties as provided in the Secretary, to wit: aETDIc
Rules of Court. Responsible farmer leaders shall
be allowed to represent themselves, their fellow The Court agrees with the petitioners' contention
farmers, or their organizations in any that, under Section 2(f), Rule II of the DARAB
proceedings before the DAR: Provided, however, Rules of Procedure, the DARAB has jurisdiction
That when there are two or more representatives over cases involving the issuance, correction and
for any individual or group, the representatives cancellation of CLOAs which were registered with
should choose only one among themselves to the LRA. However, for the DARAB to have
represent such party or group before any DAR jurisdiction in such cases, they must relate to an
proceedings. Notwithstanding an appeal to the agrarian dispute between landowner and tenants
Court of Appeals, the decision of the DAR shall be to whom CLOAs have been issued by the DAR
immediately executory. Secretary. The cases involving the issuance,
correction and cancellation of the CLOAs by the
SECTION 51. Finality of Determination. Any DAR in the administrative implementation of
case or controversy before it shall be decided agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations to
within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for parties who are not agricultural tenants or
resolution. Only one (1) motion for lessees are within the jurisdiction of the DAR and
reconsideration shall be allowed. Any order, not the DARAB. (Emphasis supplied)
11
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
proximate relation of farm operator and
Thus, it is not sufficient that the controversy beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and
involves the cancellation of a CLOA already lessee" in paragraph 2 lists certain forms of
registered with the Land Registration Authority. tenurial arrangements consistent with the phrase
What is of primordial consideration is the "whether leasehold, tenancy or stewardship, or
existence of an agrarian dispute between the otherwise" stated in paragraph 1 of the same
parties. section.

As defined in Section 3 (d) of R.A. No. 6657, an Moreover, it is a rule in statutory construction
agrarian dispute relates to "any controversy that every part of the statute must be interpreted
relating to tenurial arrangements, whether with reference to the context particularly, that
leasehold, tenancy, stewardship, or otherwise, every part of the statute must be interpreted
over lands devoted to agriculture, including together with the other parts, and kept
disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or subservient to the general intent of the whole
representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, enactment. 22 Therefore, in line with the purpose
maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange of recognizing the right of farmers, farmworkers
terms or conditions of such tenurial and landowners under the agrarian reform
arrangements. It includes any controversy program, both paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section 3
relating to compensation of lands acquired under (d) of R.A. No. 6657 should be understood within
the said Act and other terms and conditions of the context of tenurial arrangements, else the
transfer of ownership from landowners to intent of the law be subverted.
farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform
beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the ||| (Sutton v. Lim, G.R. No. 191660, [December
proximate relation of farm operator and 3, 2012], 700 PHIL 67-78)
beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and
lessee." DAR ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 03-03

Based on the above-cited provision, however, SUBJECT : 2003 Rules for Agrarian Law
petitioner posits that an agrarian dispute can be Implementation Cases
dissected into purely tenurial (paragraph 1 of
Section 3 [d]) and non-tenurial arrangements Pursuant to Sections 49 and 50 of Republic Act
(paragraph 2, Section 3 [d]). This theory (RA) No. 6657, or the "Comprehensive Agrarian
deserves no credence. TIDcEH Reform Law of 1988" (CARL), and in order to
foster a just, inexpensive, and expeditious
Verily, an agrarian dispute must be a controversy determination of agrarian cases, the following are
relating to a tenurial arrangement over lands the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) rules
devoted to agriculture. 18 Tenurial arrangements governing the adjudication of cases involving
pertain to agreements which set out the rights Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI):
between a landowner and a tenant, lessee, farm
worker or other agrarian reform beneficiary
involving agricultural land. Traditionally, tenurial SECTION 2. ALI cases. These Rules shall
arrangements are in the form of tenancy 19 or govern all cases arising from or involving:
leasehold arrangements. 20 However, other
forms such as a joint production agreement to 2.1. Classification and identification of
effect the implementation of CARP have been landholdings for coverage under the agrarian
recognized as a valid tenurial arrangement. 21 reform program and the initial issuance of
Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs)
Accordingly, paragraph 2 of Section 3 (d), by its and Emancipation Patents (EPs), including
explicit reference to controversies between protests or oppositions thereto and petitions for
landowners and farmworkers, tenants and other lifting of such coverage;
agrarian reform beneficiaries with respect to the
compensation of lands acquired under R.A. No. 2.2. Classification, identification, inclusion,
6657 or other terms and conditions relating to exclusion, qualification, or disqualification of
the transfer of such lands, undoubtedly implies potential/actual farmer-beneficiaries;
the existence of a tenurial arrangement. Also, the
phrase "whether the disputants stand in the
12
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
2.3. Subdivision surveys of land under SECTION 3. DARAB cases. These Rules
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform (CARP); shall not apply to cases falling within the
exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department
2.4. Recall, or cancellation of provisional lease of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)
rentals, Certificates of Land Transfers (CLTs) and and its Regional or Provincial Agrarian Reform
CARP Beneficiary Certificates (CBCs) in cases Adjudicators (RARAD or PARAD) which include:
outside the purview of Presidential Decree (PD)
No. 816, including the issuance, recall, or 3.1. The rights and obligations of persons,
cancellation of Emancipation Patents (EPs) or whether natural or juridical, engaged in the
Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) management, cultivation, and use of all
not yet registered with the Register of Deeds; agricultural lands covered by RA 6657 and other
related agrarian laws;
2.5. Exercise of the right of retention by
landowner; 3.2. The preliminary administrative
determination of reasonable and just
2.6. Application for exemption from coverage compensation of lands acquired under PD 27 and
under Section 10 of RA 6657; the CARP;

2.7. Application for exemption pursuant to 3.3. The annulment or cancellation of lease
Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44 contracts or deeds of sale or their amendments
(1990); involving lands under the administration and
disposition of the DAR or Land Bank of the
2.8. Exclusion from CARP coverage of Philippines (LBP);
agricultural land used for livestock, swine, and
poultry raising; 3.4. Those cases involving the ejectment and
dispossession of tenants and/or leaseholders;
2.9. Cases of exemption/exclusion of fishpond
and prawn farms from the coverage of CARP 3.5. Those cases involving the sale,
pursuant to RA 7881; alienation, pre-emption, and redemption of
agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARL
2.10. Issuance of Certificate of Exemption for or other agrarian laws;
land subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and
Compulsory Acquisition (CA) found unsuitable for 3.6. Those involving the correction, partition,
agricultural purposes; cancellation, secondary and subsequent
issuances of CLOAs and EPs which are registered
2.11. Application for conversion of agricultural with the Land Registration Authority;
land to residential, commercial, industrial, or
other non agricultural uses and purposes 3.7. Those cases involving the review of
including protests or oppositions thereto; leasehold rentals;

2.12. Determination of the rights of agrarian 3.8. Those cases involving the collection of
reform beneficiaries to homelots; amortizations on payments for lands awarded
under PD 27 (as amended), RA 3844 (as
2.13. Disposition of excess area of the amended), and RA 6657 (as amended) and other
tenant's/farmer-beneficiary's landholdings; related laws, decrees, orders, instructions, rules,
and regulations, as well as payment for
2.14. Increase in area of tillage of a residential, commercial, and industrial lots within
tenant/farmer-beneficiary; the settlement and resettlement areas under the
administration and disposition of the DAR;
2.15. Conflict of claims in landed estates
administered by DAR and its predecessors; and 3.9. Those cases involving the annulment or
rescission of lease contracts and deeds of sale,
2.16. Such other agrarian cases, disputes, and the cancellation or amendment of titles
matters or concerns referred to it by the pertaining to agricultural lands under the
Secretary of the DAR. administration and disposition of the DAR and
LBP; as well as EPs issued under PD 266,
13
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
Homestead Patents, Free Patents, and relation to the agrarian reform program. Clearly,
miscellaneous sales patents to settlers in the latter must be deemed to have been
settlement and re-settlement areas under the eliminated by its being subsumed in the broad
administration and disposition of the DAR; jurisdiction conferred on the Department of
ScHAIT Agrarian Reform. The intention evidently was to
transfer original jurisdiction to the Department of
3.10. Those cases involving boundary disputes Agrarian Reform, a proposition stressed by the
over lands under the administration and rules formulated and promulgated by the
disposition of the DAR and the LBP, which are Department for the implementation of the
transferred, distributed, and/or sold to tenant- executive orders just quoted. (Rules of the DAR
beneficiaries and are covered by deeds of sale, Adjudication Board, which took effect on March 8,
patents, and certificates of title; 1988) The rules included the creation of the
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board designed to
3.11. Those cases involving the determination exercise the adjudicatory functions of the
of title to agricultural lands where this issue is Department, and the allocation to it of ". . .
raised in an agrarian dispute by any of the original and exclusive jurisdiction over the
parties or a third person in connection with the subject matter vested upon it by law, and all
possession thereof for the purpose of preserving cases, disputes, controversies and matters or
the tenure of the agricultural lessee or actual incidents involving the implementation of the
tenant-farmer or farmer-beneficiaries and Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under
effecting the ouster of the interloper or intruder Executive Order No. 229, Executive Order No.
in one and the same proceeding; 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by
Republic Act No. 6289, Presidential Decree No.
3.12. Those cases previously falling under the 27 and other agrarian laws and their
original and exclusive jurisdiction of the defunct implementing rules and regulations." The
Court of Agrarian Relations under Section 12 of implementing rules also declare that
PD 946 except those cases falling under the "(s)pecifically, such jurisdiction shall extend over
proper courts or other quasi-judicial bodies; and but not be limited to . . . (that theretofore vested
in the Regional Trial Courts, i.e.) (c)ases
3.13. Such other agrarian cases, disputes, involving the rights and obligations of persons
matters or concerns referred to it by the engaged in the cultivation and use of agricultural
Secretary of the DAR. land covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP) and other agrarian
"||| (Vda. De Tangub v. Court of Appeals, laws . . .
UDK No. 9864, [December 3, 1990], 270
PHIL 88-98)
Republic Act No. 6657, was signed into law by
President Aquino on June 10, 1988 and became
The jurisdiction conferred on the Department of effective immediately after its "publication in two
Agrarian Reform, i.e.: (a) adjudication of all (2) national newspapers of general circulation" on
matters involving implementation of agrarian June 15, 1988. The Act makes references to and
reform; (b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and explicitly recognizes the effectivity and
land tenure related problems; and (c) approval or applicability of Presidential Decree No. 229. More
disapproval of the conversion, restructuring or particularly, the Act echoes the provisions of
readjustment of agricultural lands into Section 17 of Presidential Decree No. 229,
residential, commercial, industrial, and other investing the Department of Agrarian Reform
non-agricultural uses, is evidently quite as with original jurisdiction, generally, over all cases
extensive as that theretofore vested in the involving agrarian laws, although it restores to
Regional Trial Court by Presidential Decree No. the Regional Trial Court, limited jurisdiction over
946, which extended to the rights and obligations two groups of cases. The Regional Trial Courts
of persons in the cultivation and use of have not, however, been completely divested of
agricultural land, and other matters affecting jurisdiction over agrarian reform matters. Section
tenant-farmers, agricultural lessees, settlers, 56 of RA 6657, on the other hand, confers
owner-cultivators, farms' cooperatives or "special jurisdiction" on "Special Agrarian Court,"
organizations under laws, Presidential Decrees, which are Regional Trial Courts designated by the
Orders, instructions, Rules and Regulations in Supreme Court at least one (1) branch within
14
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
each province to act as such. These Regional administration of the laws, carrying them into
Trial Courts qua Special Agrarian Courts have, practical operation and enforcing their due
according to Section 57 of the same law, original observance, while the second is judicial and
and exclusive jurisdiction over: 1) "all petitions involves the determination of rights and
for the determination of just compensation to obligations of the parties. 87
land-owners," and 2) "the prosecution of all
criminal offenses under . . . (the) Act." In these Pursuant to its judicial mandate of achieving a
cases, "(t)he Rules of Court shall apply . . . just, expeditious and inexpensive determination
unless modified by . . . (the) Act. of every action or proceeding before it, 88 the
DAR adopted the DARAB Revised Rules, Rule II
It is relevant to mention in this connection that (Jurisdiction of the Adjudication Board) of which
(1) appeals from decisions of the Special Agrarian provides:
Courts "may be taken by filing a petition for
review with the Court of Appeals within fifteen SECTION 1. Primary, Original and Appellate
(15) days from receipt or notice of the decision, . Jurisdiction. The Agrarian Reform Adjudication
. ." (Sec. 60) and (2) appeals from any "decision, Board shall have primary jurisdiction, both
order, award or ruling of the DAR on any agrarian original and appellate, to determine and
dispute or on any matter pertaining to the adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases,
application, implementation, enforcement, or controversies, and matters or incidents involving
interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws the implementation of the Comprehensive
on agrarian reform may be brought to the Court Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act No.
of Appeals by certiorari (This mode of appeal is 6657, Executive Order Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A,
sui generis. It is only instance when an appeal by Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic
certiorari may be taken to the Court of Appeals. Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and
Heretofore, appeals by certiorari were authorized other agrarian laws and their implementing rules
only when taken to the Supreme Court) except and regulations.
as otherwise provided . . . within fifteen (15)
days from receipt of a copy thereof," the Specifically, such jurisdiction shall extend over
"findings of fact of the DAR . . . (being) final and but not be limited to the following:
conclusive if based on substantial evidence."
(Sec. 54) a) Cases involving the rights and obligations of
persons engaged in the cultivation and use of
Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation agricultural land covered by the Comprehensive
versus Juan Amante et.al. (G.R. No. 112526, Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and other
March 16, 2005) agrarian laws;

whether a property is subject to CARP coverage b) Cases involving the valuation of land, and
lies with the DAR Secretary. Section 50 of R.A. determination and payment of just
No. 6657 provides that: compensation, fixing and collection of lease
rentals, disturbance compensation, amortization
SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. payments, and similar disputes concerning the
The DAR is hereby vested with primary functions of the Land Bank;
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian
reform matters and shall have exclusive original c) Cases involving the annulment or cancellation
jurisdiction over all matters involving the of orders or decisions of DAR officials other than
implementation of agrarian reform, except those the Secretary, lease contracts or deeds of sale or
falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the their amendments under the administration and
Department of Agriculture (DA) and the disposition of the DAR and LBP;
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR). d) Cases arising from, or connected with
membership or representation in compact farms,
xxx xxx xxx farmers' cooperatives and other registered
farmers' associations or organizations, related to
The DAR's jurisdiction under Section 50 of R.A. land covered by the CARP and other agrarian
No. 6657 is two-fold. The first is essentially laws;
executive and pertains to the enforcement and
15
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
e) Cases involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, Awards (CLOAs) not yet registered with the
foreclosure, pre-emption and redemption of Register of Deeds;
agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP
or other agrarian laws; (e) Exercise of the right of retention by
landowner; . . . (Emphasis supplied)
f) Cases involving the issuance of Certificate of
Land Transfer (CLT), Certificate of Land Thus, the power to determine whether a property
Ownership Award (CLOA) and Emancipation is agricultural and subject to CARP coverage
Patent (EP) and the administrative correction together with the identification, qualification or
thereof; disqualification of farmer-beneficiaries lies with
the DAR Secretary. 90
g) And such other agrarian cases, disputes,
matters or concerns referred to it by the Significantly, the DAR had already determined
Secretary of the DAR. SaTAED that the properties are subject to expropriation
under the CARP and has distributed the same to
Provided, however, that matters involving strictly the farmer-beneficiaries.
the administrative implementation of the CARP
and other agrarian laws and regulations, shall be nitially, the LBP forwarded the two Compulsory
the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by Acquisition Claim Folders (CACF) covering the
the Secretary of the DAR. (Emphasis supplied) subject properties to the DARAB for summary
proceedings for the sole purpose of determining
On the other hand, Administrative Order No. 06- just compensation. SRRDC then sent a letter to
00, 89 which provides for the Rules of Procedure the LBP claiming that the subject properties were
for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases, exempt from CARP coverage and subject of a
govern the administrative function of the DAR. pending petition for land conversion. As a
Under said Rules of Procedure, the DAR Secretary consequence, the DARAB asked the DAR
has exclusive jurisdiction over classification and Secretary to first resolve the issues raised by
identification of landholdings for coverage under SRRDC before it can proceed with the land
the CARP, including protests or oppositions valuation proceedings. In response, the DAR,
thereto and petitions for lifting of coverage. through the Undersecretary for Operations and
Section 2 of the said Rules specifically provides, the Regional Director of Region IV, submitted its
inter alia, that: report stating that: (1) the property is subject to
compulsory acquisition by virtue of the Notice of
SECTION 2. Cases Covered. These Rules shall Coverage issued on August 11, 1989, and Notice
govern cases falling within the exclusive of Acquisition issued on December 12, 1989, and
jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary which shall that it was subject to CARP coverage per Section
include the following: IV D of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of
1990; and (2) there was no pending petition for
(a) Classification and identification of land conversion involving the subject property.
landholdings for coverage under the When SRRDC petitioned the DARAB to resolve
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program the issue of exemption from coverage, it was
(CARP), including protests or oppositions thereto only then that the DARAB took cognizance of said
aid petitions for lifting of coverage; issue. 91

(b) Identification, qualification or disqualification


of potential farmer-beneficiaries;
As the DARAB succinctly pointed out, it was
(c) Subdivision surveys of lands under CARP; SRRDC that initiated and invoked the DARAB's
jurisdiction to pass upon the question of CARP
(d) Issuance, recall or cancellation of Certificates coverage. As stated by the DARAB:
of Land Transfer (CLTs) and CARP Beneficiary
Certificates (CBCs) in cases outside the purview 4.5.2.2. The ISSUE ON CARP COVERAGE was
of Presidential Decree (PD) No. 816, including the initiated and incorporated in said proceeding, at
issuance, recall or cancellation of Emancipation the instance of petitioner itself, by filing a petition
Patents (EPs) or Certificates of Land Ownership dated March 18, 1991, . . . Prayed therein were
that DARAB:
16
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
4.5.6. Public respondents (DAR/DARAB) are not
1. Take cognizance and assume jurisdiction over unmindful of the rule that matter of jurisdiction
the question of CARP coverage of the subject may be raised at any stage of the proceeding.
parcels of land; But for two serious considerations, the
applicability thereof in the case at bar should not
2. Defer or hold in abeyance the proceedings for be allowed.
administrative valuation of the subject properties
pending determination of the question of CARP 4.5.6.1. The fact [part (municipal/industrial)
coverage; and/or watershed] upon which the jurisdictional
issue interchangeably hinges were not
3. Allow respondent SRRDC to adduce evidence established during the hearing of the case. No
in support of its position that the subject parcels proof was adduced. That the matter of CARP
of land are not covered by the CARP beginning on coverage is strictly administrative implementation
the scheduled hearing date of April 4, 1991" (p. of CARP and, therefore, beyond the competence
3; emphasis and underscoring supplied). of DARAB, belonging, as it does, to the DAR
Secretary, was not even alleged, either before
Upon persistent request of petitioner SRRDC, it DARAB or the Honorable Court of Appeals, the
was accommodated by DARAB and a counsel of numerous petitions/incidents filed
SRRDC even took the witness stand. Its lawyers notwithstanding. Be it that as it may, the records
were always in attendance during the scheduled of the case show that initially DARAB refused to
hearings until it was time for SRRDC to present take cognizance thereof and, in fact, forwarded
its own evidence. the issue of CARP coverage to the office of the
DAR Secretary. It was only when it was returned
4.5.2.3. But, as earlier stated, despite the open to DARAB by said office that proceedings thereon
session proddings by DARAB for SRRDC to submit commenced pursuant to Section 1(g) of Rule II of
evidence and the rescheduling for, allegedly, they the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure.
are still collating the evidence, nay, the request
that it be allowed to adduce evidence, none was 4.5.6.2. Petitioner is now estopped from assailing
adduced and this constrained public respondent the ,jurisdiction of DARAB. First, it expressly
to declare SRRDC as having waived its right to acknowledged the same, in fact invoked it, when
present evidence. And, after the remaining it filed its petition (Annex "4"); and, second,
parties were heard, the hearing was formally during the scheduled hearings, SRRDC, through
terminated. its counsel, actively participated, one of its
counsel (sic) even testifying. It may not now be
xxx xxx xxx allowed to impugn the jurisdiction of public
respondent . . . 92 (Emphasis Supplied)
4.5.3. Needless to state, the jurisdictional
objection (CARP coverage), now being raised In CA-G.R. SP No. 27234, the CA likewise found
herein was not one of the original matters in that it was SRRDC that called upon the DARAB to
issue. Principally, DARAB was called upon under determine the issue and it, in fact, actively
Section 16 of Republic Act No. 6657 to resolve a participated in the proceedings before it. 93 It
land valuation case. But SRRDC itself insisted was SRRDC's own act of summoning the DARAB's
that DARAB should take cognizance thereof in the authority that cured whatever jurisdictional
same land valuation proceeding. And, SRRDC, defect it now raises. It is elementary that the
through its lawyers, actively participated in the active participation of a party in a case pending
hearings conducted. against him before a court or a quasi-judicial
body, is tantamount to a recognition of that
4.5.4. It was only when an adverse decision was court's or body's jurisdiction and a willingness to
rendered by DARAB that the jurisdictional issue abide by the resolution of the case and will bar
was raised in the petition for review it filed with said party from later on impugning the court's or
the Honorable Court of Appeals. It was also only body's jurisdiction. 94
then that petitioner presented proof/evidence.
Moreover, the issue of jurisdiction was raised by
xxx xxx xxx SRRDC only before the CA. It was never
presented or discussed before the DARAB for
obvious reasons, i.e., it was SRRDC itself that
17
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
invoked the latter's jurisdiction. As a rule, when a be completed in not more than one hundred
party adopts a certain theory, and the case is eighty (180) days from the date of registration of
tried and decided upon that theory in the court the title in the name of the Republic of the
below, he will not be permitted to change his Philippines: Provided, That the emancipation
theory on appeal. 95 Points of law, theories, patents, the certificates of land ownership award,
issues and arguments not brought to the and other titles issued under any agrarian reform
attention of the lower court need not be, and program shall be indefeasible and imprescriptible
ordinarily will not be, considered by a reviewing after one (1) year from its registration with the
court, as these cannot be raised for the first time Office of the Registry of Deeds, subject to the
at such late stage. 96 To permit SRRDC to conditions, limitations and qualifications of this
change its theory on appeal would not only be Act, the property registration decree, and other
unfair to Amante, et al. but would also be pertinent laws. The emancipation patents or the
offensive to the basic scales of fair play, justice certificates of land ownership award being titles
and due process. 97 brought under the operation of the torrens
system, are conferred with the same
Finally, the Court notes that then DAR Secretary indefeasibility and security afforded to all titles
Benjamin T. Leong issued a Memorandum on July under the said system, as provided for by
11, 1991, ordering the opening of a trust account Presidential Decree No. 1529, as amended by
in favor of SRRDC. In Land Bank of the Republic Act No. 6732.
Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, this Court struck
down as void DAR Administrative Circular No. 9, "It is the ministerial duty of the Registry of Deeds
Series of 1990, providing for the opening of trust to register the title of the land in the name of the
accounts in lieu of the deposit in cash or in bonds Republic of the Philippines, after the Land Bank of
contemplated in Section 16(e) of R.A. No. 6657. the Philippines (LBP) has certified that the
As a result, the DAR issued Administrative Order necessary deposit in the name of the landowner
No. 2, Series of 1996, converting trust accounts constituting full payment in cash or in bond with
in the name of landowners into deposit accounts. due notice to the landowner and the registration
98 Thus, the trust account opened by the LBP per of the certificate of land ownership award issued
instructions of DAR Secretary Benjamin T. Leong to the beneficiaries, and to cancel previous titles
should be converted to a deposit account, to be pertaining thereto.
retroactive in application in order to rectify the
error committed by the DAR in opening a trust "Identified and qualified agrarian reform
account and to grant the landowners the benefits beneficiaries, based on Section 22 of Republic Act
concomitant to payment in cash or LBP bonds No. 6657, as, amended, shall have usufructuary
prior to the ruling of the Court in Land Bank of rights over the awarded land as soon as the DAR
the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals. The account takes possession of such land, and such right
shall earn a 12% interest per annum from the shall not be diminished even pending the
time the LBP opened a trust account up to the awarding of the emancipation patent or the
time said account was actually converted into certificate of land ownership award.
cash and LBP bonds deposit accounts.
"All cases involving the cancellation of registered
emancipation patents, certificates of land
Authority of the DAR Secretary to nullify ownership award, and other titles issued under
titles under the CARP (Sec. 24 of RA 6657 as any agrarian reform program are within the
amended by Sec. 9 of RA 9700) exclusive and original jurisdiction of the
Secretary of the DAR."
Section 9. Section 24 of Republic Act No.
6657, as amended, is hereby further DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
amended to read as follows: petitioner, vs. ROBERTO J. CUENCA et. al,
respondents. [G.R. No. 154112. September
"SEC. 24. Award to Beneficiaries. - The rights and 23, 2004.
responsibilities of the beneficiaries shall
commence from their receipt of a duly registered hen came Executive Order No. 229. 17 Under
emancipation patent or certificate of land Section 17 thereof, the DAR shall exercise "quasi-
ownership award and their actual physical judicial powers to determine and adjudicate
possession of the awarded land. Such award shall agrarian reform matters, and shall have exclusive
18
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
jurisdiction over all matters involving (b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land
implementation of agrarian reform, except those tenure related problems; and
falling under the exclusive original jurisdiction of
the DENR and the Department of Agriculture (c) approval or disapproval of the conversion,
[DA]." The DAR shall also have the "powers to restructuring or readjustment of agricultural
punish for contempt and to issue subpoena, lands into residential, commercial, industrial, and
subpoena duces tecum and writs to enforce its other non-agricultural uses. cEaCAH
orders or decisions."
The foregoing provision was as broad as those
In Quismundo v. CA, 18 this provision was "theretofore vested in the Regional Trial Court by
deemed to have repealed Section 12(a) and (b) Presidential Decree No. 946," as the Court ruled
of Presidential Decree No. 946, which vested the in Vda. de Tangub v. CA, 19 which we quote:
then Courts of Agrarian Relations with "original ". . . The intention evidently was to transfer
exclusive jurisdiction over cases and questions original jurisdiction to the Department of
involving rights granted and obligations imposed Agrarian Reform, a proposition stressed by the
by presidential issuances promulgated in relation rules formulated and promulgated by the
to the agrarian reform program." Department for the implementation of the
executive orders just quoted. The rules included
Under Section 4 of Executive Order No. 129-A, the creation of the Agrarian Reform Adjudication
the DAR was also made "responsible for Board designed to exercise the adjudicatory
implementing the Comprehensive Agrarian functions of the Department, and the allocation
Reform Program." In accordance with Section 5 to it of
of the same EO, it possessed the following
powers and functions: '. . . [O]riginal and exclusive jurisdiction over the
subject matter vested upon it by law, and all
"(b) Implement all agrarian laws, and for this cases, disputes, controversies and matters or
purpose, punish for contempt and issue incidents involving the implementation of the
subpoena, subpoena duces tecum, writs of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under
execution of its decisions, and other legal Executive Order No. 229, Executive Order No.
processes to ensure successful and expeditious 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by
program implementation; the decisions of the Republic Act No. 6289, Presidential Decree No.
Department may in proper cases, be appealed to 27 and other agrarian laws and their
the Regional Trial Courts but shall be immediately implementing rules and regulations.'
executory notwithstanding such appeal;
"The implementing rules also declare that
xxx xxx xxx '(s)pecifically, such jurisdiction shall extend over
but not be limited to . . . (that theretofore vested
"(h) Provide free legal services to agrarian reform in the Regional Trial Courts, i.e.) (c)ases
beneficiaries and resolve agrarian conflicts and involving the rights and obligations of persons
land-tenure related problems as may be provided engaged in the cultivation and use of agricultural
for by law; land covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP) and other agrarian
xxx xxx xxx laws . . ." 20

"(l) Have exclusive authority to approve or In the same case, the Court also held that the
disapprove conversion of agricultural lands for jurisdictional competence of the DAR had further
residential, commercial, industrial, and other land been clarified by RA 6657 thus:
uses as may be provided . . ."
". . . The Act [RA 6657] makes references to and
The above grant of jurisdiction to the DAR covers explicitly recognizes the effectivity and
these areas: applicability of Presidential Decree No. 229. More
particularly, the Act echoes the provisions of
(a) adjudication of all matters involving Section 17 of Presidential Decree No. 229, supra,
implementation of agrarian reform; investing the Department of Agrarian Reform
with original jurisdiction, generally, over all cases
involving agrarian laws, although, as shall shortly
19
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
be pointed out, it restores to the Regional Trial Allegations of the Complaint
Court, limited jurisdiction over two groups of A careful perusal of respondent's Complaint 24
cases. Section 50 reads as follows: shows that the principal averments and reliefs
prayed for refer not to the "pure question of
'SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. law" spawned by the alleged unconstitutionality
The DAR is hereby vested with primary of EO 405 but to the annulment of the DAR's
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian Notice of Coverage. Clearly, the main thrust of
reform matters and shall have exclusive original the allegations is the propriety of the Notice of
jurisdiction over all matters involving the Coverage, as may be gleaned from the following
implementation of agrarian reform, except those averments, among others:
falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
Department of Agriculture [DA] and the "6. This implementation of CARP in the
Department of Environment and Natural landholding of the [respondent] is contrary to law
Resources [DENR]. and, therefore, violates [respondent's]
constitutional right not to be deprived of his
xxx xxx xxx property without due process of law. The
coverage of [respondent's] landholding under
'It shall have the power to summon witnesses, CARP is NO longer with authority of law. If at all,
administer oaths, take testimony, require the implementation of CARP in the landholding of
submission of reports, compel the production of [respondent] should have commenced and
books and documents and answers to [been] completed between June 1988 to June
interrogatories and issue subpoena and subpoena 1992 as provided for in CARL, to wit: . . .;
duces tecum and to enforce its writs through
sheriffs or other duly deputized officers. It shall "7. Moreover, the placing of [respondent's]
likewise have the power to punish direct and landholding under CARP as of 21 September
indirect contempt in the same manner and 1999 is without the imprimatur of the Presidential
subject to the same penalties as provided in the Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) and the
Rules of Court.'" 21 Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating
Committee (PARCOM) as mandated and required
Nonetheless, we have held that the RTCs have by law pursuant to R.A. 7905 . . .;
not been completely divested of jurisdiction over
agrarian reform matters. Section 56 of RA 6657 xxx xxx xxx
confers special jurisdiction on "Special Agrarian
Courts," which are actually RTCs designated as "9. Under the provisions of CARL, it is the PARC
such by the Supreme Court. 22 Under Section 57 and/or the DAR, and not . . . Land Bank, which is
of the same law, these Special Agrarian Courts authorized to preliminarily determine the value of
have original and exclusive jurisdiction over the the lands as compensation therefor, thus . . .;
following matters:
xxx xxx xxx
"1) 'all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to land-owners,' and "12. That the aforementioned NOTICE OF
COVERAGE with intendment and purpose of
"2) 'the prosecution of all criminal offenses under acquiring [respondent's] aforementioned land is a
. . . [the] Act.'" gross violation of law (PD 399 dated 28 February
1974 which is still effective up to now) inasmuch
as [respondent's] land is traversed by and a road
frontage as admitted by the DAR's technician and
The above delineation of jurisdiction remains in defendant FORTUNADO (MARO) . . .;"
place to this date. Administrative Circular No. 29-
2002 23 of this Court stresses the distinction "13. That as reflected in said Pre-Ocular
between the quasi-judicial powers of the DAR Inspection Report, copy of which is hereto
under Sections 50 and 55 of RA 6657 and the attached as annex 'D' forming part hereof,
jurisdiction of the Special Agrarian Courts [respondent's] land is above eighteen percent
referred to by Sections 56 and 57 of the same (18%) slope and therefore, automatically
law. exempted and excluded from the operation of
Rep. Act 6657, . . . 25 (Italics supplied)
20
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
Determination of an Agrarian Dispute for
In contrast, the 14-page Complaint touches on cases filed in courts and prosecutors
the alleged unconstitutionality of EO 405 by 7 office [Sec. 19, RA 9700]
merely making these two allegations:
SECTION 19. Section 50 of Republic Act No.
"10. Executive Order No. 405 dated 14 June 1990 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended by
(issued by the then President Corazon Aquino) is adding Section 50-A to read as follows: "SEC. 50-
unconstitutional for it plainly amends, modifies A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute.
and/or repeals CARL. On 14 June 1990, then No court or prosecutor's office shall take
President Corazon Aquino had no longer law- cognizance of cases pertaining to the
making powers as the Philippine Congress was by implementation of the CARP except those
then already organized, existing and operational provided under Section 57 of Republic Act No.
pursuant to the 1987 Constitution. A copy of the 6657, as amended. If there is an allegation from
said Executive Order is hereto attached as Annex any of the parties that the case is agrarian in
'B' forming part hereof. nature and one of the parties is a farmer,
farmworker, or tenant, the case shall be
"11. Our constitutional system of separation of automatically referred by the judge or the
powers renders the said Executive Order No. 405 prosecutor to the DAR which shall determine and
unconstitutional and all valuations made, and to certify within fifteen (15) days from referral
be made, by the defendant Land Bank pursuant whether an agrarian dispute exists: Provided,
thereto are null and void and without force and That from the determination of the DAR, an
effect. Indispensably and ineludibly, all related aggrieved party shall have judicial recourse. In
rules, regulations, orders and other issuances cases referred by the municipal trial court and
issued or promulgated pursuant to said Executive the prosecutor's office, the appeal shall be with
Order No. 405 are also null and void ab initio and the proper regional trial court, and in cases
without force and effect." 26 referred by the regional trial court, the appeal
shall be to the Court of Appeals. "In cases where
We stress that the main subject matter raised by regular courts or quasi-judicial bodies have
private respondent before the trial court was not competent jurisdiction, agrarian reform
the issue of compensation (the subject matter of beneficiaries or identified beneficiaries and/or
EO 405 27 ). Note that no amount had yet been their associations shall have legal standing and
determined nor proposed by the DAR. Hence, interest to intervene concerning their individual
there was no occasion to invoke the court's or collective rights and/or interests under the
function of determining just compensation. 28 CARP. "The fact of non-registration of such
associations with the Securities and Exchange
To be sure, the issuance of the Notice of Commission, or Cooperative Development
Coverage 29 constitutes the first necessary step Authority, or any concerned government agency
towards the acquisition of private land under the shall not be used against them to deny the
CARP. Plainly then, the propriety of the Notice existence of their legal standing and interest in a
relates to the implementation of the CARP, which case filed before such courts and quasi-judicial
is under the quasi-judicial jurisdiction of the DAR. bodies."
Thus, the DAR could not be ousted from its
authority by the simple expediency of appending Sec 57, The role of the Special Agrarian
an allegedly constitutional or legal dimension to Courts in land valuation and penal
an issue that is clearly agrarian. cSDHEC provisions

In view of the foregoing, there is no need to ||| (Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals,
address the other points pleaded by respondent G.R. No. 132767, [January 18, 2000], 379 PHIL
in relation to the jurisdictional issue. We need 141-149)
only to point that in case of doubt, the
jurisprudential trend is for courts to refrain from Four parcels of land owned by petitioner bank
resolving a controversy involving matters that was placed under the comprehensive agrarian
demand the special competence of administrative reform program by the Department of Agrarian
agencies, "even if the question[s] involved [are] Reform pursuant to RA No. 6657. Petitioner
also judicial in character," 30 as in this case. rejected the valuation made by the Land Bank
and the Department of Agrarian Reform
21
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
Adjudication Board (DARAB) and questioned the determination. For that matter, the law may
same with the Regional Trial Court in a petition provide that the decision of the DAR is final and
for determination of the just compensation. The unappealable. Nevertheless, resort to the courts
same was dismissed for being filed beyond the cannot be foreclosed on the theory that courts
15-day reglementary period. The dismissal was are the guarantors of the legality of
affirmed on appeal by the Court of Appeals. Its administrative action.
motion for reconsideration having been denied
petitioner resorted to this recourse claiming that Under R.A. No. 6657, the Land Bank of the
DAR adjudicators have no jurisdiction to Philippines is charged with the preliminary
determine the amount of just compensation the determination of the value of lands placed under
same being lodged with the Regional Trial Courts land reform program and the compensation to be
and as such the petition can be filed even beyond paid for their taking. It initiates the acquisition of
the 15-day reglementary period. agricultural lands by notifying the landowner of
the government's intention to acquire his land
The Department of Agrarian Reform, under and the valuation of the same as determined by
Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657, has the jurisdiction the Land Bank. Within 30 days from receipt of
to preliminary determine the value of the lands notice, the landowner shall inform the DAR of his
placed under land reform and the amount of just acceptance or rejection of the offer. In the event
compensation to be paid for the taking, and that the landowner rejects the offer, a summary
appeal, under Section 57 of the same law, may administrative proceeding is held by the
be taken to the Regional Trial Courts designated provincial (PARAD), the regional (RARAD) or the
as Special Agrarian Courts within 15 days from central (DARAB) adjudicator, as the case may be,
receipt of the notice thereof. The first refers to depending on the value of the land, for the
administrative proceedings, while the second purpose of determining the compensation for the
refers to judicial actions. Thus, the power to land. The landowner, the Land Bank, and other
decide just compensation cases is vested in the interested parties are then required to submit
courts provided that the same is filed within the evidence as to the just compensation for the
reglementary period. The Court affirmed the land. The DAR adjudicator decides the case
decision of the Court of Appeals. within 30 days after it is submitted for decision.
If the landowner finds the price unsatisfactory, he
There is nothing contradictory between the may bring the matter directly to the appropriate
provision of 50 granting the DAR primary Regional Trial Court. Accordingly, as the petition
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate "agrarian in the Regional Trial Court was filed beyond the
reform matters" and exclusive original jurisdiction 15-day period provided in Rule XIII, 11 of the
over "all matters involving the implementation of Rules of Procedure of the DARAB, the trial court
agrarian reform," which includes the correctly dismissed the case and the Court of
determination of questions of just compensation, Appeals correctly affirmed the order of dismissal.
and the provision of 57 granting Regional Trial
Courts "original and exclusive jurisdiction" over
(1) all petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowner, and (2) prosecutions
of criminal offenses under R.A. No. 6657. The LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,
first refers to administrative proceedings while petitioner, vs. RAYMUNDA MARTINEZ,
the second refers to judicial proceedings. In respondent. [G.R. No. 169008. August 14,
accordance with settled principles of 2007.
administrative law, primary jurisdiction is vested
in the DAR as an administrative agency to 1) whether or not petitioner may file the instant
determine in a preliminary manner the appeal solely through its legal department;
reasonable compensation to be paid for the lands (2) whether or not petitioner has committed
taken under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform forum shopping; and
Program, but such determination is subject to (3) whether or not the PARAD, in this case,
challenge in the courts. The jurisdiction of the gravely abused its discretion when it issued a
Regional Trial Courts is not any less "original and writ of execution despite the pendency of LBP's
exclusive" because the question is first passed petition for fixing of just compensation with the
upon by the DAR, as the judicial proceedings are SAC.
not a continuation of the administrative
22
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Teresita the General Appropriations Act as may be
Panlilio-Luciano, 20 the Court explained in one of determined by the Government Corporate
its resolutions that nothing in the LBP charter Counsel. (Emphasis supplied.)
expressly authorizes the LBP Legal Department to
appear in behalf of LBP in any court or quasi- The above provision mandates the OGCC, and
judicial proceeding and that the Administrative not the LBP Legal Department, as the principal
Code of 1987 mandates the OGCC, not the LBP law office of the LBP. Moreover, it establishes the
Legal Department, to act as the principal law proper hierarchical order in that the LBP Legal
office of the LBP, thus: Department remains under the control and
supervision of the OGCC. Indeed, if we were to
There is nothing in the LBP charter that expressly accede to the position of Attys. Beramo and
authorizes the said Legal Department to appear Berbao that the mere constitution of an LBP
in behalf of LBP in any court or quasi-judicial Legal Department ipso facto confers upon it the
proceeding. Attys. Beramo and Berbao insist capacity to litigate cases in behalf of LBP in any
that the creation of the LBP Legal Department legal proceeding, then the role of the OGCC as
"necessarily entails conferment of the power to the principal law office of all GOCCs would be
represent [LBP] in any and all cases" and rendered nugatory in all GOCCs with Legal
consequently confers the power to "exercise such Departments.
incidental powers or perform such acts as are
necessary to make the conferred power At the same time, the existence of the OGCC
effective." At first blush, this is not an does not render the LBP Legal Department a
unreasonable position; yet, we are precluded superfluity. We do not doubt that the LBP Legal
from adopting the same, owing to the explicit Department carries out vital legal services to
proviso in Section 10, Book IV, Title III, Chapter LBP. However, the performance of such functions
3 of the Administrative Code of 1987, which cannot deprive the OGCC's role as overseer of
reads: STcADa the LBP Legal Department and its mandate of
exercising control and supervision over all GOCC
Section 10. Office of the Government Corporate legal departments. For the purpose of filing
Counsel. The Office of the Government petitions and making submissions before this
Corporate Counsel (OGCC) shall act as the Court, such control and supervision imply express
principal law office of all government-owned or participation by the OGCC as principal legal
controlled corporations, their subsidiaries, other counsel of LBP. Our succeeding disposition of the
corporate offsprings and government acquired OGCC's pending Manifestation would delve in
asset corporations and shall exercise control and detail the extent of the OGCC's required
supervision over all legal departments or participation. But suffice for now, Attys. Beramo
divisions maintained separately and such powers and Berbao are in error when they assert that
and functions as are now or may hereafter be the OGCC's participation in the present petition is
provided by law. In the exercise of such control not required at all. DEcITS
and supervision, the Government Corporate
Counsel shall promulgate rules and regulations to
effectively implement the objectives of the Office.
It should also be noted that the aforementioned
The OGCC is authorized to receive the attorney's Section 10, Book IV, Title III, Chapter 3 of the
fees adjudged in favor of their client government- Administrative Code of 1987 authorizes the OGCC
owned or controlled corporations, their to receive the attorney's fees adjudged in favor
subsidiaries/other corporate offsprings and of their client GOCCs, such fees accruing to a
government acquired asset corporations. These special fund of the OGCC. Evidently, the non-
attorney's fees shall accrue to a Special fund of participation of the OGCC in litigations pursued
the OGCC, and shall be deposited in an by GOCCs would deprive the former of its due
authorized government depository as trust funding as authorized by law. Hence, this is
liability and shall be made available for another reason why we cannot sustain Attys.
expenditure without the need for a Cash Beramo and Berbao's position that the OGCC
Disbursement Ceiling, for purposes of upgrading need not participate in litigations pursued by LBP.
facilities and equipment, granting of employee's
incentive pay and other benefits, and defraying It may strike as disruptive to the flow of a
such other incentive expenses not provided for in GOCC's daily grind to require the participation of
23
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
the OGCC as its principal law office, or the there would be no impediment to the litigation to
exercise of control and supervision by the OGCC maintain. TEHIaD
over the acts of the GOCC's legal departments.
For reasons such as proximity and comfort, the Of course, if the principle that the OGCC is the
GOCC may find it convenient to rely instead on principal law office of GOCCs proves persistently
its in-house legal departments, or more inconvenient in practice, it would be up to
irregularly, on private practitioners. Yet the Congress to amend the Administrative Code, or
statutory role of the OGCC as principal law office for the OGCC itself to promulgate rules and
of GOCCs is one of long-standing, and we have to regulations that would alleviate the problems in
recognize such function as part of public policy. practice without abdicating its legal mandate. The
Since the jurisdiction of the OGCC includes all succeeding discussion on the OGCC's pending
GOCCs, its perspective is less myopic than that Manifestation involves a review of the OGCC's
maintained by a particular legal department of a current practices, including the present rules and
GOCC. It is not inconceivable that left to its own regulations. 21
devices, the legal department of a given GOCC
may adopt a legal position inconsistent with or In the present controversy, we find nothing in the
detrimental to other GOCCs. Since GOCCs fall record which shows that the OGCC has entered
within the same governmental framework, it its appearance as the principal legal counsel of
would be detrimental to have GOCCs foisted into petitioner LBP or that it has expressly given its
adversarial positions by their respective legal conformity to the LBP Legal Department's filing of
departments. Hence, there is indubitable wisdom the instant petition
in having one overseer over all these legal
departments which would ensure that the legal
positions adopted by the GOCCs would not Finally and most importantly, we find petitioner
conflict with each other or the government. not entitled to the grant of a writ of certiorari by
the appellate court because the Office of the
Attys. Beramo and Berbao claim that the LBP PARAD did not gravely abuse its discretion when
Legal Department had handled some cases which it undertook to execute the September 4, 2002
had been decided by the Court and that the decision. Rule XIII, Section 11 of the DARAB
OGCC has never been involved in the litigation Rules of Procedure, 26 which was then
and handling of LBP's appellate cases involving applicable, provides that:
specialized fields such as banking and agrarian
reform. These points should not be dismissed Section 11. Land Valuation and Preliminary
lightly, but then again, years of wrong practice Determination and Payment of Just
do not make a statutory right. The Administrative Compensation. The decision of the Adjudicator
Code of 1987, adopting a decades-old legal on land valuation and preliminary determination
precept, expressly provides that it is the OGCC and payment of just compensation shall not be
that acts as the principal law office of GOCCs and appealable to the Board but shall be brought
exercises control and supervision over the legal directly to the Regional Trial Courts designated as
departments of GOCCs. If the LBP Legal Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen (15) days
Department has long operated as an independent from receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall
fiefdom absent any control, supervision, or even be entitled to only one motion for
concern from the OGCC, then this practice must reconsideration.
end now. As to the pending litigations of LBP
which are [handled] exclusively by the LBP Legal In Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals
Department, it shall be the individual courts with 27 and in Department of Agrarian Reform
jurisdiction over those cases that shall decide Adjudication Board v. Lubrica, 28 we explained
how to proceed next. We shall not, by reason of the consequence of the said rule to the effect
this Resolution, interfere with the dispensation of that the adjudicator's decision on land valuation
those cases. Certainly, Section 10, Book IV, Title attains finality after the lapse of the 15-day
III, Chapter 3 of the Administrative Code of 1987 period. Considering therefore that, in this case,
can be invoked by adverse parties or by the LBP's petition with the SAC for the fixing of just
courts in citing as deficient the exclusive compensation was filed 26 days after its receipt
representation of LBP by its Legal Department. of the PARAD's decision, or eleven days beyond
Then again, if neither the adverse parties nor the the reglementary period, the latter had already
courts of jurisdiction choose to contest this point,
24
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
attained finality. The PARAD could very well issue
the writ of execution. Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 states:

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HEIRS OF SEC. 17. Determination of Just Compensation.
ELEUTERIO CRUZ In determining just compensation, the cost of
G.R. No. 175175, September 29, 2008 acquisition of the land, the current value of like
properties, its nature, actual use and income, the
in Paris v. Alfeche 25 the applicability of P.D. No. sworn valuation by the owner, the tax
27 and E.O. No. 228 in relation to R.A. No. 6657 declarations, and the assessment made by
in the matter of the payment of just government assessors, shall be considered. The
compensation. There the Court explained that social and economic benefits contributed by the
while under P.D. No. 27 tenant farmers are farmers and the farmworkers and by government
already deemed owners of the land they till, they to the property as well as the non-payment of
are still required to pay the cost of the land taxes or loans secured from any government
before the title is transferred to them and that financing institution on the said land shall be
pending the payment of just compensation, considered as additional factors to determine its
actual title to the tenanted land remains with the valuation. DTISaH
landowner.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Celada, 29 the
In Paris, the application of the process of Court ruled that the factors enumerated under
agrarian reform was still incomplete thus, the Section 17, R.A. No. 6657 had already been
Court held therein that with the passage of R.A. translated into a basic formula by the
No. 6657 before its completion, the process Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) pursuant
should now be completed under R.A. No. 6657, to its rule-making power under Section 49 of R.A.
with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 applying only No. 6657. Thus, the Court held in Celada that the
suppletorily. 26 IHCacT formula outlined in DAR A.O. No. 5, series of
1998 30 should be applied in computing just
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad, 27 compensation.
the Court explained why the guidelines under
P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 are no longer
applicable to the delayed payment of lands
acquired under P.D. No. 27, to wit: Likewise, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Sps.
Banal, 31 the Court ruled that the applicable
It would certainly be inequitable to determine formula in fixing just compensation is DAR A.O.
just compensation based on the guideline No. 6, series of 1992, as amended by DAR A.O.
provided by PD No. 27 and EO 228 considering No. 11, series of 1994, then the governing
the DAR's failure to determine the just regulation applicable to compulsory acquisition of
compensation for a considerable length of time. lands, in recognition of the DAR's rule-making
That just compensation should be determined in power to carry out the object of R.A. No. 6657.
accordance with R.A. 6657, and not PD 27 or EO Because the trial court therein based its valuation
228, is especially imperative considering that just upon a different formula and did not conduct any
compensation should be the full and fair hearing for the reception of evidence, the Court
equivalent of the property taken from its owner ordered a remand of the case to the SAC for trial
by the expropriator, the equivalent being real, on the merits.
substantial, full and ample. 28
The mandatory application of the aforementioned
The decisive backdrop of the instant case guidelines in determining just compensation has
coincides with that in Paris, that is, the amount of been reiterated recently in Land Bank of the
just compensation due to respondents had not Philippines v. Lim, 32 where the Court also
yet been settled by the time R.A. No. 6657 ordered the remand of the case to the SAC for
became effective. Following the aforementioned the determination of just compensation strictly in
pronouncement in Paris, the fixing of just accordance with DAR A.O. No. 6, series of 1992,
compensation should therefore be based on the as amended.
parameters set out in R.A. No. 6657, with P.D.
No. 27 and E.O. No. 228 having only suppletory A perusal of the PARAD's Decision dated 23
effect. November 1999, which mandated payment of
25
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
just compensation in the amount of P80,000.00 decision. Thus, although the new rules speak of
per hectare, reveals that the PARAD did not directly appealing the decision of adjudicators to
adhere to the formula prescribed in any of the the RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, it is
aforementioned regulations issued by the DAR or clear from Sec. 57 that the original and exclusive
was at least silent on the applicability of the jurisdiction to determine such cases is in the
aforementioned DAR regulations to the question RTCs. Any effort to transfer such jurisdiction to
of just compensation. The PARAD decision also the adjudicators and to convert the original
did not refer to any evidence in support of its jurisdiction of the RTCs into appellate jurisdiction
finding. would be contrary to Sec. 57 and therefore would
be void. Thus, direct resort to the SAC by private
The SAC, meanwhile, referred to DAR A.O. No. 6, respondent is valid. It would be well to
series of 1992, as amended, as the controlling emphasize that the taking of property under RA
guideline in fixing just compensation. Pertinently, No. 6657 is an exercise of the power of eminent
to obtain the land value, the formula 33 under domain by the State. The valuation of property or
said regulation requires that the values for the determination of just compensation in eminent
Capitalized Net Income, Comparable Sales and domain proceedings is essentially a judicial
Market Value based on the tax declaration must function which is vested with the courts and not
be shown. Moreover, said formula has been with administrative agencies. Consequently, the
superseded by DAR A.O. No. 05, series of 1998, SAC properly took cognizance of respondent's
which also requires values for Capitalized Net petition for determination of just compensation.
Income, Comparable Sales and Market Value, the
same parameters laid down in the prior In the same vein, there is no merit to petitioner's
regulation. contention that respondent failed to exhaust
administrative remedies when she directly filed
Stating that no evidence was presented by the petition for determination of just
respondents on the aforementioned parameters, compensation with the SAC even before the
the SAC ruled that it was constrained to adopt DARAB case could be resolved. The issue is now
the finding of the PARAD, which fixed the value of moot considering that the valuation made by
the land at P80,000.00 per hectare. On appeal, petitioner had long been affirmed by the DARAB
the CA adopted the same finding. in its order dated April 12, 2000. As held in Land
Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco, the doctrine of
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LEONILA P. exhaustion of administrative remedies is
CELADA G.R. No. inapplicable when the issue is rendered moot and
164876. January 23, 2006 academic, as in the instant case.

We do not agree with petitioner's submission that


the SAC erred in assuming jurisdiction over While SAC is required to consider the acquisition
respondent's petition for determination of just cost of the land, the current value of like
compensation despite the pendency of the properties, its nature, actual use and income, the
administrative proceedings before the DARAB. In sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declaration
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals, and the assessments made by the government
the landowner filed an action for determination of assessors to determine just compensation, it is
just compensation without waiting for the equally true that these factors have been
completion of the DARAB's re-evaluation of the translated into a basic formula by the DAR
land. The Court nonetheless held therein that the pursuant to its rule-making power under Section
SAC acquired jurisdiction over the action for the 49 of RA No. 6657. As the government agency
following reason: It is clear from Sec. 57 that the principally tasked to implement the agrarian
RTC, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court, has reform program, it is the DAR's duty to issue
'original and exclusive jurisdiction over all rules and regulations to carry out the object of
petitions for the determination of just the law. DAR AO No. 5, s. of 1998 precisely "filled
compensation to landowners.' This 'original and in the details" of Section 17, RA No. 6657 by
exclusive' jurisdiction of the RTC would be providing a basic formula by which the factors
undermined if the DAR would vest in mentioned therein may be taken into account.
administrative officials original jurisdiction in The SAC was at no liberty to disregard the
compensation cases and make the RTC an formula which was devised to implement the said
appellate court for the review of administrative provision. It is elementary that rules and
26
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
regulations issued by administrative bodies to
interpret the law which they are entrusted to
enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled to
great respect. Administrative issuances partake
of the nature of a statute and have in their favor ||| (Land Bank of the Phil. v. Court of Appeals,
a presumption of legality. As such, courts cannot G.R. No. 128557, [December 29, 1999], 378
ignore administrative issuances especially when, PHIL 1248-1266
as in this case, its validity was not put in issue.
Unless an administrative order is declared invalid, Pursuant to a final decision of the Provincial
courts have no option but to apply the same. Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), petitioner
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), as the
While SAC is required to consider the acquisition financing arm in the operation of the Land
cost of the land, the current value of like Reform Program of the government, was ordered
properties, its nature, actual use and income, the to pay private respondent. Petitioner, however,
sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declaration adamantly refused to do so, thus prompting
and the assessments made by the government private respondent to file an action for
assessors to determine just compensation, it is mandamus. The Court of Appeals granted the
equally true that these factors have been writ. Its motion for reconsideration having been
translated into a basic formula by the DAR denied, petitioner resorted to this action, arguing
pursuant to its rule-making power under Section that the CA cannot issue the writ of mandamus
49 of RA No. 6657. As the government agency because it cannot be compelled to perform an act
principally tasked to implement the agrarian which is beyond its legal duty. IcADSE
reform program, it is the DAR's duty to issue
rules and regulations to carry out the object of Once the Land Bank agrees with the appraisal of
the law. DAR AO No. 5, s. of 1998 precisely "filled the Department of Agrarian Reform, which bears
in the details" of Section 17, RA No. 6657 by the approval of the landowner, it becomes its
providing a basic formula by which the factors legal duty to finance the transaction. In the
mentioned therein may be taken into account. instant case, petitioner participated in the
The SAC was at no liberty to disregard the valuation proceedings held in the office of the
formula which was devised to implement the said PARAD through its counsel. It did not appeal the
provision. It is elementary that rules and decision of the PARAD which became final and
regulations issued by administrative bodies to executory. The only thing that hindered it from
interpret the law which they are entrusted to paying the amount was the non-concurrence of
enforce, have the force of law, and are entitled to the farmer-beneficiary. A perusal of Sec. 18 of
great respect. Administrative issuances partake RA 6657, however, showed that the consent of
of the nature of a statute and have in their favor the farmer-beneficiary is not required in
a presumption of legality. As such, courts cannot establishing the vinculum juris for the proper
ignore administrative issuances especially when, compensation of the landowner. Without such
as in this case, its validity was not put in issue. obstacle, petitioner can now be compelled to
Unless an administrative order is declared invalid, perform its legal duty through the issuance of a
courts have no option but to apply the same. writ of mandamus.

There is no basis for the SAC's award of 12% A perusal of the law shows that the consent of
interest per annum in favor of respondent. the farmer-beneficiary is not required in
Although in some expropriation cases, the Court establishing the vinculum juris for the proper
allowed the imposition of said interest, the same compensation of the landowner. Section 18 of RA
was in the nature of damages for delay in 6657 states Sec. 18. Valuation and Mode of
payment which in effect makes the obligation on Compensation. The LBP shall compensate the
the part of the government one of forbearance. landowner in such amount as may be agreed
In this case, there is no delay that would justify upon by the landowner and the DAR and the LBP
the payment of interest since the just in accordance with the criteria provided for in
compensation due to respondent has been Sections 16 and 17 and other pertinent
promptly and validly deposited in her name in provisions hereof, or as may be finally
cash and LBP bonds. Neither is there factual or determined by the court as the just
legal justification for the award of attorney's fees compensation for the land. As may be gleaned
and costs of litigation in favor of respondent. from the aforementioned section, the landowner,
27
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
the DAR and the Land Bank are the only parties
involved. The law does not mention the At first glance it would seem that private
participation of the farmer-beneficiary. respondent's lands are indeed covered by
Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1994.
We cannot see why Sec. 18 of RA 6657 should However, Part IV shows that AO No. 13 provides
not apply to rice and corn lands under PD 27. a fixed formula for determining the Land Value
Section 75 of RA 6657 clearly states that the (LV) and the additional interests it would have
provisions of PD 27 and EO 228 shall only have a earned. The formula utilizes the Government
suppletory effect. Section 7 of the Act also Support Price (GSP) of 1972, which is
provides Sec. 7. Priorities. The DAR, in P35.00/cavan of palay and P31.00/cavan of corn.
coordination with the PARC shall plan and The formula in AO No. 13 could no longer be
program the acquisition and distribution of all applied since the PARAD already used a higher
agricultural lands through a period of (10) years GSP. The purpose of AO No. 13 is to compensate
from the effectivity of this Act. Lands shall be the landowners for unearned interests. Had they
acquired and distributed as follows: Phase One: been paid in 1972 when the GSP for rice and corn
Rice and Corn lands under P.D. 27; all idle or was valued at P35.00 and P31.00, respectively,
abandoned lands; all private lands voluntarily and such amounts were deposited in a bank, they
offered by the owners for agrarian reform; . . . would have earned a compounded interest of 6%
and all other lands owned by the government per annum. Thus, if the PARAD used the 1972
devoted to or suitable for agriculture, which shall GSP, then the product of (2.5 x AGP x P35 or
be acquired and distributed immediately upon the P31) could be multiplied by (1.06)n to determine
effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to the value of the land plus the additional 6%
be completed within a period of not more than compounded interest it would have earned from
four (4) years. This eloquently demonstrates that 1972. However, since the PARAD already
RA 6657 includes PD 27 lands among the increased the GSP from P35.00 to P300.00/cavan
properties which the DAR shall acquire and of palay and from P31.00 to P250.00/cavan of
distribute to the landless. And to facilitate the corn, there is no more need to add any interest
acquisition and distribution thereof, Secs. 16, 17 thereon, muchless compound it. To the extent
and 18 of the Act should be adhered to. In that it granted 6% compounded interest to
Association of Small Landowners of the private respondent Jose Pascual, the Court of
Philippines v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform this Appeals erred.
Court applied the provisions RA 6657 to rice and
corn lands when it upheld the constitutionality of Modes of Appeal/Review from the DARAB
the payment of just compensation for PD 27
lands through the different modes stated in Sec. RULE 43
18.
Appeals From the Court of Tax Appeals and
Although it is true that Sec. 57 of RA 6657 Quasi-Judicial Agencies to the Court of Appeals
provides that the Special Agrarian Courts shall
have jurisdiction over the final determination of Section 1. Scope. This Rule shall apply to
just compensation cases, it must be noted that appeals from judgments or final orders of the
petitioner never contested the valuation of the Court of Tax Appeals and from awards,
PARAD. Thus, the land valuation stated in its judgments, final orders or resolutions of or
decision became final and executory. There was authorized by any quasi-judicial agency in the
therefore no need for private respondent Pascual exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Among
to file a case in the Special Agrarian Court. these agencies are the Civil Service Commission,
Central Board of Assessment Appeals, Securities
Although it is true that Sec. 57 of RA 6657 and Exchange Commission, Office of the
provides that the Special Agrarian Courts shall President, Land Registration Authority, Social
have jurisdiction over the final determination of Security Commission, Civil Aeronautics Board,
just compensation cases, it must be noted that Bureau of Patents, Trademarks and Technology
petitioner never contested the valuation of the Transfer, National Electrification Administration,
PARAD. Thus, the land valuation stated in its Energy Regulatory Board, National
decision became final and executory. There was Telecommunications Commission, Department of
therefore no need for private respondent Pascual Agrarian Reform under Republic Act No. 6657,
to file a case in the Special Agrarian Court. Government Service Insurance System,
28
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
Employees Compensation Commission, pay the docketing and other lawful fees and
Agricultural Invention Board, Insurance deposit for costs within fifteen (15) days from
Commission, Philippine Atomic Energy notice of the denial. (n)
Commission, Board of Investments, Construction
Industry Arbitration Commission, and voluntary Section 6. Contents of the petition. The
arbitrators authorized by law. (n) petition for review shall (a) state the full names
of the parties to the case, without impleading the
Section 2. Cases not covered. This Rule court or agencies either as petitioners or
shall not apply to judgments or final orders respondents; (b) contain a concise statement of
issued under the Labor Code of the Philippines. the facts and issues involved and the grounds
(n) relied upon for the review; (c) be accompanied
by a clearly legible duplicate original or a certified
Section 3. Where to appeal. An appeal true copy of the award, judgment, final order or
under this Rule may be taken to the Court of resolution appealed from, together with certified
Appeals within the period and in the manner true copies of such material portions of the
herein provided, whether the appeal involves record referred to therein and other supporting
questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of papers; and (d) contain a sworn certification
fact and law. (n) against forum shopping as provided in the last
paragraph of section 2, Rule 42. The petition
Section 4. Period of appeal. The appeal shall state the specific material dates showing
shall be taken within fifteen (15) days from that it was filed within the period fixed herein.
notice of the award, judgment, final order or (2a)
resolution, or from the date of its last publication,
if publication is required by law for its effectivity, Section 7. Effect of failure to comply with
or of the denial of petitioner's motion for new requirements. The failure of the petitioner to
trial or reconsideration duly filed in accordance comply with any of the foregoing requirements
with the governing law of the court or agency a regarding the payment of the docket and other
quo. Only one (1) motion for reconsideration lawful fees, the deposit for costs, proof of service
shall be allowed. Upon proper motion and the of the petition, and the contents of and the
payment of the full amount of the docket fee documents which should accompany the petition
before the expiration of the reglementary period, shall be sufficient ground for the dismissal
the Court of Appeals may grant an additional thereof. (n)
period of fifteen (15) days only within which to
file the petition for review. No further extension Section 8. Action on the petition. The Court
shall be granted except for the most compelling of Appeals may require the respondent to file a
reason and in no case to exceed fifteen (15) comment on the petition not a motion to dismiss,
days. (n) within ten (10) days from notice, or dismiss the
petition if it finds the same to be patently without
Section 5. How appeal taken. Appeal shall merit, prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that
be taken by filing a verified petition for review in the questions raised therein are too unsubstantial
seven (7) legible copies with the Court of to require consideration. (6a)
Appeals, with proof of service of a copy thereof
on the adverse party and on the court or agency Section 9. Contents of comment. The
a quo. The original copy of the petition intended comment shall be filed within ten (10) days from
for the Court of Appeals shall be indicated as notice in seven (7) legible copies and
such by the petitioner. accompanied by clearly legible certified true
copies of such material portions of the record
Upon the filing of the petition, the petitioner shall referred to therein together with other supporting
pay to the clerk of court of the Court of Appeals papers. The comment shall (a) point out
the docketing and other lawful fees and deposit insufficiencies or inaccuracies in petitioner's
the sum of P500.00 for costs. Exemption from statement of facts and issues; and (b) state the
payment of docketing and other lawful fees and reasons why the petition should be denied or
the deposit for costs may be granted by the dismissed. A copy thereof shall be served on the
Court of Appeals upon a verified motion setting petitioner, and proof of such service shall be filed
forth valid grounds therefor. If the Court of with the Court of Appeals. (9a)
Appeals denies the motion, the petitioner shall
29
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
Section 10. Due course. If upon the filing of provided in this Act within fifteen (15) days from
the comment or such other pleadings or the receipt of a copy thereof.
documents as may be required or allowed by the
Court of Appeals or upon the expiration of the The findings of fact of the DAR shall be final and
period for the filing thereof, and on the records conclusive if based on substantial evidence.
the Court of Appeals finds prima facie that the
court or agency concerned has committed errors Certiorari Rule 65 of the Rules of Court
of fact or law that would warrant reversal or
modification of the award, judgment, final order RULE 65
or resolution sought to be reviewed, it may give
due course to the petition; otherwise, it shall Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus
dismiss the same. The findings of fact of the
court or agency concerned, when supported by Section 1. Petition for certiorari. When any
substantial evidence, shall be binding on the tribunal, board or officer exercising judicial or
Court of Appeals. (n) quasi-judicial functions has acted without or in
excess its or his jurisdiction, or with grave abuse
Section 11. Transmittal of record. Within of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
fifteen (15) days from notice that the petition has jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or any plain,
been given due course, the Court of Appeals may speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
require the court or agency concerned to course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may
transmit the original or a legible certified true file a verified petition in the proper court, alleging
copy of the entire record of the proceeding under the facts with certainty and praying that
review. The record to be transmitted may be judgment be rendered annulling or modifying the
abridged by agreement of all parties to the proceedings of such tribunal, board or officer,
proceeding. The Court of Appeals may require or and granting such incidental reliefs as law and
permit subsequent correction of or addition to the justice may require.
record. (8a)
The petition shall be accompanied by a certified
Section 12. Effect of appeal. The appeal true copy of the judgment, order or resolution
shall not stay the award, judgment, final order or subject thereof, copies of all pleadings and
resolution sought to be reviewed unless the Court documents relevant and pertinent thereto, and a
of Appeals shall direct otherwise upon such terms sworn certification of non-forum shopping as
as it may deem just. (10a) provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Rule
46. (1a)
Section 13. Submission for decision. If the
petition is given due course, the Court of Appeals Section 2. Petition for prohibition. When the
may set the case for oral argument or require the proceedings of any tribunal, corporation, board,
parties to submit memoranda within a period of officer or person, whether exercising judicial,
fifteen (15) days from notice. The case shall be quasi-judicial or ministerial functions, are without
deemed submitted for decision upon the filing of or in excess of its or his jurisdiction, or with
the last pleading or memorandum required by grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or
these Rules or by the court of Appeals. (n) excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal or
any other plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in
Certiorari Sec. 54 of RA 6657 and Rule 65 of the ordinary course of law, a person aggrieved
the Rules of Court thereby may file a verified petition in the proper
court, alleging the facts with certainty and
Certiorari Sec. 54 of RA 6657 praying that judgment be rendered commanding
the respondent to desist from further proceedings
Section 54. Certiorari. Any decision, order, in the action or matter specified therein, or
award or ruling of the DAR on any agrarian otherwise granting such incidental reliefs as law
dispute or on any matter pertaining to the and justice may require.
application, implementation, enforcement, or
interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws The petition shall likewise be accompanied by a
on agrarian reform may be brought to the Court certified true copy of the judgment, order or
of Appeals by certiorari except as otherwise resolution subject thereof, copies of all pleadings
and documents relevant and pertinent thereto,
30
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
and a sworn certification of non-forum shopping
as provided in the third paragraph of section 3, Section 5. Respondents and costs in certain
Rule 46. (2a) cases. When the petition filed relates to the
acts or omissions of a judge, court, quasi-judicial
Section 3. Petition for mandamus. When any agency, tribunal, corporation, board, officer or
tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person person, the petitioner shall join, as private
unlawfully neglects the performance of an act respondent or respondents with such public
which the law specifically enjoins as a duty respondent or respondents, the person or
resulting from an office, trust, or station, or persons interested in sustaining the proceedings
unlawfully excludes another from the use and in the court; and it shall be the duty of such
enjoyment of a right or office to which such other private respondents to appear and defend, both
is entitled, and there is no other plain, speedy in his or their own behalf and in behalf of the
and adequate remedy in the ordinary course of public respondent or respondents affected by the
law, the person aggrieved thereby may file a proceedings, and the costs awarded in such
verified petition in the proper court, alleging the proceedings in favor of the petitioner shall be
facts with certainty and praying that judgment be against the private respondents only, and not
rendered commanding the respondent, against the judge, court, quasi-judicial agency,
immediately or at some other time to be specified tribunal, corporation, board, officer or person
by the court, to do the act required to be done to impleaded as public respondent or respondents.
protect the rights of the petitioner, and to pay
the damages sustained by the petitioner by Unless otherwise specifically directed by the court
reason of the wrongful acts of the respondent. where the petition is pending, the public
respondents shall not appear in or file an answer
The petition shall also contain a sworn or comment to the petition or any pleading
certification of non-forum shopping as provided in therein. If the case is elevated to a higher court
the third paragraph of section 3, Rule 46. (3a) by either party, the public respondents shall be
included therein as nominal parties. However,
Section 4. When and where petition filed. The unless otherwise specifically directed by the
petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) court, they shall not appear or participate in the
days from notice of the judgment, order or proceedings therein. (5a)
resolution. In case a motion for reconsideration
or new trial is timely filed, whether such motion Section 6. Order to comment. If the petition is
is required or not, the sixty (60) day period shall sufficient in form and substance to justify such
be counted from notice of the denial of said process, the court shall issue an order requiring
motion. the respondent or respondents to comment on
the petition within ten (10) days from receipt of a
The petition shall be filed in the Supreme Court copy thereof. Such order shall be served on the
or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower respondents in such manner as the court may
court or of a corporation, board, officer or direct together with a copy of the petition and
person, in the Regional Trial Court exercising any annexes thereto.
jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined by
the Supreme Court. It may also be filed in the In petitions for certiorari before the Supreme
Court of Appeals whether or not the same is in Court and the Court of Appeals, the provisions of
aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the section 2, Rule 56, shall be observed. Before
Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its appellate giving due course thereto, the court may require
jurisdiction. If it involves the acts or omissions of the respondents to file their comment to, and not
a quasi-judicial agency, unless otherwise a motion to dismiss, the petition. Thereafter, the
provided by law or these Rules, the petition shall court may require the filing of a reply and such
be filed in and cognizable only by the Court of other responsive or other pleadings as it may
Appeals. deem necessary and proper. (6a)

No extension of time to file the petition shall be Section 7. Expediting proceedings; injunctive
granted except for compelling reason and in no relief. The court in which the petition is filed
case exceeding fifteen (15) days. (4a) (Bar may issue orders expediting the proceedings, and
Matter No. 803, 21 July 1998; A.M. No. 00-2-03- it may also grant a temporary restraining order
SC) or a writ of preliminary injunction for the
31
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
preservation of the rights of the parties pending (b) Liberalized terms on credit facilities and
such proceedings. The petition shall not interrupt production loans; (c) Extension services by way
the course of the principal case unless a of planting, cropping, production and postharvest
temporary restraining order or a writ of technology transfer, as well as marketing and
preliminary injunction has been issued against management assistance and support to
the public respondent from further proceeding in cooperatives and farmers' organizations; (d)
the case. (7a) Infrastructure such as access trails, mini-dams,
public utilities, marketing and storage facilities;
Section 8. Proceedings after comment is filed. and (e) Research, production and use of organic
After the comment or other pleadings required by fertilizers and other local substances necessary in
the court are filed, or the time for the filing farming and cultivation. The PARC shall formulate
thereof has expired, the court may hear the case policies to ensure that support services to
or require the parties to submit memoranda. If farmerbeneficiaries shall be provided at all stages
after such hearing or submission of memoranda of land reform. The Bagong Kilusang Kabuhayan
or the expiration of the period for the filing sa Kaunlaran (BKKK) Secretariat shall be
thereof the court finds that the allegations of the transferred and attached to the LBP, for its
petition are true, it shall render judgment for the supervision including all its applicable and
relief prayed for or to which the petitioner is existing funds, personnel, properties, equipment
entitled. and records. Misuse or diversion of the financial
and support services herein provided shall result
The court, however, may dismiss the petition if it in sanctions against the beneficiary guilty
finds the same to be patently without merit, thereof, including the forfeiture of the land
prosecuted manifestly for delay, or that the transferred to him or lesser sanctions as may be
questions raised therein are too unsubstantial to provided by the PARC, without prejudice to
require consideration. (8a) criminal prosecution.

Section 9. Service and enforcement of order or SECTION 38. Support Services to Landowners.
judgment. A certified copy of the judgment The PARC with the assistance of such other
rendered in accordance with the last preceding government agencies and instrumentalities as it
section shall be served upon the court, quasi- may direct, shall provide landowners affected by
judicial agency, tribunal, corporation, board, the CARP and prior agrarian reform programs
officer or person concerned in such manner as with the following services: (a) Investment
the court may direct, and disobedience thereto information financial and counseling assistance;
shall be punished as contempt. An execution may (b) Facilities, programs and schemes for the
issue for any damages or costs awarded in conversion or exchange of bonds issued for
accordance with section 1 of Rule 39. (9a) payment of the lands acquired with stocks and
bonds issued by the National Government, the
Week 10 Support Services Central Bank and other government institutions
and instrumentalities; (c) Marketing of LBP
Support Services for the Farmers and bonds, as well as promoting the marketability of
Landowners Secs. 36-39 RA 6657 as amended said bonds in traditional and non-traditional
financial markets and stock exchanges; and (d)
SECTION 36. Funding for Support Services. In Other services designed to utilize productively
order to cover the expenses and cost of support the proceeds of the sale of such lands for rural
services, at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all industrialization. A landowner who invests in
appropriations for agrarian reform shall be rural-based industries shall be entitled to the
immediately set aside and made available for this incentives granted to a registered enterprise
purpose. In addition, the DAR shall be authorized engaged in a pioneer or preferred area of
to package proposals and receive grants, aid and investment as provided for in the Omnibus
other forms of financial assistance from any Investment Code of 1987, or to such other
source. incentives as the PARC, the LBP, or other
government financial institutions may provide.
SECTION 37. Support Services to the The LBP shall redeem a landowner's LBP bonds at
Beneficiaries. The PARC shall ensure that face value, provided that the proceeds thereof
support services to farmers-beneficiaries are shall be invested in a BOI-registered company or
provided, such as: (a) Land surveys and titling; in any agribusiness or agro-industrial enterprise
32
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
in the region where the landowner has previously Silvino Cudiamat, a 67 year old farmer from Baha
made investments, to the extent of thirty percent in Calatagan, Batangas thought that he had
(30%) of the face value of said LBP bonds, already achieved his lifelong dream of owning the
subject to guidelines that shall be issued by the piece of land that he had worked for since he was
LBP. 16 years old. Tatay Ben was a tenant for 11
years before he became a beneficiary of the land
SECTION 39. Land Consolidation. The DAR reform program. He became one of the 323
shall carry out land consolidation projects to beneficiaries of the land reform program under
promote equal distribution of landholdings, to PD 27.
provide the needed infrastructures in agriculture,
and to conserve soil fertility and prevent erosion. Today, Tatay Bens lifelong dream is about to be
shattered into pieces. He and his fellow agrarian
reform beneficiaries of the land formerly owned
Prohibited Acts in the CARP Law Sec. 73, RA by Ceferino Ascue have been involved in a land
6657 as amended controversy since 1995. Biased government
agencies and a legal system that favors the rich
have bended the law to favor the interests of the
SECTION 73. Prohibited Acts and Omissions. rich, leaving the likes of Tatay Ben in danger of
The following are prohibited: (a) The ownership losing the land that they depend on so much to
or possession, for the purpose of circumventing live decent lives.
the provisions of this Act, of agricultural lands in
excess of the total retention limits or award Social Justice
ceilings by any person, natural or juridical,
except those under collective ownership by The land in this controversy was formerly owned
farmer-beneficiaries. (b) The forcible entry or by Ceferino Ascue. The 507.87 hectare property
illegal detainer by persons who are not qualified was planted to rice and corn. The residents of
beneficiaries under this Act to avail themselves of barangays Baha and Talibayog were tenants to
the rights and benefits of the Agrarian Reform the land.
Program. (c) The conversion by any landowner of
his agricultural land into any nonagricultural use In 1990, two years after the enactment of the
with intent to avoid the application of this Act to Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the
his landholdings and to dispossess his tenant property was distributed to the tenants. Being a
farmers of the land tilled by them. (d) The willful tenanted rice and corn land, the 507-hectare
prevention or obstruction by any person, Ascue property was distributed to 318 tenant
association or entity of the implementation of the farmers under the Operation Land Transfer of the
CARP. (e) The sale, transfer, conveyance or Marcos land reform law Presidential Decree No.
change of the nature of lands outside of urban 27. A total of 818 Emancipation Patents were
centers and city limits either in whole or in part distributed to the agrarian reform beneficiaries.
after the effectivity of this Act. The date of the
registration of the deed of conveyance in the
Register of Deeds with respect to titled lands and For the next 10 years, the agrarian reform
the date of the issuance of the tax declaration to beneficiaries peacefully tilled the land and, given
the transferee of the property with respect to a new lease to improve their lives, cultivated the
unregistered lands, as the case may be, shall be land according to their own plans and dreams.
conclusive for the purpose of this Act. (f) The Some remained rice and corn farmers, others
sale, transfer or conveyance by a beneficiary of preferred to grow vegetables and a variety of
the right to use or any other usufructuary right other crops. Within those years they were able to
over the land he acquired by virtue of being a fully pay the land amortizations to the
beneficiary, in order to circumvent the provisions government.
of this Act.
Neither the ten long years of peaceful possession
nor the fact that they have fully paid the land
BAHA-TALIBAYOG: Tales of Injustices, Food amortizations kept the farmers safe from the
Insecurity and Environmental Danger threat of losing what has become justly and
rightfully theirs.

33
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
Seeds of Injustice protest of ASTURIAS INDUSTRIES and nullified
the coverage of the land under OLT. Navarro
In 1995, the heirs of Ceferino Ascue sold the cited that his judgment was based on the
property to Asturias Industries. They premises that
conveniently ignored the fact that the land was
no longer theirs and were aided by the fact that (1) the landholding was not primarily devoted to
the Register of Deeds of Batangas mysteriously the production of rice or corn;
failed to annotate the distribution of that the land
in the land title. The attack on the gains of social (2) the tenancy relations was not clearly
justice began as soon as the questionable sale established and
was consummated.
(3) the land long ceased to be agricultural as it is
In July 1997, Asturias Industries was able to mineralized.
obtain from the DENR a Mineral Production
Sharing Agreement (MPSA) and an Just mere 10 years after the DAR distributed the
Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) land to the farmers, it already danced to a
covering 2,336.8 hectare including the land in different song the one that Asturias Industries
question. This became their basis to claim that is playing. They did not even consider that their
the land was already classified as mineral land. ocular inspection was 10 years too late and there
have been changes in crops within the 10 year
Asturias Industries began the intensification of period. They did not even consider that
legal maneuvers to jeopardize the ownership of landowners when faced with agrarian reform
the farmers of the land by questioning the always deny having tenants. They even dug up a
distribution of the land under PD27. They claimed 1965 Bureau of Mines study to justify their claim
that it was erroneously distributed since the land that the land was mineralized and therefore
was never planted to rice and corn and the ceased to be agricultural a long time ago.
former land owner did not recognize any tenancy
arrangements. The Department of Agrarian Reform became
instrumental in twisting the facts and the law in
Bending the facts and the law against the laying the legal groundwork for undoing agrarian
farmers reform that it is mandated to implement,
promote and defend. DARs arguments became
In response to the protest of Asturias Industries, the strongest legal arguments for ASTURIAS
the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of INDUSTRIES when the case was brought to the
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Office of the President, the Court of Appeals and
created Task Force Baha to verify the claims of the Supreme Court on appeal.
mining company. An ocular inspection was
conducted and TF Baha reported that (1) In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled against Tatay
procedural lapses attended the OLT coverage; Ben and his fellow Calatagan farmer beneficiaries
(2)significant portions of the OLT-covered area and upheld the decision of the DAR stating that:
were planted to sugar cane; and (3) the (1) the disputed land was erroneously covered by
landowner did not recognize tenancy relations PD 27; (2) the land was mineralized based on
with the ARBs. the DAR decision, the 1965 Bureau of Mines
study and DENRs issuance of an MPSA and ECC
A validating team was deployed by the DAR to Asturias Industries; and (the cancellation of
Region IV Office and they reported that it cannot the Emancipation Patents issued to the farmers
be established beyond reasonable doubt that the shall be a separate proceeding under the
property is planted to palay or corn and authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform
tenanted. The team went on to recommend Adjudication Board (DARAB).
based on their findings the nullification of the
coverage of the land under OLT and 818 DANGEROUS IMPLICATIONS
emancipation Patents the DAR issued to the
agrarian reform beneficiaries. The decisions of the different government
institutions in the Baha-Talibayog case has
In August 4, 2000, the DAR through USEC for serious implications to agrarian reform. These
Operations Conrado S. Navarro sustained the decisions have far-reaching implications.
34
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
the Office of the President who holds the highest
Based on the case, the development and executive power of the country has chosen to
promotion of the mining industry has greater side uphold the convoluted and distorted decision
priority over social justice, agrarian reform and of the DAR?
agricultural development; the Supreme Court, the highest interpreter of
Lands can be classified as mineral by a mere laws of the land, has chosen to interpret the laws
study by the Bureau of Mines previous to P.D. 27 according to the myopic, distorted and biased
and R.A. 6657, it is found that ample reserves view of the Department of Agrarian Reform?
of mineral resources are found in the area even if Protest Walk: Lakbay-Kalampag para sa Lupang
there is no positive act from the executive or the Sakahan, Hindi Minahan
legislature;
Agricultural lands can now become mineral lands Last December 2007, the farmers of Calatagan
not by executive act but through any mining walked in solidarity with the Sumilao Farmers.
agreement executed by the DENR and a private From San Pedro in Laguna to the gates of
person covering such agricultural land under the Malacaang, 36 Calatagan farmers walked side
mining act; by side with the Sumilao farmers.
Local government units within their territorial
jurisdiction can change the classification of an On April 21, 2008, the agrarian reform
agricultural land to other uses by a mere passage beneficiaries from the communities of Baha and
of a Zoning ordinance; Talibayog in Calatagan, will embark on a journey
From Beneficiaries of Social Justice to Victims of on foot from their homes to the seat of power in
Injustice Metro Manila to make their voices heard. The
government that gave them hope through
As agrarian reform beneficiaries, the Calatagan agrarian reform has betrayed them and they are
farmers were given new hope to improve their making this sacrifice to magnify the injustices
lives and become productive members of their committed against them.
community. They have developed the land that
was distributed to them and made them Their 300-kilometer walk which will begin in the
productive. They have faithfully paid their land town Calatagan is dedicated bare the injustices
amortizations until it was fully paid. They are being committed against the farmers of
even faithful taxpayers to their local government. Calatagan in favor of the mining interests of
Asturias Industries. Through this walk, the
With the exception of the actual cancellation of farmers of Calatagan are calling for the
the Emancipation Patents issued to the Calatagan revocation of the Mineral Production Share
farmers in Baha and Talibayog, the reversal of Agreement (MPSA) issued by the DENR to
agrarian reform and the turnaround in social Asturias Industries. Their walk is their assertion
justice has reached the highest level of our of their rights as owner-cultivators of the land.
government system. All these favored the rich
despite the strength of the claim and ownership Remembering the promise of San Miguel Corp. to
of the Calatagan farmers of the land. the Sumilao farmers
By Atty. Arlene "Kaka" Bagao
Where will the farmers turn when:
Brief background
the Department of Agrarian Reform who is tasked When the government began implementing the
to enforce the implementation of agrarian reform, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
on the basis of a mere study of the Bureau of in the late 1980s, the 144hectare Higaonon
Mines and an ocular inspection that is 10 years ancestral land, which had come under the
too late has decided to nullify the coverage of the ownership of Norberto Quisumbing thru the
land that awarded them the lands they now own? Norberto Quisumbing Sr. Management and
the Department of the Environment and Natural Development Corporation (NQSRMDC), was
Resources (DENR) who is tasked to protect the covered for distribution to 137 Higaonon farmers.
environment has prioritized mining over food Bukidnon's provincial board, allegedly influenced
production and has given more weight to the by Quisumbing, passed a resolution converting
claims of ASTURIAS INDUSTRIES rather than the the said agricultural land into agroindustrial,
rights of agrarian reform beneficiaries? even though under the law, conversion was

35
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
unavailable because the land was prime hectares of land covered in the agreement.
agricultural in character. Thereafter, numerous meetings were held
between the Sumilao farmers, SMC, and DAR to
In 1997, the farmers staged a 28day hunger discuss and follow up on the implementation of
strike in Manila and Cagayan de Oro to press the MOA. SMC and DAR promised several times
their claim on the land. Then President Fidel V. to acquire the remaining 94 hectares and award
Ramos issued a "WinWin Resolution," awarding the land titles to the farmers, however, these
100 hectares of the contested land to the farmers deadlines were not met. The farmers complain
and 44 hectares to Quisumbing. The latter went that these delays are due to the actions of SMC
to the Supreme Court, which invalidated the and DAR, which are not in accordance with the
compromise agreement on legal technicalities. agreement.
But because the property remained an
agricultural land after five years, the farmers In September 2008, the farmers decided to
made another claim and invoked the CARP accept DAR's offer of 94 hectares of land, even if
provision stating that any property under land said properties were located a considerable
conversion should be developed within 5 years. distance, 10 to 15 kilometers away, from their
home in San Vicente, Sumilao. DAR had warned
The land was subsequently sold to San Miguel that if they did not accept the offer, the lands
Corporation (SMC) which began building a would be conveyed to other farmerbeneficiaries.
piggery complex on the property. Ostensibly due Hence, the farmers felt they had no other option
to public pressure, President Gloria Macapagal but to accept the offer.
Arroyo revoked the conversion order on the land,
making it available once more for agrarian On November 24, 2009, the farmers were once
reform. However, the Department of Agrarian again disappointed because although there was
Reform (DAR) was slow to install the farmer already a Certificate of Land Ownership Award
beneficiaries on the land. (CLOA) covering 15 of the 94 hectares to be
awarded to them, DAR said that the CLOA for the
In 2007, 55 Sumilao farmers walked 1,700 remaining 79 hectares could not yet be processed
kilometers from Bukidnon to Manila to enforce because the department was still waiting for the
their rights over the land. Their twomonth walk, certification from the Land Registration Authority
called "Walk for Justice," attracted wide media (LRA) in Manila and that this process was taking
attention and overwhelming support from NGOs a long time.
and different members of civil society and forced
SMC to negotiate with the farmers for a Frustrated by the slow pace of the MOA
compromise. implementation, the farmers decided to camp in
front of the San Miguel Hog Farm on February 8,
Updates on the compromise agreement 2010 in order to protest the delays in the
On March 29, 2008, a Memorandum of awarding and distribution of the land. On that
Agreement (MOA) was signed between the day, and in the presence of SMC legal counsel
Sumilao farmers, SMC, DAR, and the Office of the Atty. Fred Peaflor, DAR Regional Director Felix
President. Representing the Church, which had Agujob promised the farmers that they would be
been instrumental in negotiating the installed in their lands on or before March 29,
compromise, was Manila Archbishop Gaudencio 2010, the date of the second anniversary of the
Cardinal Rosales who served as witness to the MOA signing.
agreement.
March 29 came but the promised titles failed to
In the MOA, SMCrepresented by no less than materialize. A dialogue was scheduled on that
its president Ramon Angpledged to give a total day between the parties concerned, however,
of 144 hectares of land to the farmers. SMC Atty. Peaflor failed to appear. It was only on
promised to release 50 hectares of its property April 16, 2010, or more than two years after the
and committed to acquire the remaining 94 signing of the MOA, that the farmers received the
hectares outside the disputed estate for first batch of titles.
distribution to the farmers.
During the awarding ceremony held near the San
After the signing of the MOA, the farmers Miguel Hog Farm in Sumilao, Bukidnon, San
returned home and began to cultivate the 50 Miguel Foods, Inc. President Francis Alejo III
36
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
turned over the title covering the 50 hectares property. Knowing that the land is being leased
within the 144hectare contested property, while and is part of the Del Monte plantation, SMC
DAR Regional Director Aguhob awarded the CLOA should not have offered this land to DAR for
covering a total of 15 hectares outside the distribution to the farmers.
disputed land. Bishop Honesto Pacana, Sumilao
Mayor Mary Ann Baula, SMC legal counsel Atty. More importantly, the MOA stipulated that the 94
Peaflor, and Sumilao legal counsel Atty. Arlene hectares that will be offered by San Miguel will be
"Kaka" Bagao witnessed the event. in the same condition as the original 94 hectares
that the Sumilao farmers claimed. When the
Immediately afterwards, the farmers went to the farmers walked for more than 1,700 kilometers
15hectare land in Sitio Larok, Barangay Kisolon, from Bukidnon to Malacanang in Manila, they left
Sumilao, which is more than 12 kilometers away the 144 hectares barren, without any crops
from their homes in Barangay San Vicente. The planted because they have been prevented since
farmers, however, were shocked and dismayed to 1997 when they were forcefully evicted from
learn that their land was not only leased to their ancestral land by Norberto Quisumbing. It is
another corporation, Del Monte Philippines, Inc. only expected that the offered 94 hectares will be
(DMPI), but was also planted with the latter's in the same condition, no contests, no claimants,
pineapples. Feeling angry and cheated, the no encumbrances, not leased to Del Monte and
farmers uprooted the pineapples with the help of not planted with threemonth's old pineapple.
a tractor. They tilled the land and began to plant After two years since the signing of the
cassava. agreement in 2008, San Miguel is already liable
for damages incurred by the Sumilao farmers for
DMPI thru its legal counsel has threatened to file not being able to cultivate the 94 hectares
a case against the farmers for destroying Del including loss of expected income.
Monte's crops. Napoleon "Yoyong" Merida Jr.,
Chairperson of the PANAWSumilao Mapalad Together with the numerous delays which have
Multipurpose Cooperative (PANAWSumilao MPC) plagued the implementation of the MOA, this
and paralegal for the Sumilao farmers, has incident shows that SMC is not really serious or
welcomed any legal action from DMPI, and he sincere in fulfilling its commitments. SMC's
reiterated the Sumilao farmers' position that they actions betray its claim of good faith and
had the right to do what they did because they compliance. It cannot wash its hands and point
owned the land. the finger at DAR or DMPI because its lack of
diligence exhibits bad faith in dealing with the
Gross violation of the MOA farmers.
According to Merida, the implementation of the
MOA is marred not only by administrative delays, DAR is not without fault as well. It has promised
but also by gross violations on the part of SMC many times that the farmers would receive the
and DAR. titles to their lands. Administrative delays,
however, continue to hound the processing of the
The lands offered by San Miguel Corporation to titles. To this date, more than two years after the
the farmers are subject of legal disputes. One signing of the MOA, 79 of the 144 hectares
such example is the 15 hectares covered by the promised to the farmers still remain without a
CLOA issued to the farmers. Said property was CLOA.
originally owned by the family of Sumilao Mayor
Baula and is currently leased to DMPI. The Baula DAR should also not have accepted SMC's offer to
family then sold this land to SMC, which in turn give the 15hectare land to the farmers when
gave the properties to DAR for awarding and said land is covered under a lease agreement. As
distribution to the farmers. Merida put it, it would be a "fake" CLOA issued by
DAR to the farmers, if the latter cannot do what
This constitutes gross violation of the MOA on the they, as rightful owners and beneficiaries of the
part of SMC, which expressly guaranteed that all land, are entitled to under the law.
of the 144 hectares to be awarded to the farmers
would be clean and free from any encumbrance. Sumilao farmers face suit
SMC is responsible and it cannot hide behind the For asserting their right of ownership over the 15
excuse that it lacked knowledge of the subsisting hectares of land, the Sumilao farmers are now
lease agreement because it is the buyer of the
37
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law
facing a possible suit from yet another
corporation, Del Monte Philippines, Inc.

The CLOA covering the 15 hectares was


registered on October 8, 2009; the title bore no
indication of any encumbrance. During the ocular
inspection conducted in November 2009, there
were no pineapples on the subject property.
DMPI planted the pineapples sometime in
January 2010, or after the CLOA was registered
in favor of the farmers.

The dispute could have been avoided and the


farmers peaceably installed in their land if only
DMPI respected the farmer's rights and desisted
from planting the pineapples. DMPI is charged
with knowledge of the CLOA because its
registration happened prior to the planting of the
pineapples. The Sumilao farmers have every right
as lawful owners to remove the said crops on
their land and replace them with their own.

Remembering Ka Rene
SMC and DAR have once more promised to install
the Sumilao farmers to their land by June 5,
2010, exactly one year after the death of
renowned leader and paralegal of the Sumilao
farmers Ka Rene Peas, who in 2007 led the
group in their 1,700kilometer walk from
Bukidnon to Manila to demand the return of their
ancestral land. Ka Rene was assassinated on
June 5, 2009, on his way home to his farm in
Sumilao, Bukidnon after the successful
enactment of the CARP Extension with Reforms
(CARPER).

The Sumilao farmers have declared that if SMC


and DAR fail to honor their commitments under
the MOA, the farmers will consider such failure a
denial of justice and an affront to the sacrifice of
Ka Rene. If their demand is not honored, the
farmers would claim back their original 144
hectares of land in regardless of SMC's promises.

38
By: Mary Rose G. Gimang
Agrarian Law

You might also like