Land Acquisition and Distribution
Petitioner-spouses are owners of
Operation Land Transfer
ZURBANO vs ESTRELLA (1985)
Facts:
1. PD 27 (October 21, 1972),
decreeing the emancipation of the
tenants from the bondage of the
soil and transferring the
ownership of the land they till.
2. Petitioners challenged the validity
of the Letter of Instruction from
the President directing the
Minister of Agrarian Reform to
undertake to place under the
SC:
Land transfer Program of the
government pursuant to PD 27, all
tenanted rice/corn lands with
areas of seven hectares or less
belonging to landowners who own
other agricultural lands of more
than seven hectares will aggregate
areas or lands used for residential
commercial, industrial or other
urban purposes from which they
derive adequate income to support
themselves and their families,
on the ground that
a. it is class legislation and,
therefore, violative of the equal
protection guarantee;
b. that it is a form of tyrannical
imposition by a strong and
powerful state and, as such,
violative of the due process
clause; and
c. that it would as applied to
petitioners, be a taking of
private property without just
compensation.
3.
agricultural lands, with 6 parcels
planted to coconuts, 56 hectares
in are and 2 parcels of Riceland,
1.86 hectares in size.
4. The 2 parcels of Riceland were
being included in the Land
Transfer Program.
5. Dir. Pejo (Minister of Agrarian
Reform) denied that the Letter of
Instruction assailed is
unconstitutional, setting forth its
background as an implementing
measure of PD 27, the validity of
which is not in doubt.
DISMISSED.
1. There is no legal basis for
declaring Letter of Instruction No.
474 void on its face on equal
protection, due process and taking
of private property without just
compensation grounds.
2. The Constitution decrees no less
than the emancipation of tenants,
and there are safeguards therein
to assure that there be no
arbitrariness or injustice in its
enforcement. There are, moreover
built-in safeguards to preclude
any unlawful taking of the private
property.
BENIGNO CASTRO, ET AL. v CA & to the actual crop these landholdings are
CANDIDO BARON (1980) usually and purposely dedicated to and
give notice of any acts the respondent is
Facts:
required under the law to be notified.
1. Petitioners started cultivating
Order 2 (Oct 11, 1973): harvesting
different parcels of land owned by
and threshing of the palay harvest over
respondent and which are located
the landholdings in question, in the
at Bario San Bartolome,
meantime, is hereby ordered, the same to
Concepcion, Tarlac.
be threshed by defendant's threshing
2. GARAMONTE, MANALO and
machine, provided that the fees charged
TORRES started working on said
do not exceed the rate of threshing
landholdings in 1963;
prevailing in the area. 'Thereafter, once
3. CASTRO and LAGMAN were
the amount of seeds used, threshing and
employed sometime in 1969 and
reaping fees are deducted, the amounts
1970.
corresponding to the plaintiffs (as they
4. Dec. 1972, petitioners were
were not specified based on their existing
subpoenaed by the CAR in Tarlac,
agreement, be deducted from the net and
Tarlac to testify with respect to
delivered outright in their favor, while the
their alleged tenancy, relationship
rest of the harvest is hereby directed to
with Candido Baron in Torres vs.
be placed on deposit in a bonded
Baron for reinstatement
warehouse authorized by the government
5. December 29, 1972, p.respondent
to accept deposits of palay in the
commenced a Civil Case against
meantime and the receipts be delivered to
herein petitioners to enjoin them
the Court under custodia legis.
to desist from further cultivating
or working on their respective Decision: dismissed the complaint.
landholdings without
CA:
respondents consent. dismissed
for lack of jurisdiction.
6. April 2, 1973, petitioners filed a
complaint against private
respondent with the CAR to nullify
their contracts for hired services
and to affirm the existence of a
tenancy relationship.
TC: issued several orders.
Order 1 (Oct 10, 1973): petitioners be
maintained in the possession and
cultivation of the landholding in question
provided that they dedicate properly the
landholdings subject of the controversy
 CARL
ASSOCIATION OF SMALL
LANDOWNERS SOCIETY vs
SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM
(1989)1
These are four consolidated cases
questioning the constitutionality of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Act
(R.A. No. 6657 and related laws i.e.,
Agrarian Land Reform Code or R.A. No.
3844).
Brief background: Article XIII of the
Constitution on Social Justice and
Human Rights includes a call for the
adoption by the State of an agrarian
reform program. The State shall, by law,
undertake an agrarian reform program
founded on the right of farmers and
regular farmworkers, who are landless, to
own directly or collectively the lands they
till or, in the case of other farmworkers,
to receive a just share of the fruits
thereof. RA 3844 was enacted in 1963.
P.D. No. 27 was promulgated in 1972 to
provide for the compulsory acquisition of
private lands for distribution among
tenant-farmers and to specify maximum
retention limits for landowners. In 1987,
President Corazon Aquino issued E.O.
No. 228, declaring full land ownership in
favor of the beneficiaries of PD 27 and
providing for the valuation of still
unvalued lands covered by the decree as
well as the manner of their payment. In
1987, P.P. No. 131, instituting a
comprehensive agrarian reform program
(CARP) was enacted; later, E.O. No. 229,
providing the mechanics for its (PP131s)

1 http://www.uberdigests.info/2010/11/association-of-small-
landowners-vs-secretary-of-agrarian-reform-2/
implementation, was also enacted.
Afterwhich is the enactment of R.A. No.
6657, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law in 1988. This law, while considerably
changing the earlier mentioned
enactments, nevertheless gives them
suppletory effect insofar as they are not
inconsistent with its provisions.
[Two of the consolidated cases are
discussed below]
G.R. No. 78742: (Association of Small
Landowners vs Secretary)
The Association of Small Landowners in
the Philippines, Inc. sought exception
from the land distribution scheme
provided for in R.A. 6657. The
Association is comprised of landowners
of ricelands and cornlands whose
landholdings do not exceed 7 hectares.
They invoke that since their landholdings
are less than 7 hectares, they should not
be forced to distribute their land to their
tenants under R.A. 6657 for they
themselves have shown willingness to till
their own land. In short, they want to be
exempted from agrarian reform program
because they claim to belong to a
different class.
G.R. No. 79777: (Manaay vs Juico)
Nicolas Manaay questioned the validity of
the agrarian reform laws (PD 27, EO 228,
and 229) on the ground that these laws
already valuated their lands for the
agrarian reform program and that the
specific amount must be determined by
the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR). Manaay averred that this violated
the principle in eminent domain which
provides that only courts can determine
just compensation. This, for Manaay,
also violated due process for under the
constitution, no property shall be taken
for public use without just
compensation.
Manaay also questioned the provision
which states that landowners may be
paid for their land in bonds and not
necessarily in cash. Manaay averred that
just compensation has always been in
the form of money and not in bonds.
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not there was a violation of
the equal protection clause.
2. Whether or not there is a violation of
due process.
3. Whether or not just compensation,
under the agrarian reform program, must
be in terms of cash.
HELD:
1. No. The Association had not shown
any proof that they belong to a different
class exempt from the agrarian reform
program. Under the law, classification
has been defined as the grouping of
persons or things similar to each other in
certain particulars and different from
each other in these same particulars. To
be valid, it must conform to the following
requirements:
(1) it must be based on substantial
distinctions;
(2) it must be germane to the purposes of
the law;
(3) it must not be limited to existing
conditions only; and
(4) it must apply equally to all the by an administrative body is merely
members of the class. preliminary. If the landowner does not
agree with the finding of just
Equal protection simply means that all
compensation by an administrative body,
persons or things similarly situated must
then it can go to court and the
be treated alike both as to the rights
determination of the latter shall be the
conferred and the liabilities imposed. The
final determination. This is even so
Association have not shown that they
provided by RA 6657:
belong to a different class and entitled to
a different treatment. The argument that Section 16 (f): Any party who disagrees
not only landowners but also owners of with the decision may bring the matter to
other properties must be made to share the court of proper jurisdiction for final
the burden of implementing land reform determination of just compensation.
must be rejected. There is a substantial
3. No. Money as [sole] payment for just
distinction between these two classes of
compensation is merely a concept in
owners that is clearly visible except to
traditional exercise of eminent
those who will not see. There is no need
domain. The agrarian reform program is
to elaborate on this matter. In any event,
a revolutionary exercise of eminent
the Congress is allowed a wide leeway in
domain. The program will require billions
providing for a valid classification. Its
of pesos in funds if all compensation have
decision is accorded recognition and
to be made in cash if everything is in
respect by the courts of justice except
cash, then the government will not have
only where its discretion is abused to the
sufficient money hence, bonds, and other
detriment of the Bill of Rights. In the
securities, i.e., shares of stocks, may be
contrary, it appears that Congress is
used for just compensation.
right in classifying small landowners as
part of the agrarian reform program.
2. No. It is true that the determination of
just compensation is a power lodged in
the courts. However, there is no law
which prohibits administrative bodies
like the DAR from determining just
compensation. In fact, just compensation
can be that amount agreed upon by the
landowner and the government even
without judicial intervention so long as
both parties agree. The DAR can
determine just compensation through
appraisers and if the landowner agrees,
then judicial intervention is not needed.
What is contemplated by law however is
that, the just compensation determined
LUZ FARM vs SECRETARY OF
AGRARIAN REFORM, (1990)
FACTS:
1. In 1988, RA 6657 was approved by
the President of the Philippines. It
includes the raising of livestock,
poultry, and swine in its coverage.
2. In 1989, the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform promulgated the IRR of
Secs. 11, 13, and 39 of the said
law.
3. Luz Farms is a corporation
engaged in the livestock and
poultry business allegedly stands
to be adversely affected by the
enforcement of some provisions of
CARP.
4. Luz Farms questions the following
provisions of R.A. 6657, insofar as
they are made to apply to it:
a) Section 3(b) which includes
the "raising of livestock (and
poultry)" in the definition of
"Agricultural, Agricultural
Enterprise or Agricultural
Activity.
b) Section 11 which defines
"commercial farms" as "private
agricultural lands devoted to
commercial, livestock, poultry
and swine raising . . ."
c) Section 13 which calls upon
petitioner to execute a
production-sharing plan.
d) Section 16(d) and 17 which
vest on the Department of
Agrarian Reform the authority
to summarily determine the
just compensation to be paid
for lands covered by the
Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law
e) Section 32 which spells out the
production-sharing plan
mentioned in Section 13
f) ". . . (W)hereby three percent
(3%) of the gross sales from the
production of such lands are
distributed within sixty (60)
days of the end of the fiscal
year as compensation to
regular and other farmworkers
in such lands over and above
the compensation they
currently receive xxx
ISSUE:
1. WON the CARL should include the
raising of livestock, poultry and
swine in its coverage.
2. WON the requirement in Sections
13 and 32 of RA 6657 directing
corporate farms to execute and
implement production-sharing
plans is unreasonable for being
confiscatory and violative of due
process, with respect to livestock
and poultry raisers.
HELD:
1. NO. Sec. 3 (b) and Sec. 11 of RA
6657 are unconstitutional in so
far as they include lands devoted
to raising livestock, swine and
poultry within its coverage. The
use of land is incidental to but not
the principal factor or
consideration of productivity in
this industry. It was never the
intention of the framers of the
Constitution to include the
livestock and poultry industry in
 the coverage of the agrarian
reform program of the
government.
The intention of the Committee
was to limit the application of the
word agriculture. Thus, Section
II of RA 6657 which includes
private agricultural lands devoted
to commercial livestock, poultry,
and swine raising in the
definition of commercial farms is
invalid, to the extent that the
aforecited agro-industrial
activities are made to be covered
by the agrarian reform program of
the State.
2. YES. As there is no reason to
include livestock and poultry
lands in the coverage of agrarian
reform, there is no need to call
upon them to distribute from 3%
of their gross sales and 10% of
their net profits to their workers as
additional compensation.
JURISPRUDENCE:
Raising of livestock, poultry, and
swine are excluded from the coverage
of the CARL.
Central Mindanao University vs.
Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board
215 SCRA 86 (1992)
Facts:
1. On 16 January 1958, President
Carlos Garcia issued Proclamation
No. 467 reserving for the
Mindanao Agricultural College,
now the CMU, a piece of land to be
used as its future campus.
2. In 1984, CMU embarked on a
project titled "Kilusang Sariling
Sikap" wherein parcels of land
were leased to its faculty members
and employees.
3. Under the terms of the program,
CMU will assist faculty members
and employee groups through the
extension of technical know-how,
training and other kinds of
assistance.
4. In turn, they paid the CMU a
service fee for use of the land. The
agreement explicitly provided that
there will be no tenancy
relationship between the lessees
and the CMU.
5. When the program was
terminated, a case was filed by the
participants of the "Kilusang
Sariling Sikap" for declaration of
status as tenants under the CARP.
6. In its resolution, DARAB, ordered,
among others, the segregation of
400 hectares of the land for
distribution under CARP.
7. The land was subjected to
coverage on the basis of DAR's
determination that the lands do
not meet the condition for
exemption, that is, it is not
"actually, directly, and exclusively
used" for educational purposes.
Issue:
Is the CMU land covered by CARP? Who
determines whether lands reserved for
public use by presidential proclamation
is no longer actually, directly and
exclusively used and necessary for the
purpose for which they are reserved?

Held:
1. The land is exempted from CARP.
2. CMU is in the best position to
resolve and answer the question of
when and what lands are found
necessary for its use.
3. The Court also chided the DARAB
for resolving this issue of
exemption on the basis of "CMU's
present needs."
4. The Court stated that the DARAB
decision stating that for the land
to be exempt it must be "presently,
actively exploited and utilized by
the university in carrying out its
present educational program with
its present student population
and academic faculty" overlooked
the very significant factor of
growth of the university in the
years to come.