agra cases - all

8/10/2019 Agra Cases - All

1/29

ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THEPHILIPPINES, INC., etc, petitioners, vs. HONORABLESECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent.

The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the useof the land. What is required is the surrender of the title toand the physical possession of the said excess and allbeneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of thefarmer-beneficiary. This is definitely an exercise not of thepolice power but of the power of eminent domain.

Eminent domain is an inherent power of the tate thatenables it to forcibly acquire private lands intended forpublic use upon payment of !ust compensation to theowner. "bviously, there is no need to expropriate where theowner is willing to sell under terms also acceptable to thepurchaser, in which case an ordinary deed of sale may beagreed upon by the parties. #$%t is only where the owner isunwilling to sell, or cannot accept the price or otherconditions offered by the vendee, that the power of eminentdomain will come into play to assert the paramountauthority of the tate over the interests of the propertyowner. &rivate rights must then yield to the irresistible

demands of the public interest on the time-honored!ustification, as in the case of the police power, that thewelfare of the people is the supreme law.

'ut for all its primacy and urgency, the power ofexpropriation is by no means absolute (as indeed no poweris absolute). The limitation is found in the constitutionalin!unction that *private property shall not be taken for publicuse without !ust compensation+ and in the abundant

!urisprudence that has evolved from the interpretation ofthis principle. 'asically, the requirements for a properexercise of the power are () public use and () !ustcompensation.

ROXAS & CO., INC. vs. COURT OF APPEALS

A. Modes o Ac!"#s#t#o$ o L%$d "$de R. A. ''()

/epublic 0ct 1o. 22$3, the 4omprehensive 0grarian/eform 5aw of 677 (40/5), provides for two () modes ofacquisition of private land compulsory and voluntary. Theprocedure for the compulsory acquisition of private lands isset forth in ection 2 of /.0. 22$3, vi8*Sec. 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands.--. 9or

purposes of acquisition of private lands, the followingprocedures shall be followeda) Ate *%+#$ #de$t##ed t*e -%$d, t*e -%$do$es%$d t*e /e$e#c#%#es, t*e DAR s*%-- se$d #ts $ot#ce to%c!"#e t*e -%$d to t*e o$es t*eeo, /0 1eso$%-de-#+e0 o e#steed 2%#-, %$d 1ost t*e s%2e #$ %co$s1#c"o"s 1-%cein the municipal building and barangayhall of the place where the property is located. aid noticeshall contain the offer of the :0/ to pay a correspondingvalue in accordance with the valuation set forth in ections3, 7, and other pertinent provisions hereof.b) Within thirty (#;) days from the date of receipt ofwritten notice by personal delivery or registered mail, the

landowner, his administrator or representative shall informthe :0/ of his acceptance or re!ection of the offer.c) %f the landowner accepts the offer of the :0/, the5'& shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the landwithin thirty (#;) days after he executes and delivers a deedof transfer in favor of the s offer or fails to make a reply, the :0/ conductssummary administrative proceedings to determine !uscompensation for the land. The landowner, the 5'&representative and other interested parties may submievidence on !ust compensation within fifteen days fromnotice. Within thirty days from submission, the :0/ shaldecide the case and inform the owner of its decision andthe amount of !ust compensation. =pon receipt by theowner of the corresponding payment, or, in case of re!ectionor lack of response from the latter, the :0/ shall deposithe compensation in cash or in 5'& bonds with anaccessible bank. The :0/ shall immediately takepossession of the land and cause the issuance of a transfercertificate of title in the name of the /epublic of the&hilippines. The land shall then be redistributed to thefarmer beneficiaries. 0ny party may question the decisionof the :0/ in the regular courts for final determination of

!ust compensation.


2/29

The :0/ has made compulsory acquisition the prioritymode of land acquisition to hasten the implementation ofthe 4omprehensive 0grarian /eform &rogram (40/&).?@2A=nder ection 2 of the 40/5, the first step incompulsory acquisition is the identification of the land, thelandowners and the beneficiaries. Hoe+e, t*e -% #ss#-e$t o$ *o t*e #de$t##c%t#o$ 1ocess 2"st /e2%de. To #-- #$ t*#s %1, t*e DAR #ss"ed o$ 3"-0 4',5676 Ad2#$#st%t#+e Ode No. 54, Se#es o 5676, *#c*set t*e o1e%t#$ 1oced"e #$ t*e #de$t##c%t#o$ o s"c*-%$ds.

x x x x9or a valid implementation of the 40/ &rogram, two

notices are required 859 t*e Not#ce o Co+e%e %$d-ette o #$+#t%t#o$to a preliminary conference sent to thelandowner, the representatives of the '0/4, 5'&, farmerbeneficiaries and other interested parties pursuant to :0/

0. ". 1o. , eries of 676B and () the 1otice of0cquisition sent to the landowner under ection 2 of the40/5.

The importance of the first notice, i.e., the 1otice of4overage and the letter of invitation to the conference, andits actual conduct cannot be understated. They are steps

designed to comply with the requirements of administrativedue process. The implementation of the 40/5 is anexercise of the tate>s police power and the power ofeminent domain. To the extent that the 40/5 prescribesretention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise ofpolice power for the regulation of private property inaccordance with the 4onstitution.?$;A'ut where, to carry outsuch regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they ownin excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also ataking under the power of eminent domain. The takingcontemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of theland. What is required is the surrender of the title to andphysical possession of the said excess and all beneficial

rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmerbeneficiary.?$AThe 'ill of /ights provides that *?nAo personshall be deprived of life, liberty or property without dueprocess of law.+?$AThe 40/5 was not intended to take awayproperty without due process of law. ?$#AThe exercise of thepower of eminent domain requires that due process beobserved in the taking of private property.

:0/ 0. ". 1o. , eries of 676, from whence the1otice of 4overage first sprung, was amended in 66; by:0/ 0.". 1o. 6, eries of 66; and in 66# by :0/ 0.".1o. , eries of 66#. T*e Not#ce o Co+e%e %$d -etteo #$+#t%t#o$ to t*e co$ee$ce 2eet#$ ee e:1%$ded%$d %21-##ed #$ s%#d %2e$d2e$ts.

B. T*e Co21"-so0 Ac!"#s#t#o$ o H%c#e$d%s P%-#co %$d

B%$#-%d

%n the case at bar, respondent :0/ claims that it,through C0/" 5eopoldo 4. 5e!ano, sent a letter ofinvitation entitled *%nvitation to &arties+ dated eptember 6,676 to petitioner corporation, through Daime &imentel, theadministrator of acienda &alico.?$3AThe invitation wasreceived on the same day it was sent as indicated by asignature and the date received at the bottom left corner ofsaid invitation. With regard to acienda 'anilad,respondent :0/ claims that Daime &imentel, administrator

also of acienda 'anilad, was notified and sent aninvitation to the conference. &imentel actually attended theconference on eptember , 676 and signed the Cinutesof the meeting on behalf of petitioner corporation. ?$7ATheCinutes was also signed by the representatives of the'0/4, the 5'& and farmer beneficiaries.?$6A1o letter oinvitation was sent or conference meeting held with respectto acienda 4aylaway because it was sub!ect to aFoluntary "ffer to ell to respondent :0/.?2;A

When respondent :0/, through the Cunicipa0grarian /eform "fficer (C0/"), sent to the various partiesthe 1otice of 4overage and invitation to the conference:0/ 0. ". 1o. , eries of 676 was already in effectmore than a month earlier. The "perating &rocedure in:0/ 0dministrative "rder 1o. does not specify hownotices or letters of invitation shall be sent to the landownerthe representatives of the '0/4, the 5'&, the farmebeneficiaries and other interested parties. T*e 1oced"e#$ t*e se$d#$ o t*ese $ot#ces #s #21ot%$t to co21-0#t* t*e e!"#s#tes o d"e 1ocess es1ec#%--0 *e$ t*eo$e, %s #$ t*#s c%se, #s % ;"#d#c%- e$t#t0. &etitioner is adomestic corporation,?2Aand therefore, has a personalityseparate and distinct from its shareholders, officers and

employees.The 1otice of 0cquisition in ection 2 of the 40/5 is

required to be sent to the landowner by *personal deliveryor registered mail.+ W*et*e t*e -%$do$e /e % $%t"%o ;"#d#c%- 1eso$ to *ose %ddess t*e Not#ce 2%0 /ese$t /0 1eso$%- de-#+e0 o e#steed 2%#-, t*e -%does $ot d#st#$"#s*. The :0/ 0dministrative "rdersalso do not distinguish. %n the proceedings before the :0/the distinction between natural and !uridical persons in thesending of notices may be found in the /evised /ules of&rocedure of the :0/ 0d!udication 'oard (:0/0')ervice of pleadings before the :0/0' is governed byection 2, /ule F of the :0/0' /evised /ules o

&rocedure. 1otices and pleadings are served on privatedomestic corporations or partnerships in the followingmanner*Sec. 6. Service upon Private Domestic Corporation orPartnership.-- %f the defendant is a corporation organi8edunder the laws of the &hilippines or a partnership dulyregistered, service may be made on the presidentmanager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors opartners.+

imilarly, the /evised /ules of 4ourt of the &hilippinesin ection #, /ule @ providesSec. 13. Service upon private domestic corporation or

partnership.G%f the defendant is a corporation organi8edunder the laws of the &hilippines or a partnership dulyregistered, service may be made on the presidentmanager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors.+

ummonses, pleadings and notices in cases against aprivate domestic corporation before the :0/0' and theregular courts are served on the president, managersecretary, cashier, agent or any of its directors. Thesepersons are those through whom the private domesticcorporation or partnership is capable of action.?2A

Daime &imentel is not the president, managersecretary, cashier or director of petitioner corporation. %she, as administrator of the two aciendas, considered anagent of the corporationH
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn46http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn52http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn53http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn57http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn58http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn59http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn60http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn61http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn62http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1999/dec99/127876.htm#_edn46


3/29

The purpose of all rules for service of process on acorporation is to make it reasonably certain that thecorporation will receive prompt and proper notice in anaction against it.?2#Aervice must be made on arepresentative so integrated with the corporation as tomake it a priorisupposable that he will reali8e hisresponsibilities and know what he should do with any legalpapers served on him,?2@Aand bring home to the corporationnotice of the filing of the action.?2$A&etitioner>s evidencedoes not show the official duties of Daime &imentel asadministrator of petitioner>s haciendas. The evidence doesnot indicate whether &imentel>s duties is so integrated withthe corporation that he would immediately reali8e hisresponsibilities and know what he should do with any legalpapers served on him. 0t the time the notices were sentand the preliminary conference conducted, petitioner>sprincipal place of business was listed in respondent :0/>srecords as *oriano 'ldg., &la8a 4ervantes, Canila,+?22Aand*3th9lr. 4acho-


4/29

eso-+e % co$to+es0 t*e ;"#sd#ct#o$ o+e *#c* #s#$#t#%--0 -oded #t* %$ %d2#$#st%t#+e /od0 o s1ec#%-co21ete$ce.?6ARes1o$de$t DAR #s #$ % /ette 1os#t#o$to eso-+e 1et#t#o$e>s %11-#c%t#o$ o co$+es#o$, /e#$1#2%#-0 t*e %e$c0 1ossess#$ t*e $ecess%0e:1et#se o$ t*e 2%tte. T*e 1oe to dete2#$e*et*e H%c#e$d%s P%-#co, B%$#-%d %$d C%0-%%0 %e$o$?%#c"-t"%-, *e$ce, e:e21t o2 t*e co+e%e ot*e CARL -#es #t* t*e DAR, $ot #t* t*#s Co"t.

F#$%--0, e stess t*%t t*e %#-"e o es1o$de$tDAR to co21-0 #t* t*e e!"#s#tes o d"e 1ocess #$t*e %c!"#s#t#o$ 1oceed#$s does $ot #+e t*#s Co"tt*e 1oe to $"--#0 t*e CLOA>s %-e%d0 #ss"ed to t*e%2e /e$e#c#%#es. To %ss"2e t*e 1oe #s to s*ot?c#c"#t t*e %d2#$#st%t#+e 1ocess, *#c* *%s 0et to "$#ts e"-% co"se. Res1o$de$t DAR 2"st /e #+e$ t*ec*%$ce to coect #ts 1oced"%- -%1ses #$ t*e%c!"#s#t#o$ 1oceed#$s. I$ H%c#e$d% P%-#co %-o$e,CLOA@s ee #ss"ed to 5)) %2e /e$e#c#%#es #$ 566.?6AS#$ce t*e$ "$t#- t*e 1ese$t, t*ese %2es *%+e/ee$ c"-t#+%t#$ t*e# -%$ds.?6#AIt oes %%#$st t*e /%s#c1ece1ts o ;"st#ce, %#$ess %$d e!"#t0 to de1#+e t*ese1eo1-e, t*o"* $o %"-t o t*e# o$, o t*e -%$d t*e0

t#--. A$0*o, t*e %2e /e$e#c#%#es *o-d t*e 1o1et0#$ t"st o t*e #*t"- o$e o t*e -%$d.

LU FARMS,petitioner,vs.THE HONORABLESECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIANREFORM,respondent.

It #s e+#de$t o2 t*e oeo#$ d#sc"ss#o$ t*%tSect#o$ II o R.A. ''() *#c* #$c-"des 1#+%te%#c"-t"%- -%$ds de+oted to co22ec#%- -#+estoc,1o"-t0 %$d s#$e %#s#$ #$ t*e de#$#t#o$ oco22ec#%- %2s #s #$+%-#d, to t*e e:te$t t*%t t*e

%oec#ted %o?#$d"st#%- %ct#+#t#es %e 2%de to /eco+eed /0 t*e %%#%$ eo2 1o%2 o t*e St%te.T*ee #s s#21-0 $o e%so$ to #$c-"de -#+estoc %$d1o"-t0 -%$ds #$ t*e co+e%e o %%#%$ eo2. 8Ro--o,1. 459. ence, there is merit in 5u8 9armsI argument that therequirement in ections # and # of /.0. 22$3 directingJcorporate farmsJ which include livestock and poultryraisers to execute and implement Jproduction-sharingplansJ (pending final redistribution of their landholdings)whereby they are called upon to distribute from threepercent (#K) of their gross sales and ten percent (;K) oftheir net profits to their workers as additional compensationis unreasonable for being confiscatory, and thereforeviolative of due process (/ollo, p. ). %t has been established that this 4ourt will assume

!urisdiction over a constitutional question only if it is shownthat the essential requisites of a !udicial inquiry into such aquestion are first satisfied. Thus, there must be an actualcase or controversy involving a conflict of legal rightssusceptible of !udicial determination, the constitutionalquestion must have been opportunely raised by the properparty, and the resolution of the question is unavoidablynecessary to the decision of the case itself owever, despite the inhibitions pressing upon the4ourt when confronted with constitutional issues, it will not

hesitate to declare a law or act invalid when it is convincedthat this must be done. %n arriving at this conclusion, its onlycriterion will be the 4onstitution and


5/29

NATALIA REALTY, INC. vs.DEPARTMENT OFAGRARIAN REFORM

4%F%5 50WB 501: /E within the meaning andintent of ection # (c) of /.0. 1o. 22$3.+ 1ot being deemed*agricultural lands,+ they are outside the coverage of 40/5.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN +s SUTTON The main issue in the case at bar is theconstitutionality of :0/ 0.". 1o. 6, series of 66#, which

prescribes a maximum retention limit for owners of landsdevoted to livestock raising. 0dministrative agencies are endowed with powerslegislative in nature, i.e.! the power to make rules andregulations. They have been granted by 4ongress with theauthority to issue rules to regulate the implementation of alaw entrusted to them. :elegated rule-making has becomea practical necessity in modern governance due to theincreasing complexity and variety of public functions.owever, while administrative rules and regulations havethe force and effect of law, they are not immune from

!udicial review. They may be properly challenged beforethe courts to ensure that they do not violate the 4onstitution

and no grave abuse of administrative discretion iscommitted by the administrative body concerned.

The fundamental rule in administrative law is that, to/e +%-#d, %d2#$#st%t#+e "-es %$d e"-%t#o$s must beissued by authority of a law and 2"st $ot co$t%+e$e t*e1o+#s#o$s o t*e Co$st#t"t#o$.The rule-making power ofan administrative agency may not be used to abridge theauthority given to it by 4ongress or by the4onstitution. No c%$ #t /e "sed to e$-%e t*e 1oe ot*e %d2#$#st%t#+e %e$c0 /e0o$d t*e sco1e#$te$ded. Co$st#t"t#o$%- %$d st%t"to0 1o+#s#o$sco$to- #t* es1ect to *%t "-es %$d e"-%t#o$s 2%0/e 1o2"-%ted /0 %d2#$#st%t#+e %e$c#es %$d t*esco1e o t*e# e"-%t#o$s.

%n the case at bar, we find that the impugned 0.". is invalidas it contravenes the 4onstitution. The 0.". sought toregulate livestock farms by including them in the coverageof agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retentionlimit for their ownership. owever, t*e de-#/e%t#o$s ot*e 567) Co$st#t"t#o$%- Co22#ss#o$ s*o % c-e%#$te$t to e:c-"de,inter alia,%-- -%$ds e:c-"s#+e-0

de+oted to -#+estoc, s#$e %$d 1o"-t0? %#s#$. The4ourt clarified in the L"< F%2s casethat livestock, swineand poultry-raising are industrial activities and do not falwithin the definition of *agriculture+ or *agricultural activity.+The raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different fromcrop or tree farming. %t is an industrial, not an agriculturalactivity. 0 great portion of the investment in this enterpriseis in the form of industrial fixed assets, such as animahousing structures and facilities, drainage, waterers andblowers, feedmill with grinders, mixers, conveyorsexhausts and generators, extensive warehousing facilitiesfor feeds and other supplies, anti-pollution equipment likebio-gas and digester plants augmented by lagoons and

concrete ponds, deepwells, elevated water tankspumphouses, sprayers, and other technologicaappurtenances.

4learly, petitioner DAR *%s $o 1oe to e"-%te-#+estoc %2s *#c* *%+e /ee$ e:e21ted /0 t*eCo$st#t"t#o$ o2 t*e co+e%e o %%#%$ eo2. %has exceeded its power in issuing the assailed 0.".The subsequent case of N%t%-#% Re%-t0, I$c. +DAR reiterated our ruling in the L"< F%2s case.%n N%t%-#% Re%-t0,the 4ourt heldthat industrial, commerciaand residential lands are not covered by the 40/5. Westressed anew that *#-e Sect#o$ o R.A. No. ''()1o+#des t*%t t*e CARL s*%-- co+e %-- 1"/-#c %$d1#+%te %#c"-t"%- -%$ds,t*e te2 %#c"-t"%- -%$ddoes $ot #$c-"de -%$ds c-%ss##ed %s 2#$e%-, oestes#de$t#%-, co22ec#%- o #$d"st#%-. Thus, in N%t%-#%Re%-t0,even portions of the 0ntipolo ills ubdivisionwhich are %%/-e 0etst#-- "$de+e-o1ed,could not beconsidered as agricultural lands sub!ect to agrarian reformas these lots were already classified as residential lands.

0 similar logical deduction should be followed in thecase at bar. 5ands devoted to raising of livestock, poultryand swine have been classified as industrial, no


6/29

agricultural, lands and thus exempt from agrarian reform.&etitioner :0/ argues that, in issuing the impugned 0."., itwas seeking to address the reports it has received thatsome unscrupulous landowners have been converting theiragricultural lands to livestock farms to avoid their coverageby the agrarian reform. 0gain, we find neither merit norlogic in this contention. T*e "$des#%/-e sce$%#o *#c*1et#t#o$e sees to 1e+e$t #t* t*e #ss"%$ce o t*eA.O. c-e%-0 does $ot %11-0 #$ t*#s c%se. /espondents>family acquired their landholdings as early as 6@7. Theyhave long been in the business of breeding cattle inCasbate which is popularly known as the cattle-breedingcapital of the &hilippines. &etitioner :0/ does not disputethis fact. %ndeed, there is no evidence on record thatrespondents have !ust recently engaged in or converted tothe business of breeding cattle after the enactment of the40/5 that may lead one to suspect that respondentsintended to evade its coverage. %t must be stressed thatwhat the 40/5 prohibits is the co$+es#o$ o %#c"-t"%--%$dso $o$?%#c"-t"%- 1"1osesafter the effectivity ofthe 40/5. T*ee *%s /ee$ $o c*%$e o /"s#$ess#$teest #$ t*e c%se o es1o$de$ts.

Coreover, it is a fundamental rule of statutory constructionthat the reenactment of a statute by 4ongress withoutsubstantial change is an implied legislative approval andadoption of the previous law. "n the other hand, by makinga new law, 4ongress seeks to supersede an earlier one. %nthe case at bar, after the passage of the 677 40/5,4ongress enacted /.0. 1o. 377 which amended certainprovisions of the 40/5. pecifically, t*e $e -% c*%$edt*e de#$#t#o$ o t*e te2s %#c"-t"%- %ct#+#t0 %$dco22ec#%- %2#$ /0 do11#$ o2 #ts co+e%e-%$ds t*%t %e de+oted to co22ec#%- -#+estoc, 1o"-t0%$d s#$e?%#s#$. W#t* t*#s s#$##c%$t 2od##c%t#o$,Co$ess c-e%-0 so"*t to %-#$ t*e 1o+#s#o$s o o"

%%#%$ -%s #t* t*e #$te$t o t*e 567) Co$st#t"t#o$%-Co22#ss#o$ to e:c-"de -#+estoc %2s o2 t*eco+e%e o %%#%$ eo2.

MILESTONE FARMS

With the procedural issue disposed of, we find thapetitioner>s arguments fail to persuade. %ts invocationof Suttonis unavailing. %n Sutton, we held%n the case at bar, we find that the impugned 0.". is invalidas it contravenes the 4onstitution. The 0.". sought toregulate livestock farms by including them in the coverageof agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum retentionlimit for their ownership. owever,the dei$erations of the1-/ Constitutiona Commission sho" a cear intent toe0cude! inter aia! all lands exclusively devoted tolivestock, swine and poultry-raising. The 4ourt clarifiedin the Luz armscase that livestock, swine and poultryraising are industrial activities and do not fall within thedefinition of *agriculture+ or *agricultural activity.+ The raisingof livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or treefarming. %t is an industrial, not an agricultural, activity. 0great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in theform of industrial fixed assets, such as animal housingstructures and facilities, drainage, waterers and blowersfeedmill with grinders, mixers, conveyors, exhausts andgenerators, extensive warehousing facilities for feeds andother supplies, anti-pollution equipment like bio-gas and

digester plants augmented by lagoons and concrete pondsdeepwells, elevated water tanks, pumphouses, sprayersand other technological appurtenances.4learly, petitioner DAR has no po"er to re#uate ivestoc2farms "hich have $een e0empted $% the Constitution fromthe covera#e of a#rarian reform. %t has exceeded its powerin issuing the assailed 0.".

%ndeed, as pointed out by the 40, the instant case does notrest on facts parallel to those of Suttonbecause, in Suttonthe sub!ect property remained a livestock farm. We evenhighlighted therein the fact that *there has $een no chan#eof $usiness interest in the case of respondents .+ imilarly

in Department of A#rarian Reform v. '%, we excluded aparcel of land from 40/& coverage due to the factuafindings of the C0/", which were confirmed by the :0/that the property was entirely devoted to livestock farmingowever, inA.. Arnaiz Reat%! 4nc.! represented $%Carmen . Arnaiz v. 5ffice of the President Department of

A#rarian Reform Re#iona Director! DAR Re#ion 7Le#aspi Cit% Provincia A#rarian Reform 5fficer! DARProvincia 5ffice! 8as$ate! 8as$ate and 8unicipa

A#rarian Reform 5fficer! DAR 8unicipa 5ffice! 8as$ate!8as$ate, we denied a similar petition for exemption andPorexclusion, by according respect to the 40>s factual findingsand its reliance on the findings of the :0/ and the "& thathe sub!ect parcels of land were not directly, actually, andexclusively used for pasture

&etitioner>s admission that, since ;;, it leased anotherranch for its own livestock is fatal to its cause.?2@AWhilepetitioner advances a defense that it leased this ranchbecause the occupants of the sub!ect property harmed itscattle, like the 40, we find it surprising that not even asingle police andPor $aran#a%report was filed by petitionerto amplify its indignation over these alleged illegal actsCoreover, we accord respect to the 40>s keen observationthat the assailed C0/" reports and the %nvestigatingTeam>s /eport do not actually contradict one another
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/182332.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/182332.htm#_ftn65http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/182332.htm#_ftn65


7/29

finding that the @# cows, while owned by petitioner, wereactually pastured outside the sub!ect property.Q9inally, it is established that issues of Exclusion andPorExemption are characteri8ed as 0grarian 5aw%mplementation (05%) cases which are well within the :0/ecretary>s competence and !urisdiction.?2$A ection #,/ule %% of the ;;# :epartment of 0grarian /eform

0d!udication 'oard /ules of &rocedure providesection #.A#rarian La" 4mpementation Cases.The 0d!udicator or the 'oard shall have no !urisdiction overmatters involving the administrative implementation of /01o. 22$3, otherwise known as the 4omprehensive 0grarian/eform 5aw (40/5) of 677 and other agrarian laws asenunciated by pertinent rules and administrative orders,which shall be under the exclusive prerogative of andcogni8able by the "ffice of the ecretary of the :0/ inaccordance with his issuances, to witx x x x#.7 Exclusion from 40/& coverage of agricultural landused for livestock, swine, and poultry raising.

Thus, we cannot, without going against the law,arbitrarily strip the :0/ ecretary of his legal mandate toexercise !urisdiction and authority over all 05% cases. Tosuccumb to petitioner>s contention that *"hen a and isdecared e0empt from the CARP on the #round that it is nota#ricutura as of the time the CARL too2 effect! the use anddisposition of that and is entire% and forever $e%ond DAR9s

:urisdiction+ is dangerous, suggestive of self-regulation.&recisely, it is the :0/ ecretary who is vested with such

!urisdiction and authority to exempt andPor exclude aproperty from 40/& coverage based on the factualcircumstances of each case and in accordance with law

and applicable !urisprudence. %n addition, albeitparenthetically, ecretary Filla had already granted theconversion into residential and golf courses use of nearlyone-half of the entire area originally claimed as exemptfrom 40/& coverage because it was allegedly devoted tolivestock production.

DAR =S DECS

The pivotal issue to be resolved in this case is whetheor not the sub!ect properties are exempt from the coverageof /epublic 0ct 1o. 22$3, otherwise known as the4omprehensive 0grarian /eform 5aw of 667 (40/5).

The general policy under 40/5 is to cover as muchlands suitable for agriculture as possible.?;Aection @ o/.0. 1o. 22$3 sets out the coverage of 40/&. %t states thathe program shall*M cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement andcommodity produced, allpu$icand private agriculturalands as provided in &roclamation 1o. # and Executive"rder 1o. 6, including other lands of the public domainsuitable for agriculture.+Core specifically, the following lands are covered by the4omprehensive 0grarian /eform &rogram

(a) 0ll alienable and disposable lands ofthe public domain devoted to or suitable foragriculture. 1o reclassification of forest ormineral lands to agricultural lands shall beundertaken after the approval of this 0ct until4ongress, taking into account, ecological,developmental and equity considerations, shallhave determined by law, the specific limits of

the public domainB(b) 0ll lands of the public domain in excess

of the specific limits as determined by4ongress in the preceding paragraphB

(c) 0ll other lands owned by the


8/29

purposes, such as for the repairs and renovations ofschools in the nearby locality.

&etitioner :0/, on the other hand, argued that thelands sub!ect hereof are not exempt from the 40/&coverage because the same are not actually, directly andexclusively used as school sites or campuses, as they arein fact leased to 0nglo 0gricultural 4orporation. 9urther, tobe exempt from the coverage, it is the landper se,not theincome derived therefrom, that must be actually, directlyand exclusively used for educational purposes.

We agree with the petitioner.ection ; of /.0. 1o. 22$3 enumerates the types of

lands which are exempted from the coverage of 40/& aswell as the purposes of their exemption, vizx x x x x x x x xc) 5ands actually, directly and exclusively used andfound to be necessary for national defense, schoo sitesand campuses! incudin# e0perimenta farm stationsoperated $% pu$ic or private schoos for educationa

purposes!M , shall be exempt from the coverage of this0ct.?#A

x x x x x x x x x4learly, a reading of the paragraph shows that, in order

to be exempt from the coverage ) the land must be*actua%! direct%! and e0cusive% used andfound to $enecessar%+and) the purpose is *for schoo sites andcampuses! incudin# e0perimenta farm stations operated$% pu$ic or private schoos for educationa purposes.+

The importance of the phrase *actua%! direct%! ande0cusive% used andfound to $e necessar%+ cannot beunderstated, as what respondent :E4 would want us todo by not taking the words in their literal and technicaldefinitions. The words of the law are clear andunambiguous. Thus, the *plain meaning rule+ orver$ae#isin statutory construction is applicable in thiscase. Where the words of a statute are clear, plain and free

from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning andapplied without attempted interpretation.?@A

ROXAS =S DAMBA

II. ROXAS & CO.>S APPLICATION IN DARADMINISTRATI=E CASE NO. A?6666?54?6)FORCARP EXEMPTION IN HACIENDAPALICO SUB3ECT OF G.R. NO.5)6'( CANNOT BE GRANTED IN =IEW OFDISCREPANCIES IN THE LOCATION ANDIDENTITY OF THE SUB3ECT PARCELS OFLAND.

ince && $; did not automaticallyconvert &aciendasCa%a"a%! (aniadand Paicointo non-agricultural estates, can /oxas R 4o. invoke in thealternative ;asu#$u 85 ;o.

'y /oxas R 4o.>s contention, theaffected s#: parcels of land which are the sub!ect of :0/

0dministrative 4ase 1o. 0-6666-@-63 and $#$e parcels oland which are the sub!ect of :0/ 0dministrative 4ase1o. 0-6666-;;7-67 involved in


9/29

that T4T 1o. @66@2 was furthersubdivided into several lots (5ot $-0to 5ot $-&) with 5ot 1o. $-1registered under T4T 1o. 2;;#@. AJe+#e o t*e t#t-es, *oe+e, s*ost*%t t*e o##$ o T?66' #s T?)7%$d $ot T?67(. O$ t*e ot*e*%$d, t*e o##$ o T?' #s -#sted%s (66', %$d $ot T?66'. T*ed#sce1%$c#es ee %tt#/"ted /0Ro:%s & Co.J to t01o%1*#c%-eos *#c* ee %c$o-eded%$d #$#t#%--ed s#cJ /0 t*e ROD. Pe+e##c%t#o$K, t*e d#sce1%$c#es . .. c%$$ot /e %scet%#$ed.?3A (emphasisand underscoring supplied)

%n denying /oxas R 4o.>s motion for reconsideration, the :0/ ecretary held

T*e -%$d*o-d#$s co+eed/0 t*e %oes%#d t#t-es do $otcoes1o$d to t*e Cet##c%t#o$

d%ted Fe/"%0 55, 5667 o t*eHLURBJ , t*e Cet##c%t#o$ d%tedSe1te2/e 54, 566' #ss"ed /0 t*eM"$#c#1%- P-%$$#$ %$dDe+e-o12e$t Cood#$%to, %$d t*eCet##c%t#o$s d%ted 3"-0 5, 566)%$d M%0 4), 566) #ss"ed /0 t*eN%t#o$%- I#%t#o$ A"t*o#t0. Thecertifications were issued for 5ot 1os., @, 7, #, # and #@. Thus, it wasnot even possible to issue exemptionclearance over the lots covered by T4T1os. 2;;6 to 2;;#.

F"t*e2oe, e %-so $otet*e d#sce1%$c#es /etee$ t*ecet##c%t#o$s #ss"ed /0 t*e HLURB%$d t*e M"$#c#1%- P-%$$#$De+e-o12e$t Cood#$%to %s to t*e%e% o t*e s1ec##c -ots.?7A(emphasisand underscoring supplied)%n affirming the :0/ ecretary>s denial of /oxas R

4o.>s application for exemption, the 4ourt of 0ppeals, in40-


10/29

(:0C'0-19W), the organi8ation of the farmer-beneficiaries, moved to have the grant of the applicationreconsidered but the same was denied by the :0/ by"rder of :ecember , ;;#, hence, it filed a petitionfor certiorari before the 4ourt of 0ppeals, docketed as 40-


11/29

De+e-o12e$tCood#$%to 8MPDC9 %$do$#$ Ad2#$#st%to oN%s"/", B%t%$%s,st%t#$ t*%t t*e s"/;ect1%ce-s o -%$d %e #t*#$t*e U/%$ Coe o$e %ss1ec##ed #$ o$e A. =II oM"$#c#1%- o$#$Od#$%$ce No. , eriesof 67, approved by theuman ettlements/egulatory 4ommission(/4), now the ousingand 5and =se /egulatory'oard (5=/'), under/esolution 1o. #, eriesof 67#, dated @ Cay67#B

2. To 849 Cet##c%t#o$s

/ot* d%ted 5 A""st5667, #ss"ed /0 A-edo

T%$ II, D#ecto, HLURB,Re#o$ I=, st%t#$ t*%tt*e s"/;ect 1%ce-s o-%$d %11e% to /e #t*#$t*e Res#de$t#%- c-"steAe% %s s1ec##ed #$ o$e=II o M"$#c#1%- o$#$Od#$%$ce No. , eriesof 67, approved under/4 /esolution 1o. #,eries of 67#, dated @Cay 67#B?#$A

x x x x (emphasis andunderscoring supplied)

'y "rder of 1ovember 2, ;;, the :0/ ecretarygranted the application for exemption but issued thefollowing conditions

. The farmer-occupantswithin sub!ect parcels ofland shall be maintained intheir peaceful possessionand cultivation of theirrespective areas of tillageuntil a final determinationhas been made on theamount of disturbancecompensation due andentitlement of such farmer-occupants thereto by the&0/0: of 'atangasB

. 1o development shall be

undertaken within thesub!ect parcels of land untilthe appropriate

disturbance compensationhas been paid to thefarmer-occupants who aredetermined by the &0/0:to be entitledthereto. &roof of paymentof disturbancecompensation shall besubmitted to this "fficewithin ten (;) days fromsuch paymentB and

#. The cancellation of the

45"0 issued to the farmer-beneficiaries shall besub!ect of a separateproceeding before the&0/0: of 'atangas.?#2A

:0C'0-19W moved for reconsideration but the:0/ ecretary denied the same and explained further why45"0 holders need not be informed of the pending

application for exemption in this wise

0s regards the firstground raised by ?:0C'0-19WA, it should beremembered that anapplication for 40/&-exemption pursuant to :"D"pinion 1o. @@, series of 66;,as implemented by :0/

0dministrative "rder 1o. 2,series of 66@, is non-adversarial or non-litigious in

nature. ence, applicant iscorrect in saying that nowherein the rules is it required thatoccupants of a landholdingshould be notified of aninitiated or pending exemptionapplication.

x x x xWith regard ?toA the

allegation that oppositors-movants are already 45"0holders of sub!ect propert?iesAand deserve to be notified, asowners, of the initiatedquestioned exemptionapplication, is of nomoment. The upreme 4ourtin the case of /oxas ?RA 4o.,%nc. v. 4ourt of 0ppeals, #4/0 ;2, held

*We stress that thefailure of respondent :0/ tocomply with the requisites ofdue process in the acquisition
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn37http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn36http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn37


12/29

proceedings does not give this4ourt the power to nullify the45"0>s already issued to thefarmer beneficiaries. x x xx. 0nyhow, thefarmer?-Abeneficiaries hold theproperty in trust for the rightfulowner of the land.+

ince sub!ect

landholding has been validlydetermined to be 40/&-exempt, therefore, the previousissuance of the 45"0 ofoppositors-movants iserroneous. ence, similar tothe situation of the above-quoted upreme 4ourt:ecision, oppositors-movantsonly hold the property in trustfor the rightful owners of theland and are not the owners ofsub!ect landholding who should

be notified of the exemptionapplication of applicant /oxasR 4ompany, %ncorporated.

9inally, this "ffice findsno substantial basis to reversethe assailed "rders since thereis substantial compliance bythe applicant with therequirements for the issuanceof exemption clearance under:0/ 0" 2 (66@).?#3A

"n :0C'0-19W>s petition for certiorari, the 4ourtof 0ppeals, noting that the petition was belatedly filed,sustained, by :ecision of :ecember ;, 66@ and/esolution of Cay 3, ;;3,?#7Athe :0/ ecretary>s findingthat /oxas R 4o. had substantially complied with theprerequisites of :0/ 0" 2, eries of 66@. ence,:0C'0-19W>s petition in assailed issuances, the orders of the :0/ecretary which it sustained being amply supported byevidence.

LAND BAN OF THE PHILIPPINESvs. NATI=IDAD

5and 'ank>s contention that the property was acquiredfor purposes of agrarian reform on "ctober , 63, thetime of the effectivity of &: 3, er#o!ust compensationshould be based on the value of the property as of that timeand not at the time of possession in 66#, is likewiseerroneous. %n 5ffice of the President! 8aaca@an#! 8ania

v. Court of Appeas!?Awe ruled that the sei8ure of thelandholding did not take place on the date of effectivity of&: 3 but would take effect on the payment of !uscompensation.

=nder the factual circumstances of this case, theagrarian reform process is still incomplete as the !uscompensation to be paid private respondents has yet to besettled. 4onsidering the passage of /epublic 0ct 1o. 22$3(/0 22$3)?Abefore the completion of this process, the !ustcompensation should be determined and the processconcluded under the said law. %ndeed, /0 22$3 is theapplicable law, with &: 3 and E" 7 having onlysuppletory effect, conformably with our ruling in Paris v

Afeche.?#A

ection 3 of /0 22$3 which is particularly relevantproviding as it does the guideposts for the determination of

!ust compensation, reads as followsec. 3. Determination of ,ust Compensation.%ndetermining !ust compensation, the cost of acquisition of theland, the current value of like properties, its nature, actuause and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the taxdeclarations, and the assessment made by governmenassessors shall be considered. The social and economic

benefits contributed by the farmers and the farm-workersand by the s value and thevolume and value of its produce. This 4ourt is convincedthat the trial court correctly determined the amount of !ustcompensation due private respondents in accordance withand guided by, /0 22$3 and existing !urisprudence.

3OSEFINA S. LUBRICA +s LBP

&etitioners insist that the determination of !uscompensation should be based on the value of theexpropriated properties at the time opayment. /espondent 5'&, on the other hand, claims thathe value of the realties should be computed as of "ctobe
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/127198.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/127198.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/127198.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/127198.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/127198.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn38http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2009/december2009/149548.htm#_ftn39http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/127198.htm#_ftn21http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/127198.htm#_ftn22http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/127198.htm#_ftn23http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/may2005/127198.htm#_ftn24


13/29

, 63 when &.:. 1o. 3 tookeffect.

The petition is impressed with merit.

%n the case of Land (an2 of the Phiippines v.;atividad,?@Athe 4ourt ruled thus

5and 'ank>s contention that the

property was acquired for purposes ofagrarian reform on "ctober , 63, thetime of the effectivity of &: 3, ergo !ustcompensation should be based on thevalue of the property as of that time and notat the time of possession in 66#, islikewise erroneous. %n 5ffice of thePresident! 8aaca@an#! 8ania v. Court of

Appeas, we ruled that the sei8ure of thelandholding did not take place on the dateof effectivity of &: 3 but would take effecton the payment of !ustcompensation.

The ;atividad case reiterated the 4ourt>s ruling

in 5ffice of the President v. Court of Appeas?$Athat theexpropriation of the landholding did not take place on theeffectivity of &.:. 1o. 3 on "ctober , 63 but sei8urewould take effect on the payment of !ust compensation

!udicially determined.5ikewise, in the recent case of &eirs of rancisco

R. Bantoco! Sr. v. Court of Appeas,?2Awe held thatexpropriation of landholdings covered by /.0. 1o. 22$3take place, not on the effectivity of the 0ct on Dune $,677, but on the payment of !ust compensation.

%n the instant case, petitioners were deprived of

their properties in 63 but have yet to receive the !ustcompensation therefor. The parcels of land were alreadysubdivided and distributed to the farmer-beneficiariesthereby immediately depriving petitioners of theiruse. =nder the circumstances, it would be highlyinequitable on the part of the petitioners to compute the !ustcompensation using the values at the time of the taking in63, and not at the time of the payment, considering thatthe government and the farmer-beneficiaries have alreadybenefited from the land although ownership thereof havenot yet been transferred in their names. &etitioners weredeprived of their properties without payment of !ustcompensation which, under the law, is a prerequisite beforethe property can be taken away from its owners. ?3A Thetransfer of possession and ownership of the land to thegovernment are conditioned upon the receipt by thelandowner of the corresponding payment or deposit by the:0/ of the compensation with an accessible bank. =ntilthen, title remains with the landowner.?7A

"ur ruling inAssociation of Sma Lando"ners in

the Phiippines! 4nc. v. Secretar% of A#rarian Reform?6Aisinstructive, thus

%t is true that &.:. 1o. 3 expressly

ordered the emancipation of tenant-farmer

as "ctober , 63 and declared that heshall *be deemed the owner+ of a portion ofland consisting of a family-si8ed farmexcept that *no title to the land owned byhim was to be actually issued to him unlessand until he had become a full-fledgedmember of a duly recogni8ed farmer>scooperative.+ %t was understood, however,that full payment of the !ust compensationalso had to be made first, conformably tothe constitutional requirement.

When E.". 1o. 7, categorically

stated in its ection that

0ll qualified farmer-beneficiaries are nowdeemed full owners asof "ctober , 63 of theland they acquiredbyvirtue of &residential:ecree 1o. 3 (Emphasissupplied.)

it was obviously referring to lands alreadyvalidly acquired under the said decree,after proof of full-fledged membership in thefarmers> cooperatives and full payment of

!ust compensation. x x x

The 40/& 5aw, for its part,conditions the transfer of possession andownership of the land to the government onreceipt by the landowner of thecorresponding payment or the deposit bythe :0/ of the compensation in cash or

5'& bonds with an accessible bank. =ntilthen, title also remains with thelandowner. 1o outright change ofownership is contemplated either.We also note that the expropriation proceedings in

the instant case was initiated under &.:. 1o. 3 but theagrarian reform process is still incomplete considering thathe !ust compensation to be paid to petitioners has yet to besettled. 4onsidering the passage of /.0. 1o. 22$3 beforethe completion of this process, the !ust compensationshould be determined and the process concluded under thesaid law. %ndeed, /.0. 1o. 22$3 is the applicable law, with&.:. 1o. 3 and E.". 1o. 7 having only suppletory effect?#;A

%n Land (an2 of the Phiippines v. Court of Appeas

?#Awe held that

/0 22$3 includes &: 3 landsamong the properties which the :0/ shallacquire and distribute to the landless. 0ndto facilitate the acquisition and distributionthereof, ecs. 2, 3 and 7 of the 0ctshould be adhered to.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn31


14/29

ection 7 of /.0. 1o. 22$3 mandates that the 5'&shall compensate the landowner in such amount as may beagreed upon by the landowner and the :0/ and the 5'& oras may be finally determined by the court as the !ustcompensation for the land. %n determining !ustcompensation, the cost of the acquisition of the land, thecurrent value of like properties, its nature, actual use andincome, the sworn valuation by the owner, the taxdeclarations, and the assessment made by governmentassessors shall be considered. The social and economicbenefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkersand by the government to the property as well as thenonpayment of taxes or loans secured from anygovernment financing institution on the said land shall beconsidered as additional factors to determine its valuation.?#A

4orollarily, we held in Land (an2 of the Phiippinesv. Ceada?##Athat the above provision was converted into aformula by the :0/ through 0dministrative "rder 1o. ;$, .667, to wit

5and Falue (5F) (4apitali8ed 1et %ncome x ;.2) U

(4omparable ales x ;.#) U (Carket Falue per Tax:eclaration x ;.)

&etitioners were deprived of their properties way

back in 63, yet to date, they have not yet received !ustcompensation. Thus, it would certainly be inequitable todetermine !ust compensation based on the guidelineprovided by &.:. 1o. 3 and E.". 1o. 7 considering thefailure to determine !ust compensation for a considerablelength of time. That !ust compensation should bedetermined in accordance with /.0. 1o. 22$3 and not &.:.1o. 3 or E.". 1o. 7, is important considering that !ustcompensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the

property taken from its owner by the expropriator, theequivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.?#@A

ESTREBILLO =S DARCet##c%tes o T#t-e #ss"ed 1"s"%$t to E2%$c#1%t#o$P%te$ts %e %s #$dee%s#/-e %s TCTs #ss"ed #$e#st%t#o$ 1oceed#$s.

&etitioners claim that the E&s have becomeindefeasible upon the expiration of one year from the dateof its issuance. The :0/0', however, ruled that the E& *isa title issued through the agrarian reform program of thegovernment. %ts issuance, correction and cancellation isgoverned by the rules and regulations issued by theecretary of the :epartment of 0grarian /eform(:0/). ence, it is not the same as or in the samecategory of a Torrens title.+

The :0/0' is grossly mistaken.

$a@ez v. 4ntermediate Appeate Court!?Aprovidesthat certificates of title issued in administrative proceedings

are as indefeasible as certificates of title issued in !udiciaproceedings

%t must be emphasi8ed that a

certificate of title issued under anadministrative proceeding pursuant to ahomestead patent, as in the instant case, isas indefeasible as a certificate of titleissued under a !udicial registrationproceeding, provided the land covered bysaid certificate is a disposable public landwithin the contemplation of the &ublic 5and5aw.

There is no specific provision in the &ublic

5and 5aw (4.0. 1o. @, as amended) or the 5and/egistration 0ct (0ct @62), now &.:. $6, fixing theone () year period within which the public landpatent is open to review on the ground of actualfraud as in ection #7 of the 5and /egistration 0ct,now ection # of &.:. $6, and clothing a publicland patent certificate of title withindefeasibility. 1evertheless, the pertinent

pronouncements in the aforecited cases clearlyreveal that ection #7 of the 5and /egistration 0ct,now ection # of &.:. $6 was applied byimplication by this 4ourt to the patent issued by the:irector of 5ands duly approved by the ecretary of1atural /esources, under the signature of the&resident of the &hilippines in accordance withlaw. The date of issuance of the patent, therefore,corresponds to the date of the issuance of thedecree in ordinary registration cases because thedecree finally awards the land applied for registrationto the party entitled to it, and the patent issued bythe :irector of 5ands equally and finally grants,

awards, and conveys the land applied for to theapplicant. This, to our mind, is in consonance withthe intent and spirit of the homestead laws, i.e.conservation of a family home, and to encourage thesettlement, residence and cultivation andimprovement of the lands of the public domain. %fthe title to the land grant in favor of the homesteaderwould be sub!ected to inquiry, contest and decisionafter it has been given by the ssystem of distributing public agricultural landspursuant to the *5and for the 5andless+ policy of thetate.

The same confusion, uncertainty and suspicion on

the distribution of government-acquired lands to thelandless would arise if the possession of the grantee of anE& would still be sub!ect to contest, !ust because hiscertificate of title was issued in an administrativeproceeding. The silence of &residential :ecree 1o. 3 asto the indefeasibility of titles issued pursuant thereto is thesame as that in the &ublic 5and 0ct where &rof

0ntonio 1oble!as commented
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn33http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn34http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn24


15/29

%nasmuch as there is no positive statementof the &ublic 5and 5aw, regarding the titlesgranted thereunder, such silence should beconstrued and interpreted in favor of the homesteader who come into the possession ofhis homestead after complying with the requirementsthereof. ection #7 of the 5and /egistration 5awshould be interpreted to apply by implication to thepatent issued by the :irector of 5ands, dulyapproved by the Cinister of 1atural /esources,under the signature of the &resident of the &hilippines, in accordance withlaw.?#A

0fter complying with the procedure, therefore, in

ection ;$ of &residential :ecree 1o. $6, otherwiseknown as the &roperty /egistration :ecree (where the :0/is required to issue the corresponding certificate of title aftergranting an E& to tenant-farmers who have complied with&residential :ecree 1o. 3),?@Athe T4Ts issued topetitioners pursuant to their E&s acquire the sameprotection accorded to other T4Ts. *The certificate of titlebecomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the

expiration of one year from the date of the issuance of theorder for the issuance of the patent, x x x. 5ands coveredby such title may no longer be the sub!ect matter of acadastral proceeding, nor can it be decreed to anotherperson.+?$A

0s we held through Dustice D.'.5. /eyes

in Lahora v. Da%an#hiran#! ,r.?2A

The rule in this !urisdiction, regarding publicland patents and the character of the certificate oftitle that may be issued by virtue thereof, isthat w!ere land is granted "y t!e govern#ent to

a private individual, t!e correspondingpatent t!ere$or is recorded, and t!e certi$icate o$title is issued to t!e grantee% t!erea$ter, t!e landis auto#atically "roug!t wit!in t!e operation o$t!e &and Registration Act, t!e title issued to t!egrantee "eco#ing entitled to all t!e sa$eguards

provided in 'ection () o$ t!e said Act. %n otherwords, upon expiration o$ one year $ro# itsissuance, t!e certi$icate o$ title s!all "eco#eirrevoca"le and inde$easi"le like a certi$icateissued in a registration proceeding. (Emphasissupplied.)

The E&s themselves, like the 4ertificates of 5and"wnership 0ward (45"0s) in /epublic 0ct 1o. 22$3 (the4omprehensive 0grarian /eform 5aw of 677), are enrolledin the Torrens system of registration. The &roperty/egistration :ecree in fact devotes 4hapter %L ?3Aon thesub!ect of E&s. %ndeed, such E&s and 45"0s are, inthemselves, entitled to be as indefeasible as certificates oftitle issued in registration proceedings.

The only defense of respondents, that the issue of

indefeasibility of title was raised for the first time on appeal

with the :0/0', does not hold water because said issuewas already raised before the /0/0:.?7A

The recommendation of the acienda Caria 0ctionTeam to have the E&s cancelled and the lots covered underthe /epublic 0ct 1o. 22$3,?6A with the farmer-beneficiarieslater on being issued with 45"0s, would only delay theapplication of agrarian reform laws to the disputed33.$;;7 hectares, leading to the expenditure of more timeand resources of the government.

The unreasonable delay of C% in filing the &etition

for cancellation more than ; years after the allegedwrongful annotation of the :eed of 0ssignment in "4T1o. &-#;33-22, and more than ten years after theissuance of the T4Ts to the farmers, is apparentlymotivated by its desire to receive a substantially highevaluation and !ust compensation should the disputed33.$;;7 hectares be covered under /epublic 0ct 1o. 22$3instead of &residential :ecree 1o. 3.?#;A This is furtheproved by the following uncontested allegations bypetitioners

(i) C% neither asked for rentals nobrought any action to oust petitioners fromthe farm they were cultivatingB

(ii) C% had not paid realty taxes on thedisputed property from 63 onwards andnever protested petitioners> act of declaringthe same for realty taxationB

(iii) C%, represented by a certain0ngela 4olmenares, signed the 5T&0covering the entire landholdings or the areaof $3.7#;7 hectares, which was thenrepresented to be rice and corn landsB

(iv) C% abandoned the entire landholdings

after executing the :eed of 0ssignment o/ights in 633.

YOLANDA CABALLES,petitioner,vs.DEPARTMENT OFAGRARIAN REFORM,

We hold that the private respondent cannot avail of thebenefits afforded by /0 #7@@, as amended. To invest himwith the status of a tenant is preposterous. ection of said law provides%t is the policy of the tate() To establish cooperative-cultivatorship among thosewho live and work on the land as tillers, owner-cultivatorship and the economic family-si8e farm as thebasis of &hilippine agriculture and, as a consequencedivert landlord capital in agriculture to industriadevelopmentB

xxx xxx xxx /0 #7@@, as amended, defines an economic familysi8e farm as Jan area of farm land that permits efficient useof labor and capital resources of the farm family and willproduce an income sufficient to provide a modest standardof living to meet a farm familyIs needs for food, clothingshelter, and education with possible allowance for paymen
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn32http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn26http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn27http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn28http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn29http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn30http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn31http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/june2006/G.R.%20No.%20159674.htm#_ftn32


16/29

of yearly installments on the land, and reasonable reservesto absorb yearly fluctuations in income.J 7

The private respondent only occupied a minisculeportion (2; square meters) of the $;;-square meter lot.ixty square meters of land planted to bananas, camote,and corn cannot by any stretch of the imagination beconsidered as an economic family-si8e farm. urely,planting camote, bananas, and corn on a sixty-squaremeter piece of land can not produce an income sufficient toprovide a modest standard of living to meet the farmfamilyIs basic needs. The private respondent himselfadmitted that he did not depend on the products of the landbecause it was too small, and that he took on carpentry

!obs on the side. 6Thus, the order sought to be reviewed ispatently contrary to the declared policy of the law statedabove.

The :0/ found that the private respondent shared theproduce of the land with the former owner, 0ndrea Cillenes.This led, or misled, the public respondents to conclude thata tenancy relationship existed between the petitioner andthe private respondent because, the public respondentscontinue, by operation of ec. ; of /. 0. #7@@, asamended, the petitioner new owner is subrogated to the

rights and substituted to the obligations of the supposedagricultural lessor (the former owner). We disagree. The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are

. The parties are the landowner and the tenantB. The sub!ect is agricultural landB#. There is consentB@. The purpose is agricultural productionB$. There is personal cultivationB and2. There is sharing of harvests.

0ll these requisites must concur in order to create atenancy relationship between the parties. The absence ofone does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, or a

cultivator thereof, or a planter thereon, a de :uretenant.This is so because unless a person has established hisstatus as a de :uretenant, he is not entitled to security oftenure nor is he covered by the 5and /eform &rogram ofthe


17/29

whether the employer makes a profit. "n the other hand,the tenant derives his income from the agricultural produceor harvest.J

TRINIDAD GABRIEL,paintiff=appeee,vs. EUSEBIOPANGILINAN, defendant=appeant.

. 5et =s now discuss the issues raised in thisappeal. 9irst, was the relationship between theappellee and appellant a leasehold tenancy or a civillaw leaseH

There are important differences between a leaseholdtenancy and a civil law lease. The sub!ect matter ofleasehold tenancy is limited to agricultural landB that of civillaw lease may be either rural or urban property. 0s toattention and cultivation, the law requires the leaseholdtenant to personally attend to, and cultivate the agriculturalland, whereas the civil law lessee need not personallycultivate or work the thing leased. 0s to purpose, thelandholding in leasehold tenancy is devoted to agriculture,whereas in civil law lease, the purpose may be for any otherlawful pursuits. 0s to the law that governs, the civil law

lease is governed by the 4ivil 4ode, whereas leaseholdtenancy is governed by special laws. #

%n order that leasehold tenancy under the 0griculturalTenancy 0ct may exist, the following requisites mustconcur

. That the land worked by the tenant is anagricultural landB. That the land is susceptible of cultivation by asingle person together with members of hisimmediate farm householdB#. That the land must be cultivated by thetenant either personally or with the aid of laboravailable from members of his immediate farm

householdB@. That the land belongs to anotherB and$. That the use of the land by the tenant is for aconsideration of a fixed amount in money or inproduce or in both. @

Were the foregoing requisites present in the instantcaseH There is no doubt that the land in question isagricultural land. %t is a fishpond and the 0griculturalTenancy 0ct, which refers to Jagricultural landJ, specificallymentions fishponds and prescribes the consideration for theuse thereof. Thus ection @2 (c) of said 0ct provides thatJthe consideration for the use of sugar lands, fishponds,saltbeds and of lands devoted to the raising of livestockshall be governed by stipulation between the partiesJ. This4ourt has already ruled that Jland in which fish is producedis classified as agricultural land.J $ The mere fact, however,that a person works an agricultural land does notnecessarily make him a leasehold tenant within the purviewof section @ of /epublic 0ct 1o. 66. e may still be a civillaw lessee unless the other requisites as aboveenumerated are complied with. /egarding the second requisite, it is to be noted thatthe land in question has an area of 26,$;3 square meters,or roughly 3 hectares of fishpond. The question of whethersuch a big parcel of land is susceptible of being worked by

the appellantIs family or not has not been raised, and Wesee no need of tarrying on this point. o, We pass to thethird requisite, to wit, whether the tenant himself personallyor with the aid of his immediate family worked the land. 0ssuming that appellant had previously entered in6# into an agreement of leasehold tenancy with&otenciano


18/29

tenantsB 7 and he who hires others whom he pays for doingthe cultivation of the land, ceases to hold, and is consideredas having abandoned the land as tenant within the meaningof sections $ and 7 of /epublic 0ct 1o. 66, and ceases toen!oy the status, rights, and privileges of one. We are, therefore, construed to agree with the court aquothat the relationship between the appellee Trinidad reliance on :"D "pinion 1o@@, eries of 66;, is in order. %n the said opinion, theecretary of Dustice declared, viz

'ased on the foregoing premises, we reiterate theview that with respect to conversions of agricultural landscovered by /.0. 1o. 22$3 to non-agricultural uses, theauthority of :0/ to approve such conversions may beexercised from the date of the law>s effectivity on Dune $677. This conclusion is based on a liberal interpretation o/.0. 1o. 22$3 in the light of :0/>s mandate and extensivecoverage of the agrarian reform program.

9ollowing the :"D opinion, the :0/ issued0dministrative "rder 1o. 2, eries of 66@, stating thalands already classified as non-agricultural before theenactment of /ep. 0ct 1o. 22$3 no longer needed anyconversion clearance

L L L
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/132477.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/132477.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/132477.htm#_ftn25http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/132477.htm#_ftn24http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/132477.htm#_ftn25


19/29

The authority of the :0/ to approve conversions ofagricultural lands covered by /ep. 0ct 1o. 22$3 to non-agricultural uses has not been pierced by the passage ofthe 5ocal


20/29

thereafter can be the sub!ect of :0/>s conversionauthority. aving recogni8ed the :0/>s conversionauthority over lands reclassified after $ Dune 677, it canno longer be argued that the ecretary of 0grarian /eformwas wrongfully given the authority and power toinclude *lands $ot ec-%ss##edas residential, commercial,industrial or other non-agricultural uses /eoe 5( 3"$e5677+ in the definition of agricultural lands. uch inclusiondoes not unduly expand or enlarge the definition ofagricultural landsB instead, it made clear what are the landsthat can be the sub!ect of :0/>s conversion authority, thus,serving the very purpose of the land use conversionprovisions of /epublic 0ct 1o. 22$3.

The argument of the petitioner that :0/ 0" 1o. ;-

;, as amended, was made in violation of ection 2$ of/epublic 0ct 1o. 22$3, as it covers even those non-awarded lands and reclassified lands by the 5


21/29

having undergone reclassification, before agricultural landsmay be used for other purposes.

%t is different, however, when through &residential

&roclamations public agricultural lands have been reservedin whole or in part for public use or purpose, i.e., publicschool, etc., because in such a case, conversion is nolonger necessary. 0s held in Repu$ic v. Gstonio,?@6Aonly apositive act of the &resident is needed to segregate orreserve a piece of land of the public domain for a publicpurpose. 0s such, reservation of public agricultural landsfor public use or purpose in effect converted the same tosuch use without undergoing any conversion process andthat they must be actually, directly and exclusively used forsuch public purpose for which they have been reserved,otherwise,they will be segregated from the reservations andtransferred to the :0/ for distribution to qualifiedbeneficiaries under the 40/&.?$;A Core so, publicagricultural lands already reserved for public use orpurpose no longer form part of the alienable and disposablelands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.?$A ence, they are outside the coverage of the 40/& andit logically follows that they are also beyond the conversion

authority of the :0/.

4learly from the foregoing, the ecretary of0grarian /eform did not act without !urisdiction or in excessof !urisdiction or with grave abuse of discretion amountingto lack or excess of !urisdiction in () including lands $otec-%ss##edas residential, commercial, industrial or othernon-agricultural uses /eoe 5( 3"$e 5677 in the definitionof agricultural lands under :0/ 0" 1o. ;-;, asamended, andB () issuing and enforcing :0/ 0" 1o. ;-;, as amended, sub!ecting to :0/>s !urisdiction forconversion lands which had already been reclassified asresidential, commercial, industrial or for other non-

agricultural uses on or after $ Dune 677.

imilarly, :0/ 0" 1o. ;-;, as amended,providing that the reclassification of agricultural lands by5s approval or clearancemust be secured to effect reclassification, did not violate theautonomy of the 5s

!urisdiction, i.e., *lands $ot ec-%ss##edas residentialcommercial, industrial or for other non-agriculturauses /eoe 5( 3"$e 5667.

Ho$. C%-os Fot#c* +. Ho$. Re$%to Coo$%

0nother matter which the movants bring to ouattention is that when the :0/>s "rder denying petitioners>application for conversion was first brought by petitioner4arlos ". 9ortich to the "ffice of the &resident, theappropriate administrative rules were not complied with. We
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/183409.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/183409.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/183409.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/183409.htm#_ftn51http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/183409.htm#_ftn49http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/183409.htm#_ftn50http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2010/june2010/183409.htm#_ftn51


22/29

wish to point out that, apparently, movants had theopportunity to question this alleged lapse in procedure butchose not to avail of the same. 9or the *win-win+ /esolutionitself never mentioned this supposed procedural lapse asan issue. ere, the issue which has been brought to thefore is the vaidit%of the *"in="in*Resoution of ;ovem$er/! 1--/, not that of any other previous proceedings. Themovants cannot now question the supposed procedurallapse for the first time before us. %t should have been raisedand resolved at the first opportunity, that is, at theadministrative level. The other grounds raised by respondents in theirinstant motion for reconsideration concerning the proprietyof petitioners> remedy, the absence of a motion forreconsideration of the *win-win+ /esolution before resortingto the present petition for certiorari, and forum shoppinghave already been extensively dealt with in our challengeddecision. We need not further elaborate on these groundsexcept to state that the same lacks merit. With respect to the motion for reconsideration filed bythe applications for intervention, we likewise find the sameunmeritorious. The issue of the applicants> right to intervenein this proceedings should be laid to rest. The rule in this

!urisdiction is that a party who wishes to intervene musthave a *certain right+ or *legal interest+ in the sub!ect matterof the litigation. 3 uch interest must be *actual,substantial, material, direct and immediate, and not simplycontingent and expectant.+ 7 ere, the applicants for interventioncategorically admittedthat they were not tenants ofpetitioner 1V/ Canagement and :evelopment4orporation, but were merely seasona, farmworkers in apineapple plantation on the sub!ect land which was underlease for ten (;) years to the &hilippine &acking4orporation. 6 /espondent, the :0/ ecretary Ernesto


23/29

1otwithstanding an appeal to the court of appeals, thedecision of the :0/ shall be immediately executory.J 6The /egional Trial 4ourts have not, however, beencompletely divested of !urisdiction over agrarian reformmatters. ection $2 of /0 22$3, on the other hand, confersJspecial !urisdictionJ on Jpecial 0grarian 4ourts,J which are/egional Trial 4ourts designated by the upreme 4ourt Gat least one () branch within each province G to act assuch. These /egional Trial 4ourts qua pecial 0grarian4ourts have, according to ection $3 of the same law,original and exclusive !urisdiction over

) Jall petitions for the determination of !ustcompensation to land-owners,J and) Jthe prosecution of all criminal offenses under . .?theA 0ct.J

DAR =S CUENCA

0ll controversies on the implementation of the4omprehensive 0grarian /eform &rogram (40/&) fallunder the !urisdiction of the :epartment of 0grarian /eform

(:0/), even though they raise questions that are also legalor constitutional in nature. 0ll doubts should be resolved infavor of the :0/, since the law has granted it special andoriginal authority to hear and ad!udicate agrarian matters.F#st Iss"e*urisdiction

%n its bare essentials, petitioner>s argument is thatprivate respondent, in his 4omplaint for 0nnulment of the1otice of 4overage, is asking for the exclusion of hislandholding from the coverage of the 4omprehensive

0grarian /eform &rogram (40/&). 0ccording to the :0/,the issue involves the implementation of agrarian reform, amatter over which the :0/ has original and exclusive

!urisdiction, pursuant to ection $; of the 4omprehensive0grarian /eform 5aw (/0 22$3).

"n the other hand, private respondent maintains thathis 4omplaint assails mainly the constitutionality of E"@;$. e contends that since the 4omplaint raises a purelylegal issue, it thus falls within the !urisdiction of the/T4. We do not agree.

4onflicts involving !urisdiction over agrarian disputesare as tortuous as the history of &hilippine agrarian reformlaws. The changing !urisdictional landscape is matchedonly by the tumultuous struggle for, and resistance to, thebreaking up and distribution of large landholdings.Two +asic Rules

Two basic rules have guided this 4ourt in determining!urisdiction in these cases. irst, !urisdiction is conferred bylaw.?7A0nd second, the nature of the action and the issue of

!urisdiction are shaped by the material averments of thecomplaint and the character of the relief sought.?6AThedefenses resorted to in the answer or motion to dismiss aredisregardedB otherwise, the question of !urisdiction woulddepend entirely upon the whim of the defendant.?;A

Grant o$ *urisdictionEver since agrarian reform legislations began, litigants

have invariably sought the aid of the courts. 4ourts of0grarian /elations (40/s) were organi8ed under /023?A*?fAor the enforcement of all laws and regulations

governing the relation of capital and labor on all agriculturalands under any system of cultivation.+ The !urisdiction ofthese courts was spelled out in ection 3 of the said law asfollows*ec. 3. Durisdiction of the 4ourt. - The 4ourt shalhave original and exclusive !urisdiction over the entire&hilippines, to consider, investigate, decide, and settle alquestions, matters, controversies or disputes involving althose relationships established by law which determine thevarying rights of persons in the cultivation and use ofagricultural land where one of the parties works the landand shall have concurrent !urisdiction with the 4ourt of 9irs%nstance over employer and farm employee or labor under/epublic 0ct 1umbered six hundred two and over landlordand tenant involving violations of the =sury 5aw (0ct 1o2$$, as amended) and of inflicting the penalties providedtherefor.+

0ll the powers and prerogatives inherent in obelonging to the then 4ourts of 9irst %nstance ?A(now the/T4s) were granted to the 40/s. The latter were furthevested by the 0gricultural 5and /eform 4ode (/0 #7@@)with original and exclusive !urisdiction over the followingmatters

*() 0ll cases or actions involving matters, controversiesdisputes, or money claims arising from agrarian relations xx x*() 0ll cases or actions involving violations of 4hapters and %% of this 4ode and /epublic 0ct 1umber eight hundredand nineB and*(#) Expropriations to be instituted by the 5and 0uthorityx x x.+?#A

&residential :ecree (&:) 1o. 6@2 thereaftereorgani8ed the 40/s, streamlined their operations, andexpanded their !urisdiction as follows*ec. . 3"#sd#ct#o$ o+e S"/;ect M%tte.- The4ourts of 0grarian /elations shall have original and

exclusive !urisdiction overa) 4ases involving the rights and obligations opersons in the cultivation and use of agricultural land exceptthose cogni8able by the 1ational 5abor /elations4ommissionB x x x Bb) Vuestions involving rights granted and obligationsimposed by laws, &residential :ecrees, "rders%nstructions, /ules and /egulations issued andpromulgated in relation to the agrarian reform program&rovided, however, That matters involving theadministrative implementation of the transfer of the land tothe tenant-farmer under &residential :ecree 1o. 3 andamendatory and related decrees, orders, instructions, rulesand regulations, shall be exclusively cogni8able by theecretary of 0grarian /eform, namely

() classification and identificationof landholdingsB

() x x xB(#) parcellary mappingB(@) x x xB

x x x x x x x xxm) 4ases involving expropriation of all kinds of land infurtherance of the agrarian reform programBx x x x x x x xx
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn13http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn8http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn10http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn11http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn12http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn13


24/29

p) E!ectment proceedings instituted by the:epartment of 0grarian /eform and the 5and 'ankinvolving lands under their administration and disposition,except urban properties belonging to the 5and 'ankBq) 4ases involving violations of the penal provisionsof /epublic 0ct 1umbered eleven hundred and ninety-nine,as amended, /epublic 0ct 1umbered thirty eight hundredand forty-four, as amended, &residential :ecrees and lawsrelating to agrarian reformB &rovided, however, Thatviolations of the said penal provisions committed by anyDudge shall be tried by the courts of general !urisdictionBandr) Fiolations of &residential :ecrees 1os. 7$ and72.

The 40/s were abolished, however, pursuant toection @@?@Aof 'atas &ambansa 'lg. 6?$A(approved

0ugust @, 67), which had fully been implemented on9ebruary @, 67#. Durisdiction over cases theretoforegiven to the 40/>s was vested in the /T4s. ?2A

Then came Executive "rder 1o. 6.?3A=nder ection3 thereof, the :0/ shall exercise *quasi-!udicial powers todetermine and ad!udicate agrarian reform matters, and shallhave exclusive !urisdiction over all matters involving

implementation of agrarian reform, except those fallingunder the exclusive original !urisdiction of the :E1/ andthe :epartment of 0griculture ?:0A.+ The :0/ shall alsohave the *powers to punish for contempt and to issuesubpoena, subpoena duces tecum and writs to enforce itsorders or decisions.+

%n uismundo v. CA,?7Athis provision was deemed tohave repealed ection (a) and (b) of &residential :ecree1o. 6@2, which vested the then 4ourts of 0grarian /elationswith *original exclusive !urisdiction over cases andquestions involving rights granted and obligations imposedby presidential issuances promulgated in relation to theagrarian reform program.+

=nder ection @ of Executive "rder 1o. 6-0, the:0/ was also made *responsible for implementing the4omprehensive 0grarian /eform &rogram.+ %n accordancewith ection $ of the same E", it possessed the followingpowers and functions*(b) %mplement all agrarian laws, and for this purpose,punish for contempt and issue subpoena, subpoena ducestecum, writs of execution of its decisions, and other legalprocesses to ensure successful and expeditious programimplementationB the decisions of the :epartment may inproper cases, be appealed to the /egional Trial 4ourts butshall be immediately executory notwithstanding suchappealBx x x x x x x xx*(h) &rovide free legal services to agrarian reformbeneficiaries and resolve agrarian conflicts and land-tenurerelated problems as may be provided for by lawBx x x x x x x xx*(l) ave exclusive authority to approve or disapproveconversion of agricultural lands for residential, commercial,industrial, and other land uses as may be provided x x x.J

The above grant of !urisdiction to the :0/ coversthese areas

(a) ad!udication of all matters involving implementation oagrarian reformB(b) resolution of agrarian conflicts and land tenure relatedproblemsB and(c) approval or disapproval of the conversionrestructuring or read!ustment of agricultural lands intoresidential, commercial, industrial, and other nonagricultural uses.

The foregoing provision was as broad as those*theretofore vested in the /egional Trial 4ourt by&residential :ecree 1o. 6@2,+ as the 4ourt ruled in 7da. deBan#u$ v. CA!?6Awhich we quote*x x x. The intention evidently was to transfer origina

!urisdiction to the :epartment of 0grarian /eform, aproposition stressed by the rules formulated andpromulgated by the :epartment for the implementation ofthe executive orders !ust quoted. The rules included thecreation of the 0grarian /eform 0d!udication 'oarddesigned to exercise the ad!udicatory functions of the:epartment, and the allocation to it of GOx x x ?"Ariginal and exclusive !urisdiction over the sub!ectmatter vested upon it by law, and all cases, disputescontroversies and matters or incidents involving the

implementation of the 4omprehensive 0grarian /eform&rogram under Executive "rder 1o. 6, Executive "rde1o. 6-0, /epublic 0ct 1o. #7@@, as amended by /epublic

0ct 1o. 276, &residential :ecree 1o. 3 and otheagrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations.*The implementing rules also declare that O(s)pecificallysuch !urisdiction shall extend over but not be limited to x x x(that theretofore vested in the /egional Trial 4ourts, i.e.)(c)ases involving the rights and obligations of personsengaged in the cultivation and use of agricultural landcovered by the 4omprehensive 0grarian /eform &rogram(40/&) and other agrarian laws x x x.+?;A

%n the same case, the 4ourt also held that the

!urisdictional competence of the :0/ had further beenclarified by /0 22$3 thus*x x x. The 0ct ?/0 22$3A makes references to and explicitlyrecogni8es the effectivity and applicability of &residentia:ecree 1o. 6. Core particularly, the 0ct echoes theprovisions of ection 3 of &residential :ecree 1o6, supra, investing the :epartment of 0grarian /eformwith original !urisdiction, generally, over all cases involvingagrarian laws, although, as shall shortly be pointed out, itrestores to the /egional Trial 4ourt, limited !urisdiction ovetwo groups of cases. ection $; reads as followsOE4. $;. Vuasi-Dudicial &owers of the :0/. G The:0/ is hereby vested with primary !urisdiction to determineand ad!udicate agrarian reform matters and shall haveexclusive original !urisdiction over all matters involving theimplementation of agrarian reform, except those fallingunder the exclusive !urisdiction of the :epartment o

0griculture ?:0A and the :epartment of Environment and1atural /esources ?:E1/A.x x x x x x x xxO%t shall have the power to summon witnesses, administeroaths, take testimony, require submission of reportscompel the production of books and documents andanswers to interrogatories and issue subpoena andsubpoena duces tecum and to enforce its writs through
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn14http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn15http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn16http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn17http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2004/sep2004/154112.htm#_ftn20


25/29

sheriffs or other duly deputi8ed officers. %t shall likewisehave the power to punish direct and indirect contempt in thesame manner and sub!ect to the same penalties asprovided in the /ules of 4ourt.>+?A

1onetheless, we have held that the /T4s have notbeen completely divested of !urisdiction over agrarianreform matters. ection $2 of /0 22$3 confers special

!urisdiction on *pecial 0grarian 4ourts,+ which are actually/T4s designated as such by the upreme 4ourt.?A=nderection $3 of the same law, these pecial 0grarian 4ourtshave original and exclusive !urisdiction over the followingmatters*) Oall petitions for the determination of !ustcompensation to land-owners,> and*) Othe prosecution of all criminal offenses under x x x?theA 0ct.>+

The above delineation of !urisdiction remains in placeto this date. 0dministrative 4ircular 1o. 6-;;?#Aof this4ourt stresses the distinction between the quasi-!udicialpowers of the :0/ under ections $; and $$ of /0 22$3and the !urisdiction of the pecial 0grarian 4ourts referredto by ections $2 and $3 of the same law.

Allegations o$ t!e Co#plaint

0 careful perusal of respondent>s 4omplaint?@Ashowsthat the principal averments and reliefs prayed for refer --not to the *pure question of law+ spawned by the allegedunconstitutionality of E" @;$ -- but to the annulment of the:0/>s 1otice of 4overage. 4learly, the main thrust of theallegations is the propriety of the 1otice of 4overage, asmay be gleaned from the following averments, amongothers*2. This implementation of 40/& in the landholding of the?respondentA is contrary to law and, therefore, violates?respondent>sA constitutional right not to be deprived of hisproperty without due process of law. The coverage of?respondent

agra cases - all

Documents