Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Silva
Case Digests on Agrarian Law and Social Legislation
1. Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines vs. Honorable
Secretary of Agrarian Reform
Facts:
The 3 cases question the constitutionality of the Agrarian Reform Program.
The contention of the petitioners in one case is that the provision of RA 6657
regarding the modes of payment of just compensation is unconstitutional
insofar as it requires the owners to accept just compensation in less than
money, which is the only medium of payment allowed.
Issue: Whether or not payment of just compensation other than money is
allowed
Ruling:
Petition granted.
Ratio:
RA 6657 allows the payment of just compensation by means of LBP Bonds,
Shares of Stocks in government-owned or controlled corporations, and tax
credits.
It cannot be denied that the traditional medium for the payment of just
compensation is money and no other. However, we do not deal here with the
traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain. This is not an ordinary
expropriation where only a specific property of relatively limited area is
sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a specific and perhaps
local purpose. What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of
expropriation.
Agrarian
Reform program
will involve not mere
millions of pesos. The cost will be tremendous. Considering the vast areas of
land subject to expropriation under the laws before us, we estimate that
hundreds
of billions of pesos will be needed, far more indeed than the amount of P50 bi
llion initiallyappropriated, which is already staggering as it is by our present
standards. Such amount is in fact not even fully available at this time. It is
assumed that the framers of the Constitution were aware of this difficulty
when they called for agrarian reform as a top priority project of the
government. It is a part of this assumption that when they envisioned the
expropriation that would be needed, they also intended that the just
compensation would have to be paid not in the orthodox way but a less
conventional if more practical method.
Ratio:
Yes.
There is a clear tenancy relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant,
such that the defendant cannot be ejected from the premises like a common
squatter.
The defendant Herminigildo Pascual is occupying and working on the
landholding to help his mother, a bona-fide tenant. He is an immediate
member of the family and is entitled to work on the land. As the lower court
held:
Under Republic Act No. 1199, a tenant shall mean a person who, himself and
with the aid available from within his immediate farm household, cultivates
the land belonging to, or possessed by, another, with the latters consent for
purposes of production, sharing the produce with the landholder under the
share tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a price certain or
ascertainable in produce or in money or both, under the leasehold tenancy
system.
Similarly, the term immediate farm household is defined in the same section
as follows:
(o) Immediate farm household includes the members of the family of the
tenant, and such other persons, whether related to the tenant or not, who
are dependent upon him for support and who usually help him operate the
farm enterprise.
The defendant, although not the tenant himself, is afforded the protection
provided by law as his mother is already old and infirm and is allowed to
avail of the labor of her immediate household. He is entitled to the security
of tenure accorded his mother. His having a house of his own on the property
is merely incidental to the tenancy.
6. Central Mindanao University vs. DARAB, 215 SCRA 86
Facts:
In 1958, President Carlos Garcia issued a proclamation reserving for the
Mindanao Agricultural College, now the CMU, a piece of land to be used as its
future campus. That CMU will assist faculty members and employee groups
through the extension of technical know-how, training and other kinds of
assistance. 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.
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. In its resolution, DARAB, ordered, among others, the segregation of
400 hectares of the land for distribution under CARP. 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.
land. The only thing that hindered it from paying the amount was the nonconcurrence of the farmer-beneficiary. But it has been ruled in previous
decisions that there is no need for such concurrence. Without such obstacle,
petitioner can now be compelled to perform its legal duty through the
issuance of a writ of mandamus.
10. Matienzo vs. Servidad, 107 SCRA 276
Facts:
Defendant Martin Servidad is the owner of an agricultural land He and
plaintiff Jose Matienzo executed a private instrument that the latter will take
care of the land but that they will share no percentage of the produce. Later,
defendant wrote plaintiff telling him not to "interfere with the plants" as they
had no agreement yet for that year, and that being the land-owner, he
should be the one to decide in accordance with the "tenancy law". From this,
petitioner protested.
Issue: Whether under the parties' agreements, plaintiff was instituted as an
overseer or as a tenant by defendant.
Ruling: Petition dismissed.
Ratio:
A tenant is defined under section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 1199 as a person
who, himself, and with the aid available from within his immediate
household, cultivates the land belonging to or possessed by another, with
the latter's consent for purposes of production, sharing the produce with the
landholder under the share tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a
price certain or ascertainable in produce or in money or both, under the
leasehold tenancy system. From the above definition of a tenant, it is clear
that absent a sharing arrangement, no tenancy relationship had ever existed
between the parties. What transpired was that plaintiff was made overseer
over a 7-hectare land area; he was to supervise applications for loans from
those residing therein; he was allowed to build his house thereon and to
plant specified plants without being compensated he was free to clear and
plant the land as long as he wished; he had no sharing arrangement between
him and defendant; and he was not obligated to pay any price certain to, nor
share the produce with, the latter.
11. Oarde vs. CA et al., 280 SCRA 235
Facts:
Plaintiffs in the case testified that they are tenant-tillers of the lands of
Guerrero and Molar, herein petitioners. Multiple witnesses took the witness
stand to testify for such plaintiffs. On the otherhand, defendants denied that
petitioners are tenant-tillers. The trial court held that Petitioners Molar and
Oarde were not lawful tenants of private respondents.
Issue: Whether plaintiffs in both cases are tenants of defendants in
possession of the land and cannot be ejected therefrom except for cause.
Ruling: Petition denied.
Ratio:
No.
The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are the following: (1) the
parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land;
(3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is
personal cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of harvests. All these must
concur to establish the juridical relationship of tenancy.
Markedly absent in the case of Petitioner Molar is the element of personal
cultivation. Both the trial court and the Court of Appeals found that Molar
herself did not actually cultivate the land, nor did her immediate family or
farm household. Instead, she hired other people to do all phases of farm
work. Even her co-petitioner testified that she did not actually till the land
and that she merely paid laborers to perform such task.
12. Province of Camarines Sur vs. CA, 222 SCRA 173
Facts:
Camarines Sur passed a Resolution authorizing the Provincial Governor to
purchase or expropriate property to establish a pilot farm for non-food and
non-traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial
government employees, thus it filed two separate cases for expropriation
against Ernesto N. San Joaquin and Efren N. San Joaquin, at the Regional Trial
Court, Pili, Camarines Sur.
The San Joaquins moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of
inadequacy of the price offered for their property. In an order, the trial court
denied the motion to dismiss and authorized the Province of Camarines Sur
to take possession of the property upon the deposit with the Clerk of Court
the amount provisionally fixed by the trial court to answer for damages that
private respondents may suffer in the event that the expropriation cases do
not prosper. They also asked that an order be issued to restrain the trial
court from enforcing the writ of possession, and thereafter to issue a writ of
injunction.
The Solicitor General expressed the view that the Province of Camarines Sur
must first secure the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform of the
plan to expropriate the lands of petitioners for use as a housing project.
Issue: Whether or not the Province of Cam Sur must first secure the approval
of the Department of Agrarian Reform of the plan to expropriate the lands of
the San Joaquins.
Ruling: Petition granted.
Ratio:
To sustain the Court of Appeals would mean that the local government units
can no longer expropriate agricultural lands needed for the construction of
roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc., without first applying for conversion
of the use of the lands with the Department of Agrarian Reform, because all
of these projects would naturally involve a change in the land use. In effect,
it would then be the Department of Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether
the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use.
13. Roxas & Co., Inc. vs Court of Appeals, G.R. 127876, 17
December, 1999.
Facts:
Petitioner Roxas & Co. is the registered owner of three haciendas, Haciendas
Palico, Banilad and Caylaway. It filed with respondent DAR a voluntary
offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway. Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later
placed under compulsory acquisition by respondent DAR in accordance
withthe CARL. Petitioner tried to withdraw the VOS of Hacienda Caylaway but
the sane was denied.Thereafter, petitioner sought the conversion of the
three haciendas from agricultural to other use but the petition was likewise
denied.
Issue: Whether process of land acquisition under CARL observes due process.
Ruling: Petition granted in part.
Ratio:
For a valid implementation of the CAR Program, two notices are required: (1)
the Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference
sent to the landowner, the representatives of the BARC, LBP, farmer
beneficiaries
and
other
interested
parties;
and
(2)
the Notice of Acquisition sent to the landowner under Section 16 of the CARL.
They are steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative
due process. The taking contemplated in Agrarian Reform is not a mere
limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title
to and physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial rights
accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary. The Bill of Rights
provides that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property
without due process of law. The CARL was not intended to take away
property without due process of law. The exercise of the power of eminent
domain requires
private property.
that
due
process
be observed
in
the
taking
of