Agra Cases, 28 July 2016

DAEZ v CA
Facts
Daez (D) owns 4H rice land; share tenancy (cultivated) by respondents (R, 4 people);
subjected to Operation Land Transfer (OLT) acquired by DAR issued certificates of land
transfer (CLT) to R;
R signed affidavits, allegedly duressed not share tenants but hired laborers D applied
for exemption and cancellation of CLTs;
D and husband affidavit ownership 41H subject to the 4H; DAR sec denied bec >7H;
D wrote to DAR reconsideration; Sec denied bec R tenants, disregarding R affidavit bec Ds
son was vice mayor and pressured R to sign;
D to CA, sustained DAR; D to SC, denied;
DAR issued emancipation patents (EP) then issued TCTs;
4H denied, D filed retention app; allowed by DAR OIC but denied 8 children 3H failed to
prove tillage or direct mgt appealed to DAR; DAR set aside, remand to regional office
the orders of CA and SC;
D MR denied;
Appealed to DAR retain 4H; so did the office of the pres (OP);
Issue
Is D rightful to the 4H?
Ruling
I.
Retention: (1) devoted to rice or corn (2) msut be share-crop or lease-tenancy none,
may apply for exemption; both absent, not covered by OLT, no need to apply for;
PD 27 5H, 3H if irrigated; retain not > 7H if land <24H;
Exemption to OLT: (1) not devoted to rice/corn even if tenanted (2) untenanted even of rice
or corn;
THEN REQUISITES TO GRANT APP FOR EXEMPTION TO OLT AND GRANT FOR APP RIGHT TO
RETENTION ARE DIFFERENT
Finality of decision on one does not preclude institution of the other.
II.
Right to retention is consti right; to mitigate compulsory land acquisition by balancing
owner and tenant;
SOSCIAL JUSTICE NOT PERPETRATE INJUSTICE TO OWNER;
*apply retention limits and right to choose
For as long as the area to be retained is compact or contiguous and it does not
exceed the retention ceiling of 5H, a land owners choice of the area to be
retained must prevail.
Right of retention may be exercised over tenanted despite issuance of CLT what to
protect is the right of tenants to opt to stay or to be beneficiary;
CLOA not TCT in lieu of EP;
CLTs were given w/o D according right to choose. TCTs based on LTS cannot operate to
defeat the right of Ds heirs.
Petition granted! CA set aside! OP reinstated! DAR accord D rights!

1
JKC

Agra Cases, 28 July 2016

RODRIGUEZ v SALVADOR
Facts
Agri tenancy is not presumed; must be proven by the person alleging;
Salvador (S) filed unlawful detainer against Rodriguezes (R);
R claims abs owner of a land (with TCT and free patent in the name of Heirs of Cristino S,
represented by S) that S only acquired by possession by tolerance; did not vacate;
Rs claim they entered the land with consent and permission from predecesors-of-interest
(siblings Salvador) but be devoted to agri and share produce to siblings Salvador; since
tenancy rel, DARAB has juris not MTC;
MTC: (+) tenancy, no juris, dismissed;
RTC: remanded to MTC to determine tenancy but granted! (+) tenancy; S recons, denied;
hence review;
CA: (-) tenancy, failed to prove that there was consent no value to affidavits merely
showed they occupied by consent mere tolerance; remand to MTC!
Issue
Is there tenancy?
Rule
S: sec 5 RA 3844, tenancy by agreement oral or written, express or implied; here is implied
bec allowed to cultivate and share; affids and witness had personal knowledge of cult and
sharing bet them;
R: mere cult not agri tenants; predecesors merely tolerated;
R (petitioners) lack merit:
o Tenancy:
Parties: owner, tenant, agri lessee
Subject is agri land
Consent of both to the relationship
For agri production
Personal cult by tenant or lessee
Harvest shared
o That Rs were cult and sharing even after demise of owner 50/50
Affids insufficient to prove agri tenancy; consent lacking (self-serving affid of lucia R,
such will not suffice)
Failed prove sharing; no receipt
It is incumbent upon the person who claims to be an agricultural tenant to
prove by substantial evidence all the requisites of agricultural tenancy.
MTC juris! But only fair rental value for damage. Petition denied! No tenancy!

2
JKC

Agra Cases, 28 July 2016

ALITA v CA
Facts
2 lands acquired by pred-in-int (Reyes, R) by homestead; they desire to personally cult but
Alita (A) wont vacate on PD 27 (emancipation of tenants from bondage of soil) and PD 316
(prohibiting ejectment of tennat tiller pending pd 27) by DAR;
R complaint against Hon Estrella, DAR and R bec PD 27 not applied;
A motion enjoin R on Operation Land Transfer (OLT) to Agrarian Relations, denied; so did
RTC; and CA;
Issue
Are homestead lands covered by PD 27?
Rule
PD 27: welfare and protection of the poor; cannot invoke to defeat Public Land Act 141
(Homestead Act: for welfare of poor. The law gives a needy citizen a piece of
land where he may build a modest house for himself and family and plant what
is necessary for the substinence and for the satisfaction of lifes other needs.)
Consti respects homesteaders rights (Sec 6 Art 13: The State shall apply the principle of
agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the
disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including land s of public domain
under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights,
homestead right of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their
ancestral lands.);
RA 6657 supports PD 27 not applicable to homestead; retention limits: provided further,
that original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own
the original homestead at the time of the approval of this act shall retain the
same areas as long as they continue to cul said homestead;
Homestead not covered by PD 27! Sustained RTC and CA!

3
JKC

Agra Cases, 28 July 2016

NATALIA v DAR (Ungos, 2015)
Facts

Natalia Realty (N) owns 125H;

PD 1637 allocated 20H as townsite for population overspill; parts of Ns included; private
owners allowed to develop low-cost subd; Human Settlements Regulatory Commission
granted N permit for subd;
CARL 1988 DAR issued notice of coverage on some undeveloped portions; N sought
cancellation not agri lands anymore after PD 1637;

Issue

Were the undeveloped N properties covered by CARL?

Rule

Not agri lands..

RA 6657 sec 4: CARL shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity
produced, all public and private agricultural lands.. Agri land: devoted to agri
activity as defined in this act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential,
coom or ind lands arable and suitable lands
PD 957: comply conform to all standards (not all complied with) general law; PD 1637
referred only to Lungsod Silangan reservation special law. Between general and
special law, latter prevails.

4
JKC

Agra Cases, 28 July 2016

LUZ FARMS v DAR
Facts

Implemented RA 6657: include raising livestock, poultry and swine; DAR sec promulgated
Guidelines and procedures Implementing Production and Profit Sharing;
Luz: declare rules and guidelines unconsti (secs 3b, 11, 13, 32 of CARL)
o 3b: raising livestock included in the def of agricultural, agricultural ent or agri active
o 11: commercial farms as private agri lands devoted to comm., livestock, poultry and
swine raising
o 13: execute a production-sharing plan
o 32: product sharing plan, 3% gross sales distribute 60 days of the end of fiscal year
to regular and other farmworkers, provided that it is 5M/year gross sales

Issue

Are 3b, 11, 13 and 32 consti?

Held

Agricultural: never the intention of framers to include livestock and poultry ind sec 166
RA 3844: alnd devoted to any growth, including but not limited to crop lands, saltbeds,
fishponds, idle and abandoned land. ARABLE invalid
Where the legius or exec acts beyond the scope of its powers, duty of judiciary to declare
what it had assumed to do as void.
3b, 11, 13 and 32 of 6657 (due to inclusion of livestock, paultry and swine) and the
implementing rules and guidelines null and void

5
JKC

Agra Cases, 28 July 2016

DAR v SUTTON
Facts

Land inherited by Sutton (S), exclusive to cow and calf breeding;

S VOS to DAR (1987); 1988 CARL included farms used for raising livestock, paultry and
swine; LUZ v DAR not; then S filed to DAR withdraw VOS as theirs devoted to cattleraising thus exempt; MARO inspected, confirmed recomm DAR sec exemption ignored;
AO 9 (1993 only portions of private agri lands for raising livestock, apultry and swine
shall be excluded 1:1 animal-land ratio and 1.78715H for infra/21 heads cattle excluded;
S wrote DAR sec on Luz Farms doctrine partially granted ratio applied;
S move to recons; office of the pres (OP): agreed with DAR on AO 9 that it is not counter to
Luz Farms doctrine; CA: AO9 null and void;

Issue

Were the limits of AO9 consti?

Rule

Admin agencies are endowed with powers legis in nature, a modern practical ncecessity;
sdmin rules and reg must not contravene consti;
1987 ConCom show a clear intent to exclude all alnds exclusively devoted to livestock,
swine and poultry raising;
DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms; Natalia reiterated Luz;
RA 6657 sec 4: CARL shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity
produced, all public and private agricultural lands.. Agri land: devoted to agri
activity as defined in this act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential,
coom or ind lands arable and suitable lands

6
JKC

Agra Cases, 28 July 2016

MILESTONE v OP
Facts

Milestone Farms Inc (M) secondarily engaged in raising cattle, pigs, and other livestock;
acquire lands by purchase or lease need for these purpose; sell the raised; breed raise sell
poultry; purchase sell acquire equipment etc; import cattle etc and food for the same
purpose;
1988 CARL included same same livestock etc; 1990 Luz Doctrine, such are excluded; M
filed exemption/exclusion 316H lands with TCTs
DAR AO 9 (1993 only portions of private agri lands for raising livestock, apultry and
swine shall be excluded 1:1 animal-land ratio and 1.78715H for infra/21 heads cattle
excluded;
Details details: livestock etc 258H, infra 42H, 10H corn, 5H fish cult; population 371 cows,
20 horsesm 5678 swine, 788 HEAD OF COCKS; what they are applying is below the ideal
area (563H); not directly used 15H; corn and dish cult supports livestock production.
DAR exempted 316H
1995 RA6657 amende by 7811 priv agri lands to livestock excluded in CARL; DAR
exempted only 240H of the 316H then 75H covered by CARP;
Not all heads were owners (Certificate of Ownership of Large Cattle, COLC), appealed,
denied; OP: 316H exempt; BUT! Anakpawis ng Lagundi (APL) and Pinugay Farmers coop
(PF) motion for recon (COLC did not match actual heads set aside 316H;
CA: M was always engaged in its business as such and M applied for exclusion even before
AO9 granted 316H!
6 montsh early, parties did not inform CA, DAR issued conversion portions 153H of 316H to
residential and golf course controversial area is now only 162H; APL and PF moiton for
recon;
DAR then informed CA; not on AO9 but on showing that property was no longer agri;
MISCONDUCT AND/OR DISHONESTY 162.7 CARP;
M filed MR, denied; Not rely on Sutton not obly because AO9 is unconsti, but on the MARO
reports and DAR manifests

Issue

Was the 162H covered by CARP?

Rule

Details details, technicalities.. rule 49, new evidence not valid, exemptions etc
DAR secretary has juris and authority to exempt or exclude from CARP; Sec Villa
(DAR) already granted the conversion into residential and golf courses because it was
devoted to livestock; no error by CA! 162H Covered by CARP.

7
JKC

Agra Cases, 28 July 2016

CMU v DARAB (ungos, 2015)
Facts

CMU is an agri insti. Owns 3,000H land; adopted livelihood prog lands leased to faculty
and employees to cult 4-5H/5 member for lowland rice project;
Faculty and employees filed DAR to be declared tenants under CARL; DAR denied, not
CARL benifeciaries; but DAR segregated 400H to agra reform bec not directly, actually and
exclusively used for school site;

Issue

Was DAW correct in segregating 400H?

Rule

DAR in view of Sec 10 CARL restricted the land area of CMU to its PRESENT needs or to
land actually etc etc overlooking the significant growth factor of CMU in the years to come;
CMu by its nature was established to promote agri. Needs land for expansion;
CMU has the right to determine when and what lands are to be used by them;

8
JKC