1ST CASE: DAR V. WOODLAND AGRO-DEVELOPMEN
DAR
INC.
FACTS:
DAR issued NOC since the Woodland exceeded in
their retention limit and was given new TCT
Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs)
were given into 5 farmers
Woodland contended that the NOC was illegal
since R.A. No. 6657 has already expired
RTC ruled in favour of Woodland wherein they
stated that the DARs Act of sending Woodland an
NOC already a breach of R.A. No. 6657, since the
NOC was issued beyond the 10-year period
prescribed by law.
ISSUE:
WON can the petitioner DAR still issue NOTICES
OF COVERAGE after June 15, 1998.
RULING:
YES. The petitioner DAT can still issue NOC.
The success of the CARP depends heavily on the
adept implementation by the DAR. The agency's
primordial procedural tool for realizing the law's
objectives is the issuance of Notices of Coverage
and Acquisition.
For the court, to sustain Woodland's theory that
the DAR can no longer issue those notices after
15 June 1998 despite the enactment of R.A. 8532
would thwart the CARP's purpose.
2ND CASE: ROS V.
FACTS:
Owners and developers of lands
Land were reclassified as industrial via Municipal
Ordinance
Secured all permits needed
DAR disallowed the conversion and issued a cease
and desists order
ISSUES:
WON the DAR has the primary jurisdiction over
the case.
WON the RTC can issue a writ of injunction
against the DAR.
RULING: ISSUE NO. 1
YES, DAR has the primary jurisdiction over the
case. (R.A. No. 6657- Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program)
RULING: ISSUE NO. 2
NO. Section 68 of R.A. No. 6657 provides:
Immunity of Government Agencies from Undue
Interference. No injunction, restraining order,
prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the
lower courts against the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), the Department of Agriculture
(DA), the DENR, and the Department of Justice
(DOJ) in their implementation of the program.
3rd CASE: FRANCIS ESTOLAS V. MALABOT
FACTS:
Respondent Mabalot was awarded an agricultural
land by virtue of PD 27 but sold the same to
Estolas since he needed the money for his medical
treatment.
Mabalot contended that it was only a verbal
mortgage but Estolas treated it as a sale. Estolas
was issued a TCT. Mabalot tried to redeem but he
was not able to do so because of the higher price.
ISSUE:
WON the transfer of the agricultural land is valid.
RULING:
NO. PD 27 states that the Land Reform Program of
the Government shall not be transferable except
to the grantees heirs by hereditary succession or
back to the government by other legal means.
It was also stated in the decision that the
respondent did not abandon the subject land.
4TH CASE: DAR. As represented by its SECRETARY,
ROBERTO M. PAGDANGANAN V. DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION, CULTURE AND SPORTS (DECS)
FACTS:
Esteban Jalandoni donated a parcel of land to
DECS. It leased to Anglo Agricultural Corporation
for 10 agricultural crop years and was renewed
for another 10 years.
Several farmers claimed for a portion of the said
land since they were permanent and regular
farmers.
ISSUE:
WON the subject properties are exempt from the
coverage of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise
known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law of 1998.
RULING:
NO. The subject land is not exempted from CARP
coverage since it is not actually used for school
sites or campuses.
To be exempted, it must be actually, directly, and
exclusively used and found to be necessary.
However, it did not use the said property for
school usage but it rented to a certain
corporation.
 5th CASE: DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM V. pronouncements regarding the status of the land
COURT OF APPEALS in dispute.

FACTS: 6th CASE: NATALIA REALTY, INC., AND ESTATE

BATCO was an owner of the several parcels of
land where it voluntarily sold it to the
government. It then received a Notice of Valuation
and Acquisition from the DAR but it rejected the
same since they contended that it was devoted for
livestock.

DAR ruled against the BATCO but the CA reversed

the decision of the DAR.

ISSUE:
WON the CA gravely abused its discretion in
excluding/exempting the subject lands from
CARP coverage despite BATCOs admission that
only a portion thereof was devoted to livestock
raising and considering its previous voluntary
offer of the lands to the government under the
VOS.

RULING:
Verily, issues of exclusion or exemption partake
the nature of Agrarian Law Implementation cases
which are well within the competence and
jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary.

Thus, considering too his technical expertise on

the matter, courts cannot simply brush aside his