Sunteți pe pagina 1din 7


Prepared by: Atty. Rafael A. de la Cruz III



I. Atty. Ca Cho owned a parcel of land covered by an

Emancipation Patent Title. A year after the same was
registered before the Register of Deeds, Francisco
Pacallagan assailed the title registered under the name of
Atty. Ca Cho, alleging among others that the land was
fraudulently granted to him not being an actual tiller of the
land, and that, the lawyer already owned more than 5
hectares of landholdings as previously awarded by the
Department of Agrarian Reform.

(a) If you are the counsel de parte of the protestant

(Francisco Pacallagan) what will be your best

Pacallagan’s contention is correct. Atty. Ca Cho is

both not qualified and disqualified to be an agrarian
reform beneficiary.

This is because of 2 sections of the CARP, namely

Section 22, governing Land Distribution for Qualified
Beneficiaries and Section 73, enumerating Prohibited
Acts and Omissions in relation to Section 22 ”Grounds
for Disqualification and Exclusion of ARBs”.

Atty. Ca Cho owns 2 lands:

1. Parcel of land covered by an emancipation

patent which was duly registered at the Register
of Deeds. Emancipation patents are proofs of full
ownership of lands awarded to an agrarian
reform beneficiary under PD 27 or EO 228, upon
full payment of the annual amortization or lease
rentals. He is allegedly not the actual tiller of the
land in question.
2. The other land according to Pacallagan was
“previously awarded” and exceeds more than 1
hectares. “Awarded lands” are agricultural lands
distributed through an agrarian reform of the
state, which includes landholdings covered by
CLOAs or EPs.

He is not a “qualified beneficiary” under Section 22

of the law.

There is no such thing as failure at the end of the

road, for failure only means a delayed success.
Under Section 22, “lands covered by CARP shall
be distributed as much as possible to the
“landless” residents of the Barangay or in the
absence thereof, landless residents of the

Atty. Ca Cho cannot be considered a beneficiary

under Section 22 because:

1. He is not “landless” as he already has a

“previously awarded” land which exceeds
more than 5 hectares as an agrarian reform
beneficiary. He is not therefore a “landless”
resident of the barangay or municipality
owning to such lands being awarded to him.
2. He is not any of the qualified
persons/beneficiaries enumerated under
Section 22. Expressio unius est exclusion alterius.
3. He is not the tiller of the land. One of the basic
qualifications for beneficiaries would be the
“willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and
make the land productive”.

He is also disqualified as an ARB.

Atty. Ca Cho owns an aggregate of more than 5

hectares of land. Under PD27/EO228, one cannot
own more than the ceiling set by law which is a. 5
hectares for non irrigated lands or b.3 hectares for
irrigated lands. Under RA6657, beneficiaries are
only allowed a maximum ceiling of 3 hectares.

Under Section 73(a) of the CARL Prohibited Acts

and Ommisions, the “ownership or possession, for
the purpose of circumventing the provisions of the
CARL, of agricultural lands in excess of the total
retention limits or award ceilings by any person,
natural or juridical except those under collective
ownership by farmer-beneficiaries”.

Atty. Ca Cho ownership of more than 5 hectares

plus the parcel of land he has just registered is
clearly contrary to the law.

He is therefore in violation of Section 73 of the

CARL for exceeding the award ceiling for
beneficiaries, in relation to Section 22. “Violations
of agrarian reform laws and regulations, or
issuances” are grounds for disqualification and
exclusion as Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries, and as
such, should be disqualified and excluded as an

There is no such thing as failure at the end of the

road, for failure only means a delayed success.
(b) If you were sought to be hired by Atty. Ca Cho, will
you accept the undertaking? If yes, how will you
argue his case?

I will decline the case because of the facts


Firstly, I cannot argue that the he is either an owner of

a homestead patent because that would
presuppose that he is a landowner exercising his
retention rights.

I cannot also argue that the lands are owned by him

and his wife as respective land owners who were
married under the Civil Code because of the same

It is without question that even if he is a preferred

qualified child of a landowner, he may only own up
to 5 hectares.

He has clearly gotten the lands as a beneficiary, even

if he is not qualified and, because of getting the other
parcel of land, disqualified as to the circumvention of
the award ceiling.

Alternative answer:

Unless, the parcel of land is transferred through:


Legitimes of heirs or

Consolidation of ownership?

(c) If you are the Judge, which contention will


There is no such thing as failure at the end of the

road, for failure only means a delayed success.
The case falls under Agrarian Law Implementation cases, which is
under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary and his
representatives over agrarian reform disputes, including the
identification, classification, inclusion, exclusion, qualification or
disqualification of beneficiaries and other agrarian cases, disputes,
matters or concerns. This jurisdiction is limited in so far as assumption
of powers and functions relative to the adjudication of agrarian
reform cases consistent with the extent of DAR’s quasi-judicial powers
or conversely limited powers to hear and determine matters which is
within its competence and field of expertise.

A judge under the RTC designated as Special Agrarian Courts has

jurisdiction over matters involving determination of just compensation
and criminal offenses under the CARL.

(d) If a motion for reconsideration will be filed, how will

you decide?

Refer the matter to the DAR Secretary which

excercises appellate jurisdiction over agrarian reform

II. On 28 July 2009, DAR Secretary Val Atong Issued a decision

adjudicating the parties’ respective rights and obligations
relative to the valuation of the land for purposes of
determining just compensation of the condemned
property. Aggrieved by the decision, Respondent-Luisa
Soriano hired your services as a lawyer.
(a) What will be your legal remedy to assail such
valuation? File with the SAC a Notice of Original Action
within 15 days of Notice of Decision to disagree with
the decision of the DARAB, under Section 6 Rule XIX of
the 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure.

There is no such thing as failure at the end of the

road, for failure only means a delayed success.
(b) Does the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian
Reform has jurisdiction over the said raised disputed
issue? While all agrarian dispute cases are within the
limited quasi-jurisdiction of the DAR, the exclusive
jurisdiction over determination of just compensation
and prosecution of criminal cases under the CARL is
within the exclusive jurisdiction of the RTC of every
province designated as a Special Agrarian Court.
Valuation of just compensation of Luisa’s property is
therefore lodged with the respective RTC/SAC where
her property is located.
(c) What adjudicatory body will you elevate the lost case
and what are the procedural guidelines set forth by the
rules? A petition for review under Rule 42 of the Rules of
Court should be filed at the Court of Appeals with 15
days of Notice of Decision, otherwise the decision by
the SAC’s is final over the determination of just
compensation. Review by the CA shall be governed
by the Rules of Court because RA 6657(as suppletory)
does not provide the details under which the “review’
will be conducted.

(d) Assuming that you still lose before the body that you
sought relief, what will be your next remedy?

A petition for review on certiorari under Rule 45 with the

SC within a non extendible period of 15 days from
receipt of decision from the CA.
III. The landowner-Tim Mc Key received a notice of coverage
from the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office. Upon filing you
protest, DAR initiated an expropriation proceeding, which
was sustained by Judge Pacquing as to their authority. In
the course of trial, the Good Judge ruled that the just
compensation of the said disputed land amounts to Php
8,000,000. The counsel of the respondent (Tim McKey)
issued sought a restraining order from the Court of Appeals
to enjoin the Republic/DAR from entering into the said
condemned properties. Upon careful review, Court of
Appeals Justices issued a Temporary Restraining Order and

(a) Comment on the procedural aspect of the case.

1. The two notice rule was not followed. Aside from the Notice of
Coverage, which notifies landowner of his land being subject
to the CARL(inclusive of the periods to protest, nomination of
preferred beneficiary, manifest for exclusion and manifest for
retention), he should also receive a Notice Of Land Valuation
and Acquisition, which will give him the price which the Govt
offers for his land.
2. Before a judicial determination of just compensation,
administrative determination must be made by the DARAB or

There is no such thing as failure at the end of the

road, for failure only means a delayed success.
adjudicators after a hearing which includes the landowner,
LBP and other parties, resolving the issue of just compensation
within procedural guidelines. In this case, the PARAD should
have conducted preliminary proceedings since the land is
valued at less than 10,000.00. Only after administrative
remedies has been exhausted will the SAC be able to
determined just compensation following the set formula on
computing such compensable taking. Such formula is
indispensable and must be fully considered by theSAC in the
determination of just compensation.
3. The restraining order is not the proper remedy. Under Section
55, “Aside from the SC, no courts in the Philippines may issue
any restraining order or preliminary injunction against PARC,
DAR, or any of its duly authorized or designated agencies in
any case, dispute or controversy arising from, necessary to, or
in connection with the application, implementation,
enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent
laws on agrarian reform.

(b) If you are from the Office of the Solicitor General, what
will be your legal maneuver to obtain a relief in favor of
the Republic Of the Philippines?
AS the counsel for the Republic, I would push for the
appropriation regardless of the protest. The state has the
right to take the land upon payment of just
compensation. So as long as there is “just payment” of
the land in question, the government may exercise its
power of eminent domain as long as the land will be
used for the greater good.
(c) If you are the counsel of the respondents, what will be
your best argument?
As counsel for the respondents, I will argue that my client
was unjustly deprived of the right to due process in the
determination of just compensation for the valuation of
her land when the process was circumvented and
determined through judicial determination without the
preliminary determination by the DAR as to the matter
of justly compensating the value of her property.
Furthermore, I will argue that, such processes are
indispensable, for to be considered paid for the fair and
full value of my property, a lot of factors need to be
considered. The indispensability of the processes is
important because it follows the constitutional and
procedural aspects of the exercise of eminent domain.
(d) When the parties entered into a compromise relative to
the valuation of the land, what will happen to the
appealed case?
(Compromise by LBP, LO and other parties ba to?)

There is no such thing as failure at the end of the

road, for failure only means a delayed success.
(e) Will your answer be the same if the judgment of
valuation for purposes of determining just compensation
already attained finality and already executor?
(f) How can a decision of DARAB be executory as to the
amount of just compensation? The decision of the
DARAB is final and executory if the aggrieved party fails
to contest the decision within 15 days of receipt of
decision under Section 57 of the CARL.

There is no such thing as failure at the end of the

road, for failure only means a delayed success.