Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
DARAB: The DARAB set aside the decision of the PARAD, and: (1) The agricultural lessor-owner or a member of his
1. Ordered Chioco to respect and maintain the peace immediate family will personally cultivate the
possession and cultivation of Corderias landholding or will convert the landholding, if
2. To reimburse Corderias of the money equivalent suitably located, into residential, factory, hospital or
representing Corderias unrealized harvest from school site or other useful non-agricultural
1980-1993 ISSUE purposes: Provided; That the agricultural lessee
shall be entitled to disturbance compensation
ISSUE: Whether or not Corderias abandoned the landholding. equivalent to five years rental on his landholding in
addition to his rights under Sections twenty-five
RULING: No. Under Section 8 of RA 3844, the agricultural and thirty-four, except when the land owned and
leasehold relation shall be extinguished only under any of the leased by the agricultural lessor, is not more than
following three circumstances, to wit: five hectares, in which case instead of disturbance
(1) abandonment of the landholding without the compensation the lessee may be entitled to an
knowledge of the agricultural lessor; advanced notice of at least one agricultural year
(2) voluntary surrender of the landholding by the before ejectment proceedings are filed against him:
agricultural lessee, written notice of which shall be Provided, further, That should the landholder not
served three months in advance; or cultivate the land himself for three years or fail to
(3) absence of the persons under Section 9 to succeed substantially carry out such conversion within one
the lessee year after the dispossession of the tenant, it shall be
presumed that he acted in bad faith and the tenant
None of these is obtaining in this case. In particular, petitioner shall have the right to demand possession of the
cannot be said to have abandoned the landholding. It will be land and recover damages for any loss incurred by
recalled that Chioco forcibly ejected him from the property him because of said dispossessions.
through threats and intimidation. His house was bulldozed
and his crops were destroyed. Petitioner left the farm in 1980 (2) The agricultural lessee failed to substantially
and returned only in 1993 upon learning of Chioco’sdeath. comply with any of the terms and conditions of the
Two years after, or in 1995, he filed the instant Petition. contract or any of the provisions of this Code unless
his failure is caused by fortuitous event or force
Cuderias v Chioco: majeure;
Chioco was a politician and owner of agri land, Cuderias was
a legitimate tenant. There was forcible ejectment of cuderias (3) The agricultural lessee planted crops or used the
from property through force and intimidation, the house was landholding for a purpose other than what had
bulldozed and the crops were destroyed. When cuderias knew been previously agreed upon;
chioco died, he filed case. WON THERE WAS ABANDOMENT.
No, there was none. Defense of heirs of chioco, prescription.
(4) The agricultural lessee failed to adopt proven
(TN: 3 year prescriptive period in Section 38)
farm practices as determined under paragraph 3 of
Section twenty-nine;
SECTION 9. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished
by Death or Incapacity of the Parties - In case of death or
permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his (5) The land or other substantial permanent
landholding, the leasehold shall continue between the improvement thereon is substantially damaged or
agricultural lessor and the person who can cultivate the destroyed or has unreasonably deteriorated
landholding personally, chosen by the agricultural lessor through the fault or negligence of the agricultural
within one month from such death or permanent incapacity, lessee;
STA. ANA V. SPS. CARPO In the first issue, the court ruled in affirmative. It was held that
Facts: the PARAD acted without jurisdiction when it held that the
subject land was no longer covered by our agrarian laws
Respondent Carpo owns a land 91,337 sqm land in because of the retention rights of the respondents. The CA
Sta. Rosa Laguna. 3.5 hectares of which is devoted likewise acted without jurisdiction when it ruled that the land
for rice and corn production and was tenanted by had become non-agricultural based on a zoning ordinance of
Domigo and Adoracion Pastolero. When Domingo 1981 on the strength of a mere vicinity map. These rulings
passed away, Adoracion sold their tenancy rights to violated the doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
petitioner Sta. Ana, which conformity of Leon, for
P72,500. The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes the courts from
resolving a controversy over which jurisdiction has initially
After some time, the relationship between the been lodged in an administrative body of special competence.
parties turned sour and the respondents filed an For agrarian reform cases, jurisdiction is vested in the DAR;
ejectment case against the respondents due to more specifically, DARAB.
Non-payment of lease rentals. Respondents alleged
the parties agreed to increase the rentals from 36 CA ruled that the land had ceased being agricultural on the
to 45 cavans, and that, if respondents wanted to basis of a mere vicinity map, in open disregard of the Doctrine
repossess the property, they only had to pay of Primary Jurisdiction, since the issue was within the province
P72,500.00. of the Secretary of DAR
Respondents further averred that despite repeated 2. WON the petitioner deliberately failed to pay her lease
demands, petitioner refused to pay the actual rentals when the same fell due
rentals; and that the subject land had been
declared, suitable for commercial and industrial On the second issue, the SC ruled in the Negative. Under Sec.
purposes, per Zoning Ordinance of 1981 of the 37 of R.A. 3844, coupled with the fact that the respondents are
Municipality of Sta. Rosa, Laguna. Respondents the complainants themselves, the burden of proof to show the
prayed that petitioner be ejected from the subject existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of the petitioner
land and be directed to pay P75,016.00 as unpaid as an agricultural lessee rests upon the respondents as
rentals. agricultural lessors. However, the respondents failed to
discharge such burden.
Petitioner denied that there was an agreement to
increase the rental and that they did not refuse to Landowner has burden of proof that a ground to dispossess
pay the respondents, stating further that they even exists. Respondents failed to discharge such burden. The
sent out notices advising the respondents to accept; agricultural tenant’s failure to pay the lease rentals must be
and that petitioners even deposited the amounts to willful and deliberate in order to warrant his dispossession of
Universal Savings Bank. They further claim that the land that he tills. In this case, there was an intention to pay
petitioner is a farmer-beneficiary of P.D. 27 and on the part of Sta. Ana.
prayed for outright dismissal of the case
The term deliberate is characterized by or results from slow,
PARAD ruled that petitioner deliberately failed careful, thorough calculation and consideration of effects and
defaulted the payment to the respondents. It was consequences. The term willful is defined as one governed by
also shown that the petitioners deposited the will without yielding to reason.
amounts in their names and not the respondents.
PARAD also ruled that the defendant is not covered The issue is non-payment of the rentals. You will note there
by P.D. 27 since it needed at least 7 hectares are different rulings of the DAR. PARAD (Provincial Agrarian
devoted to palay Reform Adjudicator) is the provincial adjudicator. The DARAB
is the central office in Manila. So any decision of the PARAD
DARAB, however, reversed the ruling of PARAD, goes to DARAB and from the DARAB being a quasi-judicial
stating that there was no proof that the failure to agency under the rules of Court, goes to CA. Now SC discusses
first about BURDEN OF PROOF.
The records of this case are, however, bereft of any Section 12. Lessee's Right of Redemption - In case the
showing that the aforestated claim was substantiated by landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge
any evidence tending to prove the same. Keeping in mind of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to
that bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration:
equivalent to proof, the Court cannot therefore lend any Provided, That the entire landholding sold must be redeemed:
credence to respondents’ fortuitous event defense. Provided, further, That where these are two or more
agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of
Antonio v. Manahan - SC held that the records showed that
redemption only to the extent of the area actually cultivated
the landowner actually rejected the rentals tendered by the
by him. The right of redemption under this Section may be
tenants therein due to their supposed poor quality. This
exercised within two years from the registration of the sale,
circumstance was taken by the Court together with the fact
and shall have priority over any other right of legal
that said tenants even exerted efforts to make up for the
redemption.
rejected rentals through the payments made for the other
years
Po vs. Dampal
Roxas v. Cabatuando - SC held that the tenants therein did
not willfully and deliberately fail to pay their leasehold FACTS: On December 19, 1984, two farm lots located in
rentals since they had serious doubts as to the legality of Bukidnon with an approximate area of 2.5773 and 2.0651
their contract with respect to their non-sharing in the hectares, respectively, were mortgaged for P33,000.00 by the
coconut produce, which thus prompted them to withhold spouses Florencio and Ester Causin, through their attorney-in-
their remittances in good faith fact Manuel Causin, to the now-defunct Rural Bank of
Tagoloan, Inc. For failure to pay the obligation, the bank
In contrast to Antonio and Roxas, the landowner in this foreclosed the mortgage and sold the lots at public auction to
case never rejected any rental payment duly tendered by petitioner who was the highest bidder. The original certificates
respondents or their predecessors-in-interest. Neither was of title were subsequently cancelled and TCTs in their stead
the legality of their agricultural leasehold contract with the were issued in favor of Po, following the spouses Causin’s
landowner ever put into issue so as to intimate that they failure to redeem the property.
merely withheld their remittances in good faith. Thus, with
the fortuitous event defense taken out of the equation, and On September 13, 1993, petitioner sold one of the bought lot
considering the examples in Antonio and Roxas whereby to her herein co-petitioner Mutia who was issued new TCT. On
the elements of willfulness and deliberateness were not September 29, 1994, the spouses Causin and their tenant-
found to have been established, the Court is impelled to herein respondent Dampal filed with the Regional Trial Court
agree with the DARAB that respondents herein willfully and a complaint against the bank for Annulment of the Real Estate
deliberately chose not to pay their leasehold rentals to the Mortgage and Sale. While the civil case was pending or on
landowner when they fell due. June 16, 1997, respondent filed a complaint against
GCC’s comment on Nieves: petitioners before the DARAB for Legal Redemption with
Preliminary Mandatory Injunction. DARAB disallowed the
o Who has burden to prove the ground? redemption prayed for on the ground of prescription, albeit
Landowner has burden (Natividad v. he declared that Dampal is entitled to security of tenure as a
Mariano) tenant; and that although Dampal was not given notice in
writing of the public auction sale, he was deemed to have
This court has settled that tenancy relations cannot be an ISSUES + RULING
expedient artifice for vesting in the tenant rights over the (1) Whom between the DARAB and the RTC has
landholding which far exceed those of the landowner. It jurisdiction over the case?
cannot be a means for vesting a tenant with security of
tenure, such that he or she is effectively the landowner. RTC retains jurisdiction over the case.
Even while agrarian reform laws are pieces of social
legislation, landowners are equally entitled to protection. For DARAB to have jurisdiction over the case, there
must be a tenancy relationship between the parties
Velasquez vs. Sps. Cruz (cross-refer with the jurisdiction of DARAB below).
And in order for tenancy to arise, it is essential to
The core of this dispute is the question of whom between the
establish ALL its indispensable elements (refer to
DARAB and the RTC, has jurisdiction over the case.
requirements of tenancy relationship). In the case at
bar, there is the absence of the consent, and the
FACTS sharing of harvests. The petitioner could not present
Sps. Paterno and Rosario Cruz (Sps. Cruz) are the registered evidence that the Sps. Cruz recognized him as a
owners of a parcel of land located in Hagonoy, Bulacan, with tenant.
an area of 4 hectares and covered by a tax declaration. In
2007, the spouses filed a Complaint for Recover of Reading the material allegations of the Complaint,
Possession with Accounting and Damages against the decision under review concluded that the case
petitioner Jesus Velasquez (Velasquez). The Sps. Cruz allege below was for recovery of possession or an accion
that Velasquez’s Father-in-law, Bernabe Navarro (Navarro) publiciana, a plenary action to recover the right of
was a tenant in said lot until April 1985, when Navarro possession which should be brought in the proper
relinquished his tenancy right by virtue of a Sinumpaang regional trial court when dispossession has lasted for
Salaysay. However, the spouses discovered that Velasquez more than one year. It is an ordinary civil proceeding
had entered the farmland without their knowledge or to determine the better right of possession of realty
consent, and that from 1985 until 2007, he never paid them a independently of title. In other words, if at the time
single centavo for the use of the land. The spouses also of the filing of the complaint more than one year had
alleged that they had leased the farmland to Godofredo elapsed since defendant had turned plaintiff out of
Tosco in 1995, but Velasquez refused to vacate the property. possession or defendant's possession had become
illegal, the action will be an accion publiciana
Meanwhile, Velasquez contends the ff.: Jurisdiction pertains to the RTC where an ordinary
1. That the jurisdiction for the case should have been with civil proceeding to determine the better right of
DARAB because the case is an agrarian dispute possession of realty independently of title takes
place.
2. That he was assisting Navarro in the tilling of the land
since 1975
(2) Was Velasquez entitled to be a successor-tenant of
3. That he continued working on the land after the death Navarro?
of Navarro
NO.
4. His non-payment of rentals was due to the fact that the
land lost its suitability for agrarian production, thus his
Sec. 9 of RA 3844 provides an exclusive
non- payment is not a ground for dispossession
enumeration of those who are qualified to succeed
5. Since the implementation of the Operation Land leasehold rights of a deceased or incapacitated
Transfer, he is deemed to be the owner of the subject tenant, to wit:
land
Section 9. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not
6. He was identified as a farmer-beneficiary and has been
Extinguished by Death or Incapacity of the Parties. -
paying amortizations to the LBP
In case of death or permanent incapacity of the
agricultural lessee to work his landholding, the
RTC: Dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction. It also leasehold shall continue between the agricultural
denied the MR by the spouses Cruz. lessor and the person who can cultivate the
landholding personally, chosen by the agricultural
lessor within one month from such death or
permanent incapacity, from among the following:
Respondent: The Tans demand an excessive amount. C. AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD (Secs. 4-38)
The right to retention may be exercised over affected by the enforcement of some provisions of
tenanted land despite the issuance of the certificate CARP.
of land transfer to farmer-beneficiaries. What must
Luz Farms questions the following provisions of R.A.
be protected, however, is the right of the tenants to
6657, insofar as they are made to apply to it:
opt to stay on the land chosen to be retained by the
landowner or be a beneficiary in another agricultural
land with similar or comparable features (a) Section 3(b) which includes the "raising of
Land awards made pursuant to a government’s agrarian
livestock (and poultry)" in the definition of
reform program are subject to the exercise of the
landowner who is qualified to the right of retention "Agricultural, Agricultural Enterprise or
GCC: The reason should be the reasonable mess of the factors sharing plan mentioned in Section 13
under Carl. Why? What is the basis in computing just
". . . (W)hereby three percent (3%) of the gross sales
compensation under PD 27? Average gross harvest. What
about in Carl? There are several factors: BIR, Zonal valuation, from the production of such lands are
assessed value of the land, market value if the land,
distributed within sixty (60) days of the end of
comparable sales in adjacent properties.So for me, the factors
here are reasonable compared to PD27. In fact the the fiscal year as compensation to regular and
improvements of crops, plants is also a factor whereas in PD
other farmworkers in such lands over and
27 that is the only factor.
Contrary to the rulings of the DAR and the CA, the subject
On September 30, 2009, the petitioners filed a Manifestation
lands are exempted from the coverage of the CARP.
to Lift Notice of Coverage with the PARO, which was treated
as a petition and docketed as Case No. A-0400- 0250-09 of
DAR Regional Office IV-A with the PARO. This was anchored The CARP shall cover all public and private agricultural lands,
on the ground that petitioners were in the business of including other lands of the public domain suitable for
livestock raising, and were using the subject lands as pasture agriculture, regardless of tenurial arrangement and
lands for their buffaloes which produce the carabao milk for commodity produced.43 Section 3(c) thereof defines
their ice cream products. The petitioners claimed that the NOC "agricultural land" as land devoted to agricultural activity and
Resolution is not ordinance therefore it is not a valid evidence. 2. Second classification is by virtue of a Zoning Ordinance
Is it not enough to present the zoning ordinance do you need so you have to go back who can validly enact a zoning
to present proofs or evidences, I submit that there is none. An ordinance, and if you look at the cases, it is the
ordinance and a certificate from HLURB – that would suffice. Sangguniang Bayan if it is a municipality or Sangguniang
Panglungsod if it is a city.
- Please take note that approval of PRRD is also a
requirement.
DEFINITION OF AGRI LAND
- Process of a Zoning Ordinance
Sec. 3 (c) “Agricultural land” - Zoning ordinance will be crafted by The Department of
Planning in a municipality or city, in our jurisdiction it is
“Agricultural Land refers to land devoted to agricultural City planning and Designs, this department is tasked to
activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, craft CLUP or Comprehensive Land Use Plan – to be
forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.” submitted to city council or municipal council then
Section 4. Scope. — The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform becomes zoning ordinance, passed to HLURB for
approval – if approved and requirements have been
Law of 1989 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement
complied---- then considered as classification.
and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural
lands, as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive
What are to be classified and who classifies?
Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain
1. Mineral or Forest – DENR
suitable for agriculture. 2. Residential use - LGU or Pres. Proclamation
Section 6. Retention Limits. — Except as otherwise 3. Commercial use - LGU or Pres. Proclamation
provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, 4. Industrial - LGU or Presidential Proclamation
directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural
Do not be surprised that under the local government code
land xxx xxx xxx
aside from these classifications, there are other
Agricultural land: classifications not stated in AGRA LAW for example Special
classification. Never mind, because it is not under AGRA law
1. land devoted to agricultural activity
but my point is the LGU has the power to classify the land
2. And not classified as mineral, forest, as special.
residential, commercial or industrial land.
Example:
• Devoted to agricultural activity as defined in RA 6657 and Situation 1:
Assuming you are a landowner with 10 hectares agricultural
• Not classified as mineral or forest by DENR and its land before June 15, 1988 and then after that there was a
predecessor agencies, and not classified in town plans and zoning ordinance enacted by LGU and your land was
zoning ordinances as approved by HLURB and its classified as residential then approved by HLURB, then here
preceding competent authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for comes CARP June 15, 1988 –
residential, commercial or industrial use.
Is your land an agricultural land?
GCC: 2 important elements of the definition of agricultural
land. One, it is devoted to agri activity and not classified as NO, because even if it may be devoted to agricultural
mineral forest commercial industrial. Who classified the land activity but it was classified as residential, it is not an
as mineral or forest? DENR. Who classified the land as agricultural land.
But please take note, this situation applies only before June CONVERSION V. RECLASSIFICATION
15, 1988, such that June 15, 1988 onwards I cannot use this
particular ground, why? Because as to June 15, 1988 all
Conversion is the act of changing the current use of
agricultural lands meaning it is devoted and it is not
a piece of agricultural land into some other use as
classified are covered.
approved by the DAR.
Situation 3:
Reclassification is the act of specifiying how
agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-
June 15, 1988 – I have no agricultural land, but I would want
agricultural uses such as residential, industrial,
to acquire an agricultural land – after acquisition there is a
commercial, as embodied in the land use plan,
zoning ordinance enacted classifying my land as residential.
subject to the requirements and procedures for
land use conversion. In view thereof, a
Can I invoke this ground? NO!
reclassification of an agricultural land does not
What should I do if I want to change the nature of my land
automatically allow landowner to change its use. He
now which is agricultural land to be consistent with the
has to undergo the process of conversion before he
classification of LGU?
is permitted to use the agricultural land for other
I need conversion, and it is covered by separate Section,
purposes.
not sec3c but sec 65, that means I need to go to DAR apply
for conversion and prove to DAR that there is classification
and that this agricultural land is no longer feasible for From Atty. Capanas:
agricultural and that I need to convert the nature of this Do not be surprised, this is just my own opinion, when
land from agri to non-agri. The point is even there is a you normally see the word reclassification when it is
classification after June 15, 1988, that does not compared from conversion because it is the SC who is
automatically make your land as non-agricultural, you need using this reclassification, I don’t know why, when Sec
to go to process. 3c uses the word classify not reclassify.
Agri land – owned after June 15, 1988 – then LGU passed a What is DOJ Opinion No. 44 issued by Sec. Franklin
Zoning ordinance classifying the land as residential =The Drilon:
land is still an agri land and you need to go to DAR, you
The authority of DAR to approve land conversion only starts
cannot invoke Sec 3c but Sec 65, and present proof that
on June 15, 1988. Before DAR there is no need for Land
there was classification = conversion.
conversion, because in the first place it is not an
agricultural land it is not covered, DAR has no
LEGAL BASES FOR LGU TO CLASSIFY jurisdiction.
1. Sec. 3 of RA 2264 (the old governing Local Government
Code), municipal and/or city officials are specifically DAR A.O. NO. 4 (2003 RULES ON EXEMPTION)
empowered to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or
regulations in consultation with the National Planning
Authority of DAR to approve any application on this
Commission.
starts June 15, 1988
Requirements: sworn application, copy of title,
2. Sec. 215 of RA 7160, (The new LGC) “the city or certification from HLURB (zoning or classification,
municipality within the Metropolitan Manila Area, through citing zoning ordinance), among others
then respective sanggunian, shall have the power to classify Public notice
lands as residential, agricultural, commercial, industrial, Disturbance compensation
mineral, timberland, or special in accordance with their
zoning ordinances.”
Atty C: Before June 15, 1988, you want your land to be
exempted you have to follow the process, there is no
From Atty. Capanas: In practice we have agricultural, automatic result you have to undergo the process, file an
commercial, industrial and residential. application, present your title, and prove to DAR that there is
a classification, there is a requirement of public notice.
Why is it in Natalia, 1979 is question mark, nga pareho ra man, Ruling not confined solely to agricultural lands located within
I submit the court committed an error, because the effective townsite reservations, but applied also to real estate
date is not 1979, it is 1977. converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of
the CARL.
CASES
Jopson vs. Mendez – zoning ordinance (1978) and HLURB CREBA vs. SEC
approval (1980)
Rom. Vs. Roxas & CO.- Zoning Ord (1982) , HSRC approval FACTS: Oct 1997 Sec of DAR issued DAR A.O. entitled
(1983) Omnibus Rules and Procedures Governing Conversion of
Agricultural Lands to Non Agricultural Uses. The said AO
Davao New Town – 1979 -2000 Comprehensive Development embraced all private agricultural lands regardless of tenurial
Plan, HSRC approved the plan (1980) , SP approved the plan arrangement and commodity produced and all untitled
thru zoning ord (1982) agricultural lands and agricultural lands reclassified by LGU
into non-agricultural uses after 15 June 1988. March 1999, Sec
DAR issued Revised Rules and Regulations on Conversion of
Atty C: You will notice, classification ,approval happen before Agricultural Lands to Non AgriculturalUses, it covers the
June 15, 1988 , so is there a need for DAR to ?issue? of following: (1) those to be converted to residential, commercial,
clearance ? No. industrial, institutional and other non-agricultural purposes;
(2) those to be devoted to another type of agricultural activity
NATALIA REALTY V. DAR such as livestock, poultry, and fishpond ─ the effect of which
is to exempt the land from the Comprehensive Agrarian
NATALIA seeks to set aside the notice of coverage which DAR Reform Program (CARP) coverage; (3) those to be converted
Secretary did not act upon hence recourse to SC; NATALIA to non-agricultural use other than that previously authorized;
imputed grave abuse of discretion to respondent DAR for and (4) those reclassified to residential, commercial, industrial,
including underdeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills or other non-agricultural uses on or after the effectivity of
Subdivision within the coverage of the CARL. They argue that Republic Act No. 6657 on 15 June 1988 pursuant to Section
NATALIA properties already ceased to be agricultural lands 20 of Republic Act No. 7160 and other pertinent laws and
regulations, and are to be converted to such uses. The 2 earlier
ALANGILAN V. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT In atty’s opinion, with due respect to the SC that is wrong,
(What is the meaning of word “reserved”?) because the word reserve was not used in defining agricultural
land in sec 3c and by using the word classification that has
nothing to do with the nature of the land. That has nothing to
Petitioner filed an Application and/or Petition for
do with how the land was used because classification is
prospective in nature. If you are a leader of certain city or
Exclusion/Exemption from Comprehensive Agrarian Reform municipality do you want to be passive? Do you want that the
Program (CARP) Coverage; DAR denied it saying that the term city will adjust where people will live and do business? No, you
“reserved” denotes that it is not yet classified want people to follow your what you want for the classification
and zoning, that is prospective. But what is DAR saying here
1982, the Sangguniang Bayan of Batangas City classified the that since it is merely reserved then the nature of the land is
subject landholding as reserved for residential under a zoning still agricultural and beside this reserve ruling this conclusion
by the court is based in wrong premise. What is this premise,
20 | AGRA 2019 MIDTEMRS | Atty. Capanas | Dalusung, Diaz, Labunog, Patalinghug |
that at the time of effectivity the landholding was still an June 21, 1974, then President Marcos issued Proclamation
agricultural, that’s wrong why? Because prior to June 15, 1988 1283, carving out a wide expanse from the Watershed
in 1982 there was already a classification. The second ruling of Reservation in Antipolo, Rizal and reserving the segregated
SC is also wrong with due respect to the court because the area for townsite purposes, subject to private rights, if any
court does not understand the difference between there be.
classification and reclassification, Reclassification,
presupposes that there must be a prior classification. Then came the amendatory issuance, Proclamation 1637
dated April 18, 1977, thereby increasing the size of the
What’s the purpose of having reclassification? reservation, designated as Lungsod Silangan Townsite (LS
Townsite), by 20.312 hectares and revising its technical
1. Probably there is a changed planning, probably before the description so as to include, within its coverage, other lands in
city said it is better to put the residence of the people here the municipalities of San Mateo and Montalban, Rizal to
but now it has changed that would be one. absorb the population overspill in Greater Manila Area, but
2. Another is reclassification for the purpose of taxes. Agri to again subject to private rights, if any there be.
res increase of tax, then res to commercial, increase, just like
IT park.
3. Now you look at the cases the word reserve was used by
Marcos, nganu man the word reserve was there because
Marcos saw that there would be over population in the The discontinuance of the OLT processing was obviously DARs
metropolitan of manila so iya gusto nag reserve siya daan way of acknowledging the implication of the townsite
ug area sa kilid sa metropolitan manila, it was sustained and proclamation on the agricultural classification of theDoronilla
the court agree that it was reclassification property. It ought to be emphasized, as a general proposition,
(But do not listen to atty, unless your opinion is ask, your however, that the former agricultural lands of
answer must be in accordance with the SC ruling) Doronillasituated as they were within areas duly set aside for
townsite purposes, by virtue particularly of Proclamation
HEIRS OF DELESTE V. LBP (local zoning ordinance was 1637were converted for residential use.
approved by now HLURB)
Atty C: This case is very peculiar , It involves Doronilla Property
Facts: Subject property: 34.7 hectares, Iligan City but I don’t think DAR will commit the same mistake, what
happened here, Doronilla property was acquired by DAR
In 1975, the City of Iligan passed City Ordinance No. 1313, under OLT (operation land transfer) because it was under PD
known as the Zoning Regulation of Iligan City, reclassifying 27. Here comes the proclamation of Marcos, with that
the subject property as commercial/residential. issuances DAR stopped, ghunong nila and ila activities in
relation to OLT, now the owner wanted DAR to proclaim the
land as land agricultural because there were proclamations
Petitioners claimed that the land is outside of coverage issued by Marcos. What was the argument issued by DAR? No,
because of ordinance while DAR contended that there is no you cannot do that the land was already covered by OLT.
evidence that the ordinance was approved by HLURB
SC said, DAR you are already estopped , why? Bec the moment
Issue: Coverage of subject property under CARP the issuances were made you stopped your activities in
relation to OLT that means you recognize by the issuances
SC: Accompanying the Certification dated October 8, 1999 made by marcos.
issued by Gil R. Balondo, Deputy Zoning Administrator of the
City Planning and Development Office, Iligan City, and the DAVAO NEW TOWN DEV’T CORP V. SPS SALIGA (Power
letter dated October 8, 1999 issued by Ayunan B. Rajah, of LGU to classify; DAR approval not required)
Regional Officer of the HLURB, is the Certificate of Approval
issued by Imelda Romualdez Marcos, then Minister of Human Lands involved are in Davao City.
Settlements and Chairperson of the HSRC, showing that the
local zoning ordinance was, indeed, approved on September
21, 1978. This leads to no other conclusion than that City Private respondent filed a complaint for injunction,
Ordinance No. 1313 enacted by the City of Iligan was cancellation of title and damages against petitioner before
approved by the HSRC, the predecessor of HLURB. PARAD.
LBP vs. Estate of Araneta Private respondent alleged that they and their parents are
tenants and that the transfer of lands to petitioner is
fraudulent.
(Relation of PD 27, Proclamation and RA 6657; classification
medium)
Petitioner answered that it is a buyer in good faith and that
the lands were classified to be within an "urban/urbanizing
Facts: zone" in the "1979-2000 Comprehensive Land Use Plan for
Davao City" that was duly adopted by the City Council of
Large tract of land in Brgy.Mascap, Montalban, Rizal (formerly Davao City and approved by the Human Settlement
Doronilla prop, now Araneta). Regulatory Commission (HSRC) (now the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board [HLURB]).
AGRARIAN DISPUTE (SEC 50-A) Atty C: These are the example sections where the word agra
disputes were used.
Sec 3 (d) - Agrarian Dispute refers to any controversy relating
to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, “Section 47. Functions of the BARC. — In addition
stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, to those provided in Executive Order No. 229, the
including disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or BARC shall have the following functions:
representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining,
changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such
(a) Mediate and conciliate between parties
tenurial arrangements.
involved agrarian dispute including matters related to in
an agrarian dispute including matters related to tenurial
Atty C: Now, let’s look at the definition of Agra dispute: and financial arrangements; xxx xxx xxx”
Any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements Atty C: BARC – Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee, a
(leasehold, tenancy, stewardship) over lands committee in a barangay were the function is mediation
devoted to agriculture and conciliation before an agra dispute will reach DAR
(you have to look what you have learned in RA “Section 53. Certification of the BARC. — The DAR
3844?, if there is a case to remove the lessee from
the land that is an agra dispute, if the lessee can not
shall not take cognizance of any agrarian dispute or
agree on lease rental, agra dispute, whether this
controversy unless a certification from the BARC
person is qualified to succeed , agra dispute)
that the dispute has been submitted to it for
mediation and conciliation without any success of
Any controversy relating to compensation of lands settlement is presented: xxx xxx xxx”
acquired under CARL and other terms and
conditions of transfer of ownership Atty C: Sec. 53 requires certification coming from
BARC kung naa kay CFA, certificate to file action
(2nd relating to compensation – intention is just then it is also the certification in Agra.
compensation, connect this with sec 16, DAR is
supposed to offer the owner just compensation if the
“Section 54. Certiorari. — Any decision, order,
owner does not accept, the owner can go to DARAB,
award or ruling of the DAR on any agrarian dispute
file a case to determine just compensation, if
SECTION 50-A
Exception: There is an automatic prima facie presumption that 1. The court had no jurisdiction
an Agrarian dispute exists or that the case is agrarian in nature 2. That prior to the transfer of the property to
in following instances in sec 8: Chailese, they were tenants of the landholdings
which was then a hacienda devoted to agricultural
production
3. That without their knowledge and consent, the land
was transferred to Chailese, who in order to avoid
coverage of CARL, filed a bogus petition for
conversion.
RTC-MR (Chailese)
Granted, but ultimately reversed on motion of the
respondents.
The RTC then ratiocinated that the referral of the case to DAR
would cause further delay in the disposition of the case.
Respondents filed a MR on this, but this was also denied by
the RTC. Respondents then went to CA.
ISSUE + RULING
Whether or not DAR has jurisdiction over the case. DAR has
jurisdiction.
The exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR over agrarian cases was b. One of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant.
further amplified by the amendment introduced by Section 19
of R.A. 9700 to Section 50. The provision reads:
Isidro v. CA
Atty C: The issue is whether there is an agrarian dispute. No. Petitioner Lim denied that respondent was a tenant of the
The issue was about ownership so it is beyond the ambit of subject property under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
agrarian dispute. There was no juridical tie. There is no tenancy Program (CARP). He alleged that respondent is a
involved there. septuagenarian who is no longer physically capable of tilling
the land; that the MARO issued a certification that the land
had no registered tenant; that respondent could not be
BCDA vs. PARO
regarded as a landless tiller under the CARP because she owns
and resides in the property adjacent to the subject land which
FACTS: PARO issued CLOAS in favor of private respondents.
she acquired through inheritance; that an Affidavit of Non-
The BCDA questioned the said issuance because the subject
Tenancy was executed by the De Leon sisters when they sold
properties were already titled in the name of the Republic.
the property to him.
Furthermore, the said properties were already reserved as part
of a military reservation. Hence, the BCDA alleges that the
CLOAS are null and void.
Atty C: The court was looking for receipts and other evidences.
Picture of the land bisan naay carabao ngara – not enough.
AUTOMAT REALTY V. SPS CRUZ (tenancy is not Being the party alleging the existence of the tenancy
established) relationship, the petitioner carried the burden of proving the
allegation of his tenancy.
Respondent spouses refused to vacate unless they were paid LIGTAS V. PEOPLE (DARAB decision is conclusive and is
compensation. They claimed "they were agricultural tenants binding on Courts)
[who] enjoyed security of tenure under the law."
Ligtas was charged and convicted of theft
SC: (on allegations as tillers)
Ligtas filed a petition before DARAB for Maintenance of
This court has held that a MARO certification "concerning the Peaceful Possession where she was declared a de jure tenant;
presence or the absence of a tenancy relationship between the decision became final for lack of appeal
the contending parties, is considered merely preliminary or
provisional, hence, such certification does not bind the SC: A DARAB decision on the existence of a tenancy
judiciary." relationship is conclusive and binding on courts if supported
by substantial evidence.
The amended certification does not bind this court. Several
elements must be present before the courts can conclude that In rendering the Decision, the DARAB examined pleadings and
a tenancy relationship exists. MARO certifications are limited affidavits of both petitioner and private complainant. It was
to factual determinations such as the presence of actual tillers. convinced by petitioner's evidence, which consisted of sworn
It cannot make legal conclusions on the existence of a tenancy statements of petitioner's witnesses that petitioner was
agreement. installed as tenant by Andres Pacate sometime in 1993.
Petitioner and Andres Pacate had an agreement to share the
Atty C: this is a classic case of a landowner na manluod. produce after harvest. However, Andres Pacate had died
Nihangyo siya wa man gamita imu yuta ako sa bantay before the first harvest. Petitioner then gave the landowner's
paghuman pagpahaon na di muhawa. share to private complainant, and had done so every harvest
until he was disturbed in his cultivation of the land on June 29,
2000.
Who has the burden of proof? The spouses not Automat
If the ground was only one of the two grounds stated then the SC:
ruling would have been similar to the Paramount case.
These allegations plainly show that the petitioners are
If it was subdivided before June 15, 1988, it would have been invoking their rights as beneficiaries of the CARL; that they
acceptable provided that it is not a land for corn amongst consider the conveyance of their properties as having been
others under PD 27 and there are no farmers on the land. made in violation of the terms and conditions of the CARL;
and that all of the transfers should be nullified because they
MALABANAN V. HEIRS OF RESTRIVERA (no tenurial were procured through fraud, undue influence and mistake.
relationship) All these constitute an agrarian dispute in the context of a
controversy relating to terms and conditions of transfer of
ownership from landowner to agrarian reform beneficiaries.
Petitioners were awarded lands covered by CLOA This is because the main contention of the parties was clearly
couched on the alleged denial by the respondent of their
Petition filed before PARAD by respondents to annul CLOA, established rights as beneficiaries over the subject properties
sale, repossession and reconveyance invoking preferential under agrarian reform laws.
rights as beneficiaries under Sec 22 of CARL
In order for the DARAB and PARAD to exercise jurisdiction
PARAD, DARAB and CA upheld jurisdiction of the Adjudicatory over such controversies, sufficient allegations establishing the
Board existence of an agrarian dispute must be made in the
complaint following the rule that the jurisdiction of a tribunal,
Issue before SC is whether the Adjudicatory Board has including a quasi-judicial officer or government agency, over
jurisdiction over petition for cancellation of title and the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is
reconveyance determined by the material allegations therein and the
The DAR and the LBP shared a common objection against the
jurisdiction of the RTC. Both contended that the RTC lacked (JUST READ MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT FROM PAGE 51 TIL
jurisdiction to hear and decide the petition, pointing out that END)
the issues raised therein but pertain to matters of
"implementation of the [agrarian reform program]"21 which HOMESTEAD PATENT SEC 6
belong to the exclusive competence of the DAR to determine.
In support, the DAR and the LBP cite Section 50 of Republic RETETION LIMIT SEC 6, WHAT ARENT COVERED
Act (RA) No. 6657, to wit:
SECTION 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. - The DAR is AWARD TO CHILD OF LANDOWNER
hereby vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and EXEMPTION FROM OVERAGE SEC 10
adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive COMPULSORY ACQUISITION SEC 16
original jurisdiction over all matters involving the JUST COMPENSATION
implementation of agrarian reform except those falling under
the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture