Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
2002-2008 DPA
Abandonment/Surrenders
A judgment can only be annulled on two (2) grounds: (a) that the
judgment is void for want of jurisdiction or lack of due process of
law; or (b) that it has been obtained by fraud.
In order for fraud to serve as a basis for the annulment of a
judgment, it must be extrinsic or collateral in character. (Salonga v.
Court of Appeals, 269 SCRA 534)
No laches attach when the judgment is null and void for want of
jurisdiction. (Arcelona v. Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 20)
A void judgment never acquires finality and any action to declare its
nullity does not prescribe. (Heirs of Mayor Nemencio Galves v.
Court of Appeals, 255 SCRA 672)
Appeals
Jurisprudence in Agrarian Law 3 of 40
2002-2008 DPA
BARC Certification
CARP
A covered landholding does not revert back to the owner even if the
beneficiaries thus selected do not meet all the necessary
qualifications. (Hermoso v. C.L. Realty Corporation, 489 SCRA 556)
Cause of Action
Conversion
After the passage of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, agricultural lands,
though reclassified, have to go through the process of conversion,
jurisdiction over which is vested in the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR).
conversion; while the latter is the act of changing the current use of
a piece of agricultural land into some other use as approved by the
Department of Agrarian Reform. A mere reclassification of an
agricultural land does not automatically allow a landowner to change
its use and thus cause the ejectment of the tenants – he has to
undergo the process of conversion before he is permitted to use the
agricultural land for other purposes. (Ludo & Luym Development
Corporation v. Barreto, 471 SCRA 391)
In Ros v. DAR (G.R. No. 132477, 31 August 2005, 468 SCRA 471),
we held that reclassified agricultural lands must undergo the
process of conversion in the DAR before they may be used for other
purposes. Since the DAR never approved the conversion of the Polo
estate from agricultural to another use, the land was never placed
beyond the scope of the CARP. (Department of Agrarian Reform v.
Polo Coconut Plantation Co., Inc., 564 SCRA 78)
The law is clear that court proceedings are indispensable where the
reclassification of the landholding is duly determined before
ejectment can be effected, which in turn paves the way for the
payment of disturbance compensation. (Alarcon v. Court of
Appeals, 405 SCRA 440)
Due Process
The Court shall not fake naivete of the prevalent practice among
lawyers who, for lack of better argument to bolster their position,
engage in waxing lyrical to a “denial of due process.” As the eminent
Justice Hermosisima Jr. noted, some lawyers who, lacking plausible
support for their position, simply claim a denial of due process as if
it were a universal absolution. The ground will prove unavailing as it
is virtually only a pro forma argument. Due process is not to be
Jurisprudence in Agrarian Law 9 of 40
2002-2008 DPA
Homelot
Jurisdiction - in general
Well settled is the rule that what determines the nature of the action
as well as the court which has jurisdiction of the case is the
allegations made by the plaintiff in his complaint. (Republic v.
Sebastian, 72 SCRA 222; Ganadin v. Ramos 99 SCRA 613;
Unilongo v. Court of Appeals, 305 SCRA 632)
An action not involving an agrarian dispute but only for the recovery
of possession of real property is within the jurisdiction of the regular
courts. The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) has primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and
appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes
involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP) and other agrarian laws and their
implementing rules and adjudication. (Ramos v. Stateland
Investment Corporation, 474 SCRA 726)
Jurisprudence in Agrarian Law 12 of 40
2002-2008 DPA
It is well-settled that the DAR, through its adjudication arm, i.e, the
DARAB and its regional and provincial adjudication boards,
exercises quasi-judicial functions and jurisdiction on all matters
pertaining to an agrarian dispute or controversy and the
implementation of agrarian reform laws. Pertinently, it is provided in
DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure that the DARAB has primary
and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine
Jurisprudence in Agrarian Law 14 of 40
2002-2008 DPA
Just Compensation
Under the law, the Land Bank of the Philippines is charged with the
initial responsibility of determining the value of lands placed land
reform and the compensation to be paid for their taking. Through
notice sent to the landowner pursuant to Section 16(a) of Republic
Act No. 6657, the DAR makes an offer. In case the landowner
rejects the offer, a summary proceeding is held and afterward the
provincial (PARAD), the regional (RARAD) or the central (DARAB)
adjudicator, as the case may be, depending on the value of the land,
fixes the price to be paid for the land. If the landowner does not
agree to the price fixed, he may bring the matter before the RTC
acting as Special Agrarian Court. (Republic v. Court of Appeals, 263
SCRA 758; Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, 357 SCRA 599)
Laches/Prescription
The elements of laches are: (1) conduct on the part of the defendant,
or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the situation of which
the complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay in asserting the
complainant’s rights, the complainant having had knowledge or
notice of defendant’s conduct as having been afforded an
opportunity to institute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on the
part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right in
which he bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the defendant
if the suit is not held barred. (Jison v. Court of Appeals, 286 SCRA
495; Metropolitan Waterworks and Sewerage System (MWSS) v.
Court of Appeals, 299 SCRA 287)
The four basic elements of laches are: (1) conduct on the part of the
defendant, or of one under whom he claims, giving rise to the
situation of which the complaint seeks a remedy; (2) delay in
asserting the complainant’s rights, the complainant having had
knowledge or notice of defendant’s conduct as having been afforded
an opportunity to institute a suit; (3) lack of knowledge or notice on
Jurisprudence in Agrarian Law 18 of 40
2002-2008 DPA
the part of the defendant that the complainant would assert the right
in which he bases his suit; and (4) injury or prejudice to the
defendant in the event relief is accorded to the complainant or the
suit is not held to be barred. These elements must all be proved
positively. (Heirs of Rosa Dumaliang v. Serban, 516 SCRA 343;
Department of Education, Division of Albay v. Oñate, 524 SCRA
200; Vda. De Tirona v. Encarnacion, 534 SCRA 394)
The law helps the vigilant but not those who sleep on their rights for
time is a means of destroying obligations and actions, because time
runs against the slothful and contemnors of their own rights.
(Salandanan v. Court of Appeals, 290 SCRA 671)
Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the
violation of the law and if the same be not known at the time, from
the discovery thereof and institution of judicial proceedings for its
investigation and punishment. (Presidential Ad Hoc Fact Finding
Committee on Behest Loans v. Desierto, 533 SCRA 571)
Negative Pregnant
Jurisprudence in Agrarian Law 20 of 40
2002-2008 DPA
Party-in-interest
Payment
Thus, the burden of showing with legal certainty that the obligation
has been discharged with payment falls on the debtor, in
accordance with the rule that one who pleads payment has the
burden of proving it. Only when the debtor introduces evidence that
the obligation has been extinguished does the burden shift to the
creditor, who is then under a duty of producing evidence to show
why payment does not extinguish the obligation. (G & M Philippines
v. Cuambot, 507 SCRA 552)
PD No. 27
The law is clear and leaves no room for doubt. Upon the
promulgation of Presidential Decree No. 27 on October 21, 1972,
petitioner was deemed owner of the land in question. As of that date,
he was declared emancipated from the bondage of the soil. As such,
he gained the rights to possess, cultivate and enjoy the landholding
for himself. Those rights over that particular property were granted
to him and to no other. To insure his continued possession and
enjoyment of the property, he could not, under the law, make any
valid form of transfer except to the government or by hereditary
succession to his successors. (Torres v. Ventura, 187 SCRA 96)
of the lands they tilled, are considered null and void. (Siacor v.
Gigantana, 380 SCRA 306)
The rule of pari delicto may not be invoked in a case of the waiver
of rights under P.D. No. 27 since it runs counter to an avowed
fundamental policy of the State. (Siacor v. Gigantana, 380 SCRA
306)
Redemption
The right of lessees to redeem the land they have been working on
that has been disposed of without their knowledge is statutory in
character and attaches to a particular landholding by operation of
law. (Cuano v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 122)
In this instance, the price paid for the land by third persons is
considered as the reasonable redemption price to be paid by the
lessees. (Cuano v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 122)
In the event that the landholding is sold to a third person without the
knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter is granted by law the
right to redeem it within one hundred eighty (180) days from notice
in writing and at a reasonable price and consideration.
Jurisprudence in Agrarian Law 24 of 40
2002-2008 DPA
The law does not prescribe any particular form of notice nor any
distinctive method for notifying the redemptioner.
Res judicata
The four elements of res judicata are: (1) the judgment sought to bar
the new action must be final; (2) the decision must have been
rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction; (3) the disposition of
the case must be a judgment on the merits; and (4) there must be
between the first and second action, identity of parties, subject
matter and causes of action. (Heirs of Igmedio Maglaque and
Sabina Payawal v. Court of Appeals, 524 SCRA 234; Dayot v. Shell
Chemical (Phils.), Inc., 525 SCRA 535; Puno v. Court of Appeals,
533 SCRA 549)
Absolute identity of parties is not a condition sine qua non for res
judicata to apply – substantial identity of the parties would suffice –
privity or a shared identity of interest between a party in the first case
and the party in he second is sufficient to invoke the coverage of the
principle. (Presidential Commission on Good Government v.
Sandiganbayan, 530 SCRA 13)
Retention
Social Justice
Laws which have for their object the preservation and maintenance
of social justice are not only meant to favour the poor and
underprivileged – they apply with equal force to those who,
notwithstanding their more comfortable position in life, are equally
deserving of protection from the courts. (Heirs of Nicolas Jugalbot
v. Court of Appeals, 517 SCRA 232)
Tenancy – Consent
Tenancy – Establishment
Tenancy - Evidence
Tenancy – Extinguishment
Tenancy – Intent
It should be noted that under our law and jurisprudence, mere failure
of a tenant to pay the landholder’s share does not necessarily give
the latter the right to eject the former when there is a lack deliberate
intent on the part of the tenant to pay or there is failure of crop due
to fortuitous event. (Roxas y Cia v. Cabatuando, 1 SCRA 1106; Paz,
et. al. v. Santos et. al., L-12047, September 30, 1959)
the subject land is not justified. (Sta. Ana v. Spouses Carpo, G.R.
No. 164340, November 28, 2008)
Where a lot is sold to another person, the claim of tenancy over the
said lot should be directed against the new owners/vendees who
are subrogees to the rights and obligations of the agricultural
lessor/vendor. (Pascual v. Court of Appeals, 371 SCRA 338)
Tenancy – Waiver/Abandonment
Tenant
Trusts