1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CASE 1. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2
G.R. No. L-60269 September 13, 1991
ENGRACIAVINZONS-MAGANA, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE CONRADO ESTRELLA IN HIS CAPACITY AS MINISTER OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
SALVADOR PEJO, AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, and JUANA S.
VDA. DE PAITAN, respondents.
CASE 2.---------------------------------------------------------------------------------5
[G.R. No. 86889 : December 4, 1990.] 192 SCRA 51
LUZ FARMS, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT
OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondent.
CASE 3.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------8
G.R. No. 137431 September 7, 2000
EDGARDO SANTOS, represented by his attorney-in-fact ROMEO L. SANTOS, petitioner,
vs.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, JESUS DIAZ, ROBERTO ONG and AUGUSTO
AQUINO, respondents.
CASE 4.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------10
G.R. No. L-61293 February 15, 1990
DOMINGO B. MADDUMBA and ANITA C. MADDUMBA, petitioners,
vs.GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Represented by its Chairman, Board of
Trustees, HONORABLE LEONILO OCAMPO, respondent.
Vicente P. Leus for petitioners.
The Government Corporate Counsel for GSIS.
CASE 5.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------13
G.R. No. 78742 July 14, 1989
ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., JUANITO D. GOMEZ,
GERARDO B. ALARCIO, FELIPE A. GUICO, JR., BERNARDO M. ALMONTE, CANUTO RAMIR B.
CABRITO, ISIDRO T. GUICO, FELISA I. LLAMIDO, FAUSTO J. SALVA, REYNALDO G. ESTRADA,
FELISA C. BAUTISTA, ESMENIA J. CABE, TEODORO B. MADRIAGA, AUREA J. PRESTOSA,
EMERENCIANA J. ISLA, FELICISIMA C. ARRESTO, CONSUELO M. MORALES, BENJAMIN R.
SEGISMUNDO, CIRILA A. JOSE & NAPOLEON S. FERRER, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent.
CASE 6.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------16
G.R. No. 108725 September 25, 1998
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and FARMERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION
(FACOMA), San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. EMILIO L. LEACHON, JR., Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 46, 4th Judicial Region, San
Jose, Occidental Mindoro, respondents.

FATIMA C. DELA PENA

JD 2B
AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
 2

CASE 1.

G.R. No. L-60269 September 13, 1991

ENGRACIAVINZONS-MAGANA, petitioner,
vs.
HONORABLE CONRADO ESTRELLA IN HIS CAPACITY AS MINISTER OF
AGRARIAN REFORM, SALVADOR PEJO, AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR, MINISTRY OF
AGRARIAN REFORM, and JUANA S. VDA. DE PAITAN, respondents.

Jose L. Lapak for petitioner.

PARAS, J:p

FACTS:

Magana is the owner of a parcel of riceland situated in the barrio of Talisay,

Camarines Norte. The said riceland was tenanted by the late Domingo
Paitan, husband of private respondent herein, Juana de Paitan, under an
agricultural leasehold agreement. On October 20, 1977, Magana filed a
petition for the termination of the leasehold agreement allegedly due to (1)
non-payment of rentals; (2) inability and failure of Domingo Paitan to do the
tilling and cultivation of the riceland due to his long illness; and (3) subleasing
of the landholding to third parties. Presiding Judge of the Court of Agrarian
Relations, Judge Juan Llaguno, referred the case to the Secretary of the
Department of Agrarian Reform for certification as to whether or not it was
proper for trial in accordance with Presidential Decree No. 316, (Ibid., pp. 10-
11), but said office failed to act upon the request for certification, for a period
of more than three (3) years. Instead on July 10, 1980, the riceland was
placed under the Land Transfer Program by virtue of Memorandum Circular
No. 11, Series of 1978, which implemented Letter of Instructions No. 474,

FATIMA C. DELA PENA

JD 2B
AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
 3

which placed all tenanted riceland with areas of seven hectares or less
belonging to landowners who own agricultural lands of more than seven
hectares in aggregate areas under the Land Transfer Program of the
government. A certificate of Land Transfer was finally awarded in favor of
Domingo Paitan. As a consequence thereof, the rentals were no longer paid
to Magana but were deposited instead with the Land Bank and credited as
amortization payments for the riceland. Apparently aggrieved by this turn of
events, Magana took the present recourse.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer to Domingo

Paitan is invalid and unconstitutional.

HELD: Yes. The issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer to Domingo Paitan

without first expropriating said property to pay petitioner landowner the full
market value thereof before ceding and transferring the land to Paitan and/or
heirs, is invalid and unconstitutional as it is confiscatory and violates the due
process clause of the Constitution. The mere issuance of the certificate of
land transfer does not vest in the farmer/grantee ownership of the land
described therein. At most, the certificate merely evidences the
government's recognition of the grantee as the party qualified to avail of the
statutory mechanisms for the acquisition of ownership of the land titled by
him as provided under Presidential Decree No. 27. Neither is this recognition
permanent nor irrevocable. Thus, failure on the part of the farmer/grantee to
comply with his obligation to pay his lease rentals or amortization payments
when they fall due for a period of two (2) years to the landowner or
agricultural lessor is a ground for forfeiture of his certificate of land transfer.
FATIMA C. DELA PENA
JD 2B
AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
 4

Should Magana fail to agree on the price of her land as fixed by the DAR,
she can bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction. Likewise, failure
on the part of the farmer/grantee to pay his lease rentals or amortization
payments for a period of two (2) years is a ground for forfeiture of his
certificate of land transfer.

FATIMA C. DELA PENA

JD 2B
AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
 5

CASE 2.
[G.R. No. 86889 : December 4, 1990.]
192 SCRA 51
LUZ FARMS, Petitioner, vs. THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, Respondent.

DECISION:

The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986

on the meaning of the word "agricultural," clearly show that it was never the
intention of the framers of the Constitution to include livestock and poultry
industry in the coverage of the constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform
program of the Government.

FACTS:

Luz Farms is a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry business

allegedly stands to be adversely affected by the enforcement of CARP. Luz
Farms petitions CARP to be declared unconstitutional together with a writ of
preliminary injunction or restraining the order. The Court resolved to deny
the petition. Later, after a motion for reconsideration, the Court granted the
motion regarding the injunction and required the parties to file t heir
respective memoranda. Luz Farm: Livestock or poultry raising is not similar
to crop or tree farming. Land is not the primary resource in this undertaking
and represents no more than five percent (5%) of the total investment of
commercial livestock and poultry raisers. Indeed, there are many owners of
residential lands all over the country who use available space in their

FATIMA C. DELA PENA

JD 2B
AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
 6

residence for commercial livestock and raising purposes, under "contract-

growing arrangements," whereby processing corporations and other
commercial livestock and poultry raisers. DAR: livestock and poultry raising
is embraced in the term "agriculture" and the inclusion of such enterprise
under Section 3(b) of R.A. 6657 is proper. He cited that Webster's
International Dictionary, "Agriculture — the art or science of cultivating the
ground and raising and harvesting crops, often, including also, feeding,
breeding and management of livestock, tillage, husbandry, and farming.
Issue: Constitutionality of CARP, insofar as the said law includes the raising
of livestock, poultry, and swine in its coverage.

In the interpellation, then Commissioner Regalado (now a Supreme Court

Justice), posed several questions, among others, quoted as follows: x x x
"Line 19 refers to genuine reform program founded on the primary right of
farmers and farmworkers. I wonder if it means that leasehold tenancy is
thereby proscribed under this provision because it speaks of the primary right
of farmers and farmworkers to own directly or collectively the lands they till.
As also mentioned by Commissioner Tadeo, farmworkers include those who
work in piggeries and poultry projects. I was wondering whether I am wrong
in my appreciation that if somebody puts up a piggery or a poultry project
and for that purpose hires farmworkers therein, these farmworkers will
automatically have the right to own eventually, directly or ultimately or
collectively, the land on which the piggeries and poultry projects were
constructed. (Record, CONCOM, August 2, 1986, p. 618). x x x The
questions were answered and explained in the statement of then
Commissioner Tadeo, quoted as follows: x x x "Sa pangalawang katanungan
ng Ginoo ay medyo hindi kami nagkaunawaan. Ipinaaalam ko kay
FATIMA C. DELA PENA
JD 2B
AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
 7

Commissioner Regalado na hindi namin inilagay ang agricultural worker sa

kadahilanang kasama rito ang piggery, poultry at livestock workers. Ang
inilagay namin dito ay farm worker kaya hindi kasama ang piggery, poultry
at livestock workers (Record, CONCOM, August 2, 1986, Vol. II, p. 621).

PREMISES CONSIDERED, the instant petition is hereby GRANTED.

Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 insofar as the inclusion of the
raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage as well as the
Implementing Rules and Guidelines promulgated in accordance therewith,
are hereby DECLARED null and void for being unconstitutional and the writ
of preliminary injunction issued is hereby MADE permanent.

FATIMA C. DELA PENA

JD 2B
AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
 8

CASE 3.

G.R. No. 137431 September 7, 2000

EDGARDO SANTOS, represented by his attorney-in-fact ROMEO L.
SANTOS, petitioner,
vs.
LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, JESUS DIAZ, ROBERTO ONG and
AUGUSTO AQUINO, respondents.

DECISION

PANGANIBAN, J.:

FACTS:

Edgardo Santos v. Land Bank of the Philippines G.R. No. 137431; 7

September 2000 FACTS: Edgar Santos filed a case in the Regional Trial
Court for the determination of just compensation for the properties that were
taken by DAR under PD No. 27 in 1972. The RTC fixed the amount of P49,
241, 876 to be the just compensation for the 36.4152 hectares and 40.7874
hectares irrigated and unirrigated ricelands respectively. Further, the court
ordered Land Bank to pay Santos P45, 698, 805 in the manner provided by
RA No. 6657. Prior to this decision, Land Bank already released P3, 543,070
to be paid to Santos in cash and bond; thus deducting from the total amount.
Land Bank complied with this decision and released the amount of P3, 621,
023 in cash and P41, 128,024.81 in Land Bank Bond. However, petitioner
filed a motion before the RTC and insisted that he be paid in cash or certified
check instead of the bond. RTC, as a consequence, order Land Bank to pay
the balance in cash or certified check instead of a bond. Land Bank moved

FATIMA C. DELA PENA

JD 2B
AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
 9

for reconsideration. Through a new judge, the RTC ordered Land Bank to
pay Santos P5, 792,084.37 in cash and P35, 336,840.16 in bonds. The CA
affirmed the decision of the trial court.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the petitioner is correct in asserting that he be paid in cash

for the just compensation.

HELD: NO. The Court declares that the content and manner of the just
compensation provided for in the Section 18 of RA 6657 is not violative of
the Constitution. Moreover, the invalidation of the said section will result in
the nullification of the entire program, killing the farmer's hopes even as they
approach realization and resurrecting the specter of discontent and dissent
in the restless countryside. That is not in the court’s view the intention of the
Constitution. Accepting the theory that payment of the just compensation is
not always required to be made fully in money, the Court finds further that
the proportion of cash payment to the other things of value constituting the
total payment, as determined on the basis of the areas of the lands
expropriated, is not unduly oppressive upon the landowner. As provided by
law, the landowner cannot insist in cash payment only because it is not
sanctioned by agrarian reform law. The law says that the just compensation
shall be paid partly in cash and the remainder by means of bonds, GOCC,
tax credits or Land Bank bonds. FALLO: WHEREFORE, the Petition is
hereby DENIED and the assailed Decision AFFIRMED. Costs against
petitioner.

FATIMA C. DELA PENA

JD 2B
AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
 10

CASE 4.

G.R. No. L-61293 February 15, 1990

DOMINGO B. MADDUMBA and ANITA C. MADDUMBA, petitioners,
vs.
GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM, Represented by its
Chairman, Board of Trustees, HONORABLE LEONILO
OCAMPO, respondent.
Vicente P. Leus for petitioners.

The Government Corporate Counsel for GSIS.

REGALADO, J.:

FACTS:

Respondent GSIS conducted a public bidding of several foreclosed

properties, including a house and lot. The petitioner participated and
submitted his bid. It bid was subject to a down payment of 35% of the amount
thereof, the 10% constituting the proposal bond with the remaining 25% to
be paid after the receipt of the notice of award or acceptance of the bid.
Accordingly, petitioner enclosed with his sealed bid a manager's and cash to
complete the proposal bond. Upon the receipt of the notice of award,
petitioner offered to pay the additional 25% in Land Bank bonds at their face
value. These bonds were issued to petitioner as payment for his riceland
acquired by the Government from him. However, the GSIS rejected the offer,
hence it was withdrawn by petitioner. Petitioner then offered to pay in cash
the balance of the required down payment. When the second monthly
installment became due, petitioner sent a letter to the GSIS Board of
Trustees requesting that he be allowed to pay with his Land Bank bonds.
FATIMA C. DELA PENA
JD 2B
AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
 11

Petitioner invoked the provisions of Section 85 of Republic Act No. 3844, as

amended by Presidential Decree No. 251. The GSIS Board of Trustees
denied petitioner's offer and "resolved to reiterate the policy that Land Bank
bonds shall be accepted as payment only at a discounted rate to yield the
System 18% at maturity." The petitioner asked the Board to reconsider and
them submitted an opinion of the Ministry of Agrarian Reform, wherein it was
stated that "if the GSIS accepts the Land Bank bonds as payment thereof, it
must accept the same at par or face value.

ISSUE:

Whether or not under the provisions of Section 85 of Republic Act No. 3844,
as amended by Presidential Decree No. 251, the GSIS may be compelled to
accept Land Bank bonds at their face value in payment for a residential
house and lot purchased by the bondholder from the GSIS.

HELD:

Respondent Government Service Insurance System is ordered to accept the

bonds issued by the Land Bank of the Philippines at their par or face value.
A government-owned or controlled corporation, like the GSIS, is compelled
to accept Land Bank bonds as payment for the purchase of its assets. As a
matter of fact, the bidder who offers to pay in bonds of the Land Bank is
entitled to preference. Respondent, in support of its stance that it can
discount the bonds, avers that "(a) PD 251 has amended Section 85 of RA
3844 by deleting and eliminating the original provision that Land Bank bonds
shall be accepted 'in the amount of their face value'; and (b) to accept the
said bonds at their face value will impair the actuarial solvency of the GSIS
and thoroughly prejudice its capacity to pay death, retirement, insurance,
FATIMA C. DELA PENA
JD 2B
AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
 12

dividends and other benefits and claims to its more than a million members,
the majority of whom are low salaried government employees and workers."
Respondent's arguments disregard the fact that the provisions of Section 85
are primarily designed to cushion the impact of dispossession. Not only
would there be inconvenience resulting from dispossession itself, but also
from the modes of payment in financing the acquisition of farm lots.
Acceptance of Land Bank bonds, instead of money, undoubtedly involves a
certain degree of sacrifice for the landowner. This, of course, is in addition to
the fact that, in case of expropriation of land covered by land reform, the
landowner will seldom get the compensation he desires. Thus, discounting
the Land Banks bonds, and thereby reducing their effective value, entails
and imposes an additional burden on his part. It is, in fact, in consideration
of this sacrifice that we extended the rule on liberality in the interpretation of
the provisions of Republic Act No. 3844, then known as the Agricultural Land
Reform Code, in favor not only of the actual tillers but the landowners as
well. As explained in an earlier case, “the value of these bonds cannot be
diminished by any direct or indirect act, particularly, since said bonds are
fully guaranteed by the Government of the Philippines.” Respondent cannot
rely on the deletion by Presidential Decree No. 251 of the provision in Section
85 that the bonds shall be accepted in the amount of their face value, and
wrest therefrom an interpretation in support of its thesis.

FATIMA C. DELA PENA

JD 2B
AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
 13

CASE 5.

G.R. No. 78742 July 14, 1989

ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC., JUANITO D. GOMEZ,

GERARDO B. ALARCIO, FELIPE A. GUICO, JR., BERNARDO M. ALMONTE, CANUTO
RAMIR B. CABRITO, ISIDRO T. GUICO, FELISA I. LLAMIDO, FAUSTO J. SALVA,
REYNALDO G. ESTRADA, FELISA C. BAUTISTA, ESMENIA J. CABE, TEODORO B.
MADRIAGA, AUREA J. PRESTOSA, EMERENCIANA J. ISLA, FELICISIMA C. ARRESTO,
CONSUELO M. MORALES, BENJAMIN R. SEGISMUNDO, CIRILA A. JOSE & NAPOLEON S.
FERRER, petitioners,
vs.
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM, respondent.

G.R. No. 79310 July 14, 1989

ARSENIO AL. ACUNA, NEWTON JISON, VICTORINO FERRARIS, DENNIS JEREZA,

HERMINIGILDO GUSTILO, PAULINO D. TOLENTINO and PLANTERS' COMMITTEE, INC.,
Victorias Mill District, Victorias, Negros Occidental, petitioners,
vs.
JOKER ARROYO, PHILIP E. JUICO and PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM
COUNCIL, respondents.

G.R. No. 79744 July 14, 1989

INOCENTES PABICO, petitioner,

vs.
HON. PHILIP E. JUICO, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
HON. JOKER ARROYO, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY OF THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
and Messrs. SALVADOR TALENTO, JAIME ABOGADO, CONRADO AVANCENA and
ROBERTO TAAY, respondents.

G.R. No. 79777 July 14, 1989

NICOLAS S. MANAAY and AGUSTIN HERMANO, JR., petitioners,

vs.
HON. PHILIP ELLA JUICO, as Secretary of Agrarian Reform, and LAND BANK OF THE
PHILIPPINES, respondents.

FACTS:

On September 3, 1986, the petitioner protested the erroneous inclusion of

his small landholding under Operation Land transfer and asked for the recall

FATIMA C. DELA PENA

JD 2B
AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
 14

and cancellation of the Certificates of Land Transfer in the name of the

private respondents.

The petitioner contends that the issuance of E.0. Nos. 228 and 229 shortly
before Congress convened is anomalous and arbitrary, besides violating the
doctrine of separation of powers.

The petitioner also invokes his rights not to be deprived of his property
without due process of law and to the retention of his small parcels of rice
holding as guaranteed under Article XIII, Section 4 of the Constitution

ISSUE:

Whether or not CARL violates due process because landowner is divested

of his property even before actual payment to him in full of just compensation,
in contravention of a well- accepted principle of eminent domain

HELD:

NO. The recognized rule, indeed, is that title to the property expropriated
shall pass from the owner to the expropriator only upon full payment of the
just compensation. Jurisprudence on this settled principle is consistent both
here and in other democratic jurisdictions.

It is true that P.D. No. 27 expressly ordered the emancipation of tenant-

farmer as October 21, 1972 and declared that he shall "be deemed the
owner" of a portion of land consisting of a family-sized farm except that "no
title to the land owned by him was to be actually issued to him unless and
until he had become a full-fledged member of a duly recognized farmers'
cooperative." It was understood, however, that full payment of the just

FATIMA C. DELA PENA

JD 2B
AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
 15

compensation also had to be made first, conformably to the constitutional

requirement.

When E.O. No. 228, categorically stated in its Section 1 that:

All qualified farmer-beneficiaries are now deemed full owners as of October

21, 1972 of the land they acquired by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 27.

It was obviously referring to lands already validly acquired under the said
decree, after proof of full-fledged membership in the farmers' cooperatives
and full payment of just compensation. Hence, it was also perfectly proper
for the Order to also provide in its Section 2 that the "lease rentals paid to
the landowner by the farmer- beneficiary after October 21, 1972 (pending
transfer of ownership after full payment of just compensation), shall be
considered as advance payment for the land."

The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and
ownership of the land to the government on receipt by the landowner of the
corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in
cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title also remains
with the landowner. No outright change of ownership is contemplated either.

Hence, the argument that the assailed measures violate due process by
arbitrarily transferring title before the land is fully paid for must also be
rejected.

FATIMA C. DELA PENA

JD 2B
AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
 16

CASE 6.

G.R. No. 108725 September 25, 1998

PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES and FARMERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING

ASSOCIATION (FACOMA), San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, petitioners,
vs.
THE HON. EMILIO L. LEACHON, JR., Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 46, 4th
Judicial Region, San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, respondents.

PURISIMA, J.:

FACTS:

People of the Philippines v The Hon. Emilio L. Leachon , Jr. GR 108725

September 25, 1998 Facts: On August 7, 1990, the Provincial Prosecutor of
Occidental Mindoro filed 2 separate violation of PD 772 (Anti-Squatting law)
against Noli Hablo, Edmundo Mapindan and Diego before the Regional Trial
Court of Occidental Mindoro presided by the respondent judge. The case
proceeded to trial and after the presentation of evidence; the prosecution
rested the cases and sent a written offer of evidence. After almost a year the
judge dismissed the cases motu proprio on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.
Petitioners then appealed to the Supreme Court via a petition of certiorari,
prohibition and mandamus, which was referred to the Court of Appeals for
disposition. Court of Appeals reversed the Order of dismissal and ordered
the continuation of the trial. The respondent judge once again dismissed the
case motu proprio once more saying that PD 772 is repealed by Art. XIII
Section 9 and 10 of the 1987 Constitution. (Urban and rural dwellers shall
not be evicted, nor their dwellings demolished except in accordance with law
and in a just and humane manner) Petitioners filed a Motion for

FATIMA C. DELA PENA

JD 2B
AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION
 17

Reconsideration but were denied by the judge. Petitioners found their way to
the Supreme Court via instant petition.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the respondent judge acted with grave abuse of discretion
amounting to the lack or excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the subject
criminal cases for the violation of the Anti-Squatting law and in declaring the
said law as repugnant to the provision of the 1987 Constitution?

HELD: Yes. The respondent judge dismissed the subject cases motu
proprio, after the prosecution had rested the same and without giving the
three accused an opportunity to present their evidence. There is also no
showing that the issue of constitutionality of PD 772 was ever posed by the
accused, such an issue cannot be given due course because it was not
raised by the proper party at the earliest opportunity. Petition cannot prosper
because on October 27, 1997 Republic Act No. 8368 (Penalizing Squatting
and Other Similar Acts) was enacted and repealed PD 772. All cases under
the provision of PD 772 shall be dismissed.

FATIMA C. DELA PENA

JD 2B
AGRARIAN LAW AND SOCIAL LEGISLATION