NATALIA vs DAR

Facts:

Petitioner NATALIA owns a 3 parcel of land which has a total of 125 hectares located in Antipolo,
Rizal. That it was registered in the city of deeds in rizal. Presidential proclamation number 1637 set aside
20000 hectares located in Antipolo, Montalban since it would be used as a townsite area which would
provide low cost housing to overspill the population which were in the Lungsod ng Silangan Townsite.
That petitioner applied for and was granted by the human settlement regulatory commission and that
they complied with phase 1-3 for the development of permits.

Issue:

WON the townsite area is considered as an agricultural land based on RA 6657.

Ruling:

No. it is considered as a residential land since prior to the enactment of ra 6657 it is already
intended as a townsite and all the requirements for the approval of such conversion of agricultural land
to residential land was complied with the petitioner. First, they secured the requirements under the
Lungsod ng Silangan townsite before applying the nexessary permit in the human regulatory
commission. Since the NATALIA lands were converted prior to 15 June 1988, respondent DAR is bound
by such conversion. It was therefore error to include the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills
Subdivision within the coverage of CARL.

Morta vs Jaime Occidental

Facts:

The petitioner alleged that the respondent gathered pili nuts, anahaw leaves and coconut from their
land and even destroyed banana ang pineapple plants. The respondent denied the said allegation
claiming that petitioner was not the owner of the land and it is one Gil Opiana and that he is a tenat of
Gil Opiana that he has a right over the fruits of the land. That the MTC ruled in favor of the petitioner
and directed the respondent to pay the damages against the petitioner. Respondents questioned the
jurisdiction of the MTC claiming that DARAB has the jurisdiction over the case since there exist a
landowner-tenant relationship.

Issue:

WON the civil actions for damages are not tenancy-related, and, hence, are properly cognizable by the
trial court, not the DARAB.

Ruling:

For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the
parties. In order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, it would be essential to establish
all its indispensable elements, to wit: 1) that the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural
lessee; 2) that the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) that there is consent
between the parties to the relationship; 4) that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about
agricultural production; 5) that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural
lessee; and 6) that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee. In
the case at bar, the owner of the land was still unknown to the parties Assuming arguendo that Josefina
Opiana-Baraclan is the owner, then the case is not between the landowner and tenant. If, however,
Morta is the landowner, Occidental cannot claim that there is consent to a landowner-tenant
relationship between him and Morta. Thus, for failure to comply with the above requisites, we conclude
that the issue involved is not tenancy-related cognizable by the DARAB.

Heirs of Roman Soriano vs CA

Facts:

A piece of land located in Lingayen, Pangasinan is the disputed property in this case. Said land
was originally owned by one Adriano Soriano, subsequently it was leased for a period of 15 years to the
Spouses David and Consuelo with RAMON SORIANO, son of Adriano and herein petitioner, acting as
caretaker/tenant of the property during the duration of the lease. Upon the death of Adriano the lot he
owned was divided into TWO and given to his heirs. One of the lots inherited was sold to the Spouses
ABALOS, here. The other lot was also bought by the Spouses Abalos although not completely (only ¾ of
the lot). The lots in question were subsequently registered in the name of the Spouses Abalos. The
courts later declared them to be the undisputed owners thereof. Soriano questions their ownership of
the land and so filed cases against the spouses. Currently Soriano is still in possession of the land
claiming rights of “Security of Tenure” as a tenant of the land.

Issue:

May a winning party in a land registration case effectively eject the possessor thereof?

Ruling:

No. Possession and ownership are distinct legal concepts. Possession is the holding of a thing or
the enjoyment of a right. Literally, to possess means to actually and physically occupy a thing with or
without right. A judgment of ownership does not necessarily include possession as a necessary incident.
Such declaration pertains only to OWNERSHIP and does not automatically include possession. This is
especially true in the case at bar wherein petitioner is occupying the land allegedly in the concept of an
agricultural tenant. The court says “allegedly” due to the fact that there is still a pending case in the
DARAB (Department of Agrarian Reform and Adjudication Board) on the issue. The issue of ownership of
the subject land has been laid to rest by final judgment; however, the right of possession is yet to be
resolved. The Tenancy Act, which protects the rights of agricultural tenants, may limit the exercise of
rights by the lawful owners. The exercise of the rights of ownership yields to the exercise of the rights of
an agricultural tenant. Since the rights of Soriano to possess the land are still pending litigation in the
DARAB he is protected from dispossession of the land until final judgment of said court unless Soriano’s
occupancy is found by the court to be unlawful.
Daez vs CA

Facts:

Daez was the owner of a 4.1685-hectare riceland in Barangay Lawa, Meycauayan, Bulacan which was
being cultivated by respondents Soriente, Macatulad, Mediana and Umali under a system of share-
tenancy. The said land was subjected to the Operation Land Transfer Program under Presidential Decree
No. 27 as amended by Letter of Instruction Armed with an affidavit, allegedly signed under duress by the
respondents, stating that they are not share tenants but hired laborers, Daez applied for the exemption
of said riceland from coverage of P.D. No. 27 due to non-tenancy as well as for the cancellation of the
CLTs issued to private respondents. The application of the petitioner was denied. Exemption of the
4.1685 riceland from coverage by P.D. No. 27 having been finally denied her, Daez next filed an
application for retention of the same rice land, this time under R.A. No. 6657.

On March 22, 1994, DAR Region III OIC-Director Eugenio B. Bernardo allowed Daez to retain the subject
riceland but he denied the application of her eight (8) children to retain three (3) hectares each for their
failure to prove actual tillage of the land or direct management thereof as required by law. They
appealed to DAR Secretary.

DAR Secretary affirmed the decision of the regional director. They appealed to the Office of the
President (OP).

Office of the President ruled in favor of Daez or her heirs and rendered judgment authorizing the
retention of the 4.1685 hectares of land. The application of the children was still denied. Hence the
appeal in CA.

Issue:

Whether or not land owner can still exercise their right of retention over subject 4.1685 hectares rice
land despite the fact that a previous decision denying petition for exemption under Presidential Decree
27 had long been executory.

Ruling:

YES. Petitioner heirs of

In the landmark case of Association of Small Landowners in the Phil., Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform
23 , we held that landowners who have not yet exercised their retention rights under P.D. No. 27 are
entitled to the new retention rights under R.A. No. 6657 24 . We disregarded the August 27, 1985
deadline imposed by DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1985 on landowners covered by OLT.
However, if a landowner filed his application for retention after August 27, 1985 but he had previously
filed the sworn statements required by LOI Nos. 41, 45 and 52, he is still entitled to the retention limit of
seven (7) hectares under P.D. No. 27. 25 Otherwise, he is only entitled to retain five (5) hectares under
R.A. No. 6657.

Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 6657, which provides,

SECTION 6. Retention Limits — Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain,
directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall Upon the effectivity of
this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management contract or transfer of possession of private lands
executed by the original landowner in violation of this Act shall be null and void; Provided, however,
That those executed prior to this Act shall be valid only when registered with the Register of Deeds
within a period of three (3) months after the effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, all Register of Deeds shall
inform the DAR within thirty (30) days of any transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5)
hectares" .

Without doubt, this right of retention may be exercised over tenanted land despite even the issuance of
Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) to farmer-beneficiaries. What must be protected, however, is the right
of the tenants to opt to either stay on the land chosen to be retained by the landowner or be a
beneficiary in another agricultural land with similar or comparable features.
Republic vs ca

Facts:

Respondent spouses bought lots 347 &348 as their residential area with a 91.77 square meters and
during this time they were natural born filipino citizen. Thereafter, the spouses applied for the
registration of the title of land before rtc san Pablo and this time they are Canadian citizen by virtue of
naturalization. The rtc granted the application and there is also a note for a right of way. The petitioner
republic contends that the land that was acquired by respondents belongs to the state under regalian
doctrine and that they cannot own a land since they are aliens when they acquired the land and caused
for the registration of the land. However, the respondent spouses contends that they acquired the land
through their predecessor in interest even though they bought the land in 1978.

Issue:

Whether or not the respondent spouses is the rightful owner.

Ruling:

Yes. The sc held that the spouses are considered the owner of the land. Under the public land act, Those
who by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous, exclusive,
and notorious possession and occupation of agricultural lands of the public domain, under a bona fide
claim of acquisition or ownership, for at least thirty years immediately preceding the filing of the
application for confirmation of title except when prevented by wars or force majeure. These shall be
conclusively presumed to have performed all the conditions essential to a Government grant and shall
be entitled to a certificate of title under the provisions of this chapter. In the case at bar, the land in
questions has been in the possession of the predecessor in interest since 1938 and the land has been in
an open, exclusive and notorious possession. It is undisputed that private respondents, as vendees of a
private land, were natural-born citizens of the Philippines. For the purpose of transfer and/or acquisition
of a parcel of residential land, it is not significant whether private respondents are no longer Filipino
citizens at the time they purchased or registered the parcels of land in question. What is important is
that private respondents were formerly natural-born citizens of the Philippines, and as transferees of a
private land, they could apply for registration in accordance with the mandate of Section 8, Article XII of
the Constitution. Considering that private respondents were able to prove the requisite period and
character of possession of their predecessors-in-interest over the subject lots, their application for
registration of title must perforce be approved.
Sta rosa vs ca

Facts: Petitioner was the registered owner of two parcels of land, MARO issued a notice of coverage to
petitioner and invited its officials or representatives to a conference. During the meeting It was the
consensus and recommendation of the assembly that the landholding of SRRDC be placed under
compulsory acquisition. Petitioner filed a “Protest and Objection” to the compulsory acquisition of the
property. Secretary of Agrarian Reform sent two notices of acquisition to petitioner. Secretary of
Agrarian Reform sent two 2 notices of acquisition to petitioner, stating that petitioner’s landholdings
covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891, containing an area of 188.2858 and 58.5800 hectares, valued at
P4,417,735.65 and P1,220,229.93, respectively, had been placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program. petitioner SRRDC in two letters 2 separately addressed to Secretary Florencio B. Abad
and the Director, Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution, sent its formal protest, protesting not
only the amount of compensation offered by DAR for the property but also the two (2) notices of
acquisition. Secretary Abad referred the case to the DARAB for summary proceedings to determine just
compensation. Petitioner sent a letter to the Land Bank of the Philippines stating that its property under
the aforesaid land titles were exempt from CARP coverage because they had been classified as
watershed area and were the subject of a pending petition for land conversion. Office of the Secretary,
DAR, through the Undersecretary for Operations (Assistant Secretary for Luzon Operations) and the
Regional Director of Region IV, submitted a report answering the two issues raised. According to them,
firstly, by virtue of the issuance of the notice of coverage on August 11, 1989, and notice of acquisition
on December 12, 1989, the property is covered under compulsory acquisition. Secondly, Administrative
Order No. 1, Series of 1990, Section IV D also supports the DAR position on the coverage of the said
property. During the consideration of the case by the Board, there was no pending petition for land
conversion specifically concerning the parcels of land in question. The Board sent a notice of hearing to
all the parties interested, setting the hearing for the administrative valuation of the subject parcels of
land. However, SRRDC submitted a petition to the Board for the latter to resolve SRRDC’s petition for
exemption from CARP coverage before any administrative valuation of their landholding could be had by
the Board. The initial DARAB hearing of the case was held and subsequently, different dates of hearing
were set without objection from counsel of SRRDC.

Issue: Whether the respondents complied with the procedural requirement of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law?

Held: No, we held that failed to comply with the requirements of the CARP Law. for its part, conditions
the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt of 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. DAR has executed the taking of the property in question. However, payment of
just compensation was not in accordance with the procedural requirement. The law required payment
in cash or LBP bonds, not by trust account as was done by DAR.
Roxas and co vs ca

Petitioner Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of three haciendas, namely,
Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all located in the Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas. Hacienda
Palico is 1,024 hectares in area.

On July 27, 1987, the Congress of the Philippines formally convened and took over legislative power
from the President. 2 This Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law (CARL) of 1988. The Act was signed by the President on June 10, 1988 and took effect on June 15,
1988.

Before the law's effectivity, on May 6, 1988, petitioner filed with respondent DAR a voluntary offer to
sell Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the provisions of E.O. No. 229. Haciendas Palico and Banilad were
later placed under compulsory acquisition by respondent DAR in accordance with the CARL. Hacienda
Palico

On September 29, 1989, respondent DAR, through respondent Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
(MARO) of Nasugbu, Batangas, sent a notice entitled "Invitation to Parties" to petitioner. The Invitation
was addressed to "Jaime Pimentel, Hda. Administrator, Hda. Palico." Therein, the MARO invited
petitioner to a conference on October 6, 1989 at the DAR office in Nasugbu to discuss the results of the
DAR investigation of Hacienda Palico, which was "scheduled for compulsory acquisition this year under
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program."

On December 12, 1989, respondent DAR through then Department Secretary Miriam D. Santiago sent a
"Notice of Acquisition" to petitioner. The Notice was addressed as follows:

Roxas y Cia, Limited

Soriano Bldg., Plaza Cervantes

Manila, Metro Manila.

Petitioner was informed that 1,023.999 hectares of its land in Hacienda Palico were subject to
immediate acquisition and distribution by the government under the CARL; that based on the DAR's
valuation criteria, the government was offering compensation of P3.4 million for 333.0800 hectares; that
whether this offer was to be accepted or rejected, petitioner was to inform the Bureau of Land
Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD) of the DAR; that in case of petitioner's rejection or failure to reply
within thirty days, respondent DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings with notice to
petitioner to determine just compensation for the land; that if petitioner accepts respondent DAR's
offer, or upon deposit of the compensation with an accessible bank if it rejects the same, the DAR shall
take immediate possession of the land.

Almost two years later, on September 26, 1991, the DAR Regional Director sent to the LBP Land
Valuation Manager three (3) separate Memoranda entitled "Request to Open Trust Account." Each
Memoranda requested that a trust account representing the valuation of three portions of Hacienda
Palico be opened in favor of the petitioner in view of the latter's rejection of its offered value.
Despite petitioner's application for conversion, respondent DAR proceeded with the acquisition of the
two Haciendas. The LBP trust accounts as compensation for Hacienda Palico were replaced by
respondent DAR with cash and LBP bonds. On October 22, 1993, from the mother title of TCT No. 985 of
the Hacienda, respondent DAR registered Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 6654. On
October 30, 1993, CLOA's were distributed to farmer beneficiaries.

Hacienda Banilad

On August 23, 1989, respondent DAR, through respondent MARO of Nasugbu, Batangas, sent a notice to
petitioner addressed as follows:

Mr. Jaime Pimentel

Hacienda Administrator

Hacienda Banilad

Nasugbu, Batangas

The MARO informed Pimentel that Hacienda Banilad was subject to compulsory acquisition under the
CARL; that should petitioner wish to avail of the other schemes such as Voluntary Offer to Sell or
Voluntary Land Transfer, respondent DAR was willing to provide assistance thereto.

On December 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the Department Secretary, sent to petitioner two (2)
separate "Notices of Acquisition" over Hacienda Banilad. These Notices were sent on the same day as
the Notice of Acquisition over Hacienda Palico. Unlike the Notice over Hacienda Palico, however, the
Notices over Hacienda Banilad were addressed to:

Roxas y Cia. Limited

7th Floor, CachoGonzales

Bldg. 101 Aguirre St., Leg.

Makati, Metro Manila.

Respondent DAR offered petitioner compensation of P15,108,995.52 for 729.4190 hectares and
P4,428,496.00 for 234.6498 hectares.
On September 26, 1991, the DAR Regional Director sent to the LBP Land Valuation Manager a "Request
to Open Trust Account" in petitioner's name as compensation for 234.6493 hectares of Hacienda
Banilad. A second "Request to Open Trust Account" was sent on November 18, 1991 over 723.4130
hectares of said Hacienda.

On December 18, 1991, the LBP certified that the amounts of P4,428,496.40 and P21,234,468.78 in cash
and LBP bonds had been earmarked as compensation for petitioner's land in Hacienda Banilad.

On May 4, 1993, petitioner applied for conversion of both Haciendas Palico and Banilad.

Hacienda Caylaway

Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered for sale to the government on May 6, 1988 before the
effectivity of the CARL. The Hacienda has a total area of 867.4571 hectares.

On January 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the Regional Director for Region IV, sent to petitioner
two (2) separate Resolutions accepting petitioner's voluntary offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway,
particularly TCT Nos. T44664 and T44663. The Resolutions were addressed to:

Roxas & Company, Inc.

7th Flr. CachoGonzales Bldg.

Aguirre, Legaspi Village

Makati, M. M

Nevertheless, on August 6, 1992, petitioner, through its President, Eduardo J. Roxas, sent a letter to the
Secretary of respondent DAR withdrawing its VOS of Hacienda Caylaway. The Sangguniang Bayan of
Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly authorized the reclassification of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to
nonagricultural. As a result, petitioner informed respondent DAR that it was applying for conversion of
Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to other uses.

In a letter dated September 28, 1992, respondent DAR Secretary informed petitioner that a
reclassification of the land would not exempt it from agrarian reform. Respondent Secretary also denied
petitioner's withdrawal of the VOS on the ground that withdrawal could only be based on specific
grounds such as unsuitability of the soil for agriculture, or if the slope of the land is over 18 degrees and
that the land is undeveloped.

Despite the denial of the VOS withdrawal of Hacienda Caylaway, on May 11, 1993, petitioner filed its
application for conversion of both Haciendas Palico and Banilad.
On August 24, 1993 petitioner instituted Case No. N00179646 (BA) with respondent DAR Adjudication
Board (DARAB) praying for the cancellation of the CLOA's issued by respondent DAR in the name of
several persons. Petitioner alleged that the Municipality of Nasugbu, where the haciendas are located,
had been declared a tourist zone, that the land is not suitable for agricultural production, and that the
Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu had reclassified the land to nonagricultural.

In a Resolution dated October 14, 1993, respondent DARAB held that the case involved the prejudicial
question of whether the property was subject to agrarian reform, hence, this question should be
submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform for determination.

ISSUE(S):

W/N this Court can take cognizance of this petition despite petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative
remedies;

W/N the acquisition proceedings over the three haciendas were valid and in accordance with law;

assuming the haciendas may be reclassified from agricultural to nonagricultural, W/N this court has the
power to rule on this issue.

HELD:

YES.

As a general rule, before a party may be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts of justice, he is
expected to have exhausted all means of administrative redress. This is not absolute, however. There
are instances when judicial action may be resorted to immediately. Among these exceptions are:

when the question raised is purely legal;

when the administrative body is in estoppel;

when the act complained of is patently illegal;

when there is urgent need for judicial intervention;

when the respondent acted in disregard of due process;

when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts, as an alter ego of the President, bear the
implied or assumed approval of the latter;

when irreparable damage will be suffered;

when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;

when strong public interest is involved;

when the subject of the controversy is private land; and

in quo warranto proceedings.

Respondent DAR issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA's) to farmer beneficiaries over
portions of petitioner's land without just compensation to petitioner. A Certificate of Land Ownership
Award (CLOA) is evidence of ownership of land by a beneficiary under R.A. 6657, the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. Before this may be awarded to a farmer beneficiary, the land must first be
acquired by the State from the landowner and ownership transferred to the former. The transfer of
possession and ownership of the land to the government are conditioned upon the receipt by the
landowner of the corresponding payment or deposit by the DAR of the compensation with an accessible
bank. Until then, title remains with the landowner. There was no receipt by petitioner of any
compensation for any of the lands acquired by the government.

The kind of compensation to be paid the landowner is also specific. The law provides that the deposit
must be made only in "cash" or "LBP bonds." Respondent DAR's opening of trust account deposits in
petitioner' s name with the Land Bank of the Philippines does not constitute payment under the law.
Trust account deposits are not cash or LBP bonds. The replacement of the trust account with cash or LBP
bonds did not ipso facto cure the lack of compensation; for essentially, the determination of this
compensation was marred by lack of due process. In fact, in the entire acquisition proceedings,
respondent DAR disregarded the basic requirements of administrative due process. Under these
circumstances, the issuance of the CLOA's to farmer beneficiaries necessitated immediate judicial action
on the part of the petitioner.

2. NO.

Procedure in the acquisition of private lands under the provisions of the law:

A. Modes of Acquisition of Land under R. A. 6657

Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (CARL), provides for two (2)
modes of acquisition of private land: compulsory and voluntary. The procedure for the compulsory
acquisition of private lands is set forth in Section 16 of R.A. 6657.

In the compulsory acquisition of private lands, the landholding, the landowners and the farmer
beneficiaries must first be identified. After identification, the DAR shall send a Notice of Acquisition to
the landowner, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post it in a conspicuous place in the
municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Within thirty days from
receipt of the Notice of Acquisition, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the
DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer. If the landowner accepts, he executes and delivers a
deed of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the certificate of title. Within thirty days
from the execution of the deed of transfer, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the
purchase price. If the landowner rejects the DAR's offer or fails to make a reply, the DAR conducts
summary administrative proceedings to determine just compensation for the land. The landowner, the
LBP representative and other interested parties may submit evidence on just compensation within
fifteen days from notice. Within thirty days from submission, the DAR shall decide the case and inform
the owner of its decision and the amount of just compensation. Upon receipt by the owner of the
corresponding payment, or, in case of rejection or lack of response from the latter, the DAR shall deposit
the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds with an accessible bank. The DAR shall immediately take
possession of the land and cause the issuance of a transfer certificate of title in the name of the Republic
of the Philippines. The land shall then be redistributed to the farmer beneficiaries. Any party may
question the decision of the DAR in the regular courts for final determination of just compensation.

Under Section 16 of the CARL, the first step in compulsory acquisition is the identification of the land,
the landowners and the beneficiaries. However, the law is silent on how the identification process must
be made. To fill in this gap, the DAR issued on July 26, 1989 Administrative Order No. 12, Series or 1989,
which set the operating procedure in the identification of such lands.

Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989 requires that the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO)
keep an updated master list of all agricultural lands under the CARP in his area of responsibility
containing all the required information. The MARO prepares a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder
(CACF) for each title covered by CARP. The MARO then sends the landowner a "Notice of Coverage" and
a "letter of invitation" to a "conference/meeting" over the land covered by the CACF. He also sends
invitations to the prospective farmerbeneficiaries the representatives of the Barangay Agrarian Reform
Committee (BARC), the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and other interested parties to discuss the
inputs to the valuation of the property and solicit views, suggestions, objections or agreements of the
parties. At the meeting, the landowner is asked to indicate his retention area.

The MARO shall make a report of the case to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) who shall
complete the valuation of the land. Ocular inspection and verification of the property by the PARO shall
be mandatory when the computed value of the estate exceeds P500,000.00. Upon determination of the
valuation, the PARO shall forward all papers together with his recommendation to the Central Office of
the DAR. The DAR Central Office, specifically, the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD),
shall review, evaluate and determine the final land valuation of the property. The BLAD shall prepare, on
the signature of the Secretary or his duly authorized representative, a Notice of Acquisition for the
subject property. From this point, the provisions of Section 16 of R.A. 6657 then apply.

For a valid implementation of the CAR program, two notices are required: (1) the Notice of Coverage
and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent to the landowner, the representatives of the
BARC, LBP, farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of
1989; and (2) the Notice of Acquisition sent to the landowner under Section 16 of the CARL.

The importance of the first notice, i.e., the Notice of Coverage and the letter of invitation to the
conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated. They are steps designed to comply with the
requirements of administrative due process. The implementation of the CARL is an exercise of the
State's police power and the power of eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL prescribes
retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the regulation of private
property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry ou such regulation, the owners are
deprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also a taking under the
power of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What
is required is the surrender of the title to and physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial
rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary. The Bill of Rights provides that "[n]o
person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The CARL was not
intended to take away property without due process of law. The exercise of the power of eminent
domain requires that due process be observed in the taking of private property.

DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989, from whence the Notice of Coverage first sprung, was amended in 1990
by DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 and in 1993 by DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993. The Notice of Coverage
and letter of invitation to the conference meeting were expanded and amplified in said amendments.

DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 lays down the rules on both Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory
Acquisition (CA) transactions involving lands enumerated under Section 7 of the CARL. In both VOS and
CA. transactions, the MARO prepares the Voluntary Offer to Sell Case Folder (VOCF) and the Compulsory
Acquisition Case Folder (CACF), as the case may be, over a particular landholding. The MARO notifies the
landowner as well as representatives of the LBP, BARC and prospective beneficiaries of the date of the
ocular inspection of the property at least one week before the scheduled date and invites them to
attend the same. The MARO, LBP or BARC conducts the ocular inspection and investigation by
identifying the land and landowner, determining the suitability of the land for agriculture and
productivity, interviewing and screening prospective farmer beneficiaries. Based on its investigation, the
MARO, LBP or BARC prepares the Field Investigation Report which shall be signed by all parties
concerned. In addition to the field investigation, a boundary or subdivision survey of the land ma also be
conducted by a Survey Party of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to be
assisted by the MARO. This survey shall delineate the areas covered by Operation Land Transfer (OLT),
areas retained by the landowner, areas with infrastructure, and the areas subject to VOS and CA. After
the survey and field investigation, the MARO sends a "Notice of Coverage" to the landowner or his duly
authorized representative inviting him to a conference or public hearing with the farmer beneficiaries,
representatives of the BARC, LBP, DENR, Department of Agriculture (DA), nongovernment organizations,
farmer's organizations and other interested parties. At the public hearing, the parties shall discuss the
results of the field investigation, issues that may be raised in relation thereto, inputs to the valuation of
the subject landholding, and other comments and recommendations by all parties concerned. The
Minutes of the conference/public hearing shall form part of the VOCF or CACF which files shall be
forwarded by the MARO to the PARO. The PARO reviews, evaluates and validates the Field Investigation
Report and other documents in the VOCF/CACF. He then forwards the records to the RARO for another
review.

DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993, modified the identification process and increased the number of
governmen agencies involved in the identification and delineation of the land subject to acquisition. This
time, the Notice of Coverage is sent to the landowner before the conduct of the field investigation and
the sending must comply with specific requirements. Representatives of the DAR Municipal Office
(DARMO) must send the Notice of Coverage to the landowner by "personal delivery with proof of
service, or by registered mail with return card," informing him that his property is under CARP coverage
and that if he desires to avail of his right of retention, he may choose which area he shall retain. The
Notice of Coverage shall also invite the landowner to attend the field investigation to be scheduled at
least two weeks from notice. The field investigation is for the purpose of identifying the landholding and
determining its suitability for agriculture and its productivity. A copy of the Notice of Coverage shall be
posted for at least one week on the bulletin board of the municipal and barangay halls where the
property
is located. The date of the field investigation shall also be sent by the DAR Municipal Office to
representatives of the LBP, BARC, DENR and prospective farmer beneficiaries. The field investigation
shall be conducted on the date set with the participation of the landowner and the various
representatives. If the landowner and other representatives are absent, the field investigation shall
proceed, provided they were duly notified thereof. Should there be a variance between the findings of
the DAR and the LBP as to whether the land be placed under agrarian reform, the land's suitability to
agriculture, the degree or development of the slope, etc., the conflict shall be resolved by a composite
team of the DAR, LBP, DENR and DA which shall jointly conduct further investigation. The team's findings
shall be binding on both DAR and LBP. After the field investigation, the DAR Municipal Office shall
prepare the Field Investigation Report and Land Use Map, a copy of which shall be furnished the
landowner "by personal delivery with proof of service or registered mail with return card." Another copy
of the Report and Map shall likewise be posted for at least one week in the municipal or barangay halls
where the property is located.

B. The Compulsory Acquisition of Haciendas Palico and Banilad

In the case at bar, respondent DAR claims that it, through MARO Leopoldo C. Lejano, sent a letter of
invitation entitled "Invitation to Parties" dated September 29, 1989 to petitioner corporation, through
Jaime Pimentel, the administrator of Hacienda Palico. The invitation was received on the same day it
was sent as indicated by a signature and the date received at the bottom left corner of said invitation.
With regard to Hacienda Banilad, respondent DAR claims that Jaime Pimentel, administrator also of
Hacienda Banilad, was notified and sent an invitation to the conference. Pimentel actually attended the
conference on September 21, 1989 and signed the Minutes of the meeting on behalf of petitioner
corporation. The Minutes was also signed by the representatives of the BARC, the LBP and farmer
beneficiaries. No letter of invitation was sent or conference meeting held with respect to Hacienda
Caylaway because it was subject to a Voluntary Offer to Sell to respondent DAR.

When respondent DAR, through the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), sent to the various
parties the Notice of Coverage and invitation to the conference, DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989 was
already in effect more than a month earlier. The Operating Procedure in DAR Administrative Order No.
12 does not specify how notices or letters of invitation shall be sent to the landowner, the
representatives of the BARC, the LBP, the farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties. The
procedure in the sending of these notices is important to comply with the requisites of due process
especially when the owner, as in this case, is a juridical entity. Petitioner is a domestic corporation, and
therefore, has a personality separate and distinct from its shareholders, officers and employees.

The Notice of Acquisition in Section 16 of the CARL is required to be sent to the landowner by "personal
delivery or registered mail." Whether the landowner be a natural or juridical person to whose address
the Notice may be sent by personal delivery or registered mail, the law does not distinguish. The DAR
Administrative Orders also do not distinguish. In the proceedings before the DAR, the distinction
between natural and juridical persons in the sending of notices may be found in the Revised Rules of
Procedure of the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). Service of pleadings before the DARAB is governed
by Section 6, Rule V of the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure. Notices and pleadings are served on
private domestic corporations or partnerships in the following manner:
Sec. 6. Service upon Private Domestic Corporation or Partnership. — If the defendant is a corporation
organized under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly registered, service may be made on
the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors or partners.

Similarly, the Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines, in Section 13, Rule 14 provides:

Sec. 13. Service upon private domestic corporation or partnership. — If the defendant is a corporation
organized under the laws of the Philippines or a partnership duly registered, service may be made on
the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors.

Summonses, pleadings and notices in cases against a private domestic corporation before the DARAB
and the regular courts are served on the president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent or any of its
directors. These persons are those through whom the private domestic corporation or partnership is
capable of action.

Jaime Pimentel is not the president, manager, secretary, cashier or director of petitioner corporation.

Assuming further that petitioner was duly notified of the CARP coverage of its haciendas, the areas
found actually subject to CARP were not properly identified before they were taken over by respondent
DAR. Respondents insist that the lands were identified because they are all registered property and the
technical description in their respective titles specifies their metes and bounds. Respondents admit at
the same time, however, that not all areas in the haciendas were placed under the comprehensive
agrarian reform program invariably by reason of elevation or character or use of the land.

The acquisition of the landholdings did not cover the entire expanse of the two haciendas, but only
portions thereof. Hacienda Palico has an area of 1,024 hectares and only 688.7576 hectares were
targetted for acquisition. Hacienda Banilad has an area of 1,050 hectares but only 964.0688 hectares
were subject to CARP. The haciendas are not entirely agricultural lands. In fact, the various tax
declarations over the haciendas describe the landholdings as "sugarland," and "forest, sugarland,
pasture land, horticulture and woodland."

Under Section 16 of the CARL, the sending of the Notice of Acquisition specifically requires that the land
subject

to land reform be first identified. The two haciendas in the instant case cover vast tracts of land. Before
Notices of Acquisition were sent to petitioner, however, the exact areas of the landholdings were not
properly segregated and delineated. Upon receipt of this notice, therefore, petitioner corporation had
no idea which portions of its estate were subject to compulsory acquisition, which portions it could
rightfully retain, whether these retained portions were compact or contiguous, and which portions were
excluded from CARP coverage. Even respondent DAR's evidence does not show that petitioner, through
its duly authorized representative, was notified of any ocular inspection and investigation that was to be
conducted by respondent DAR. Neither is there proof that petitioner was given the opportunity to at
least choose and identify its retention area in those portions to be acquired compulsorily. The right of
retention and how this right is exercised, is guaranteed in Section 6 of the CARL.

Under the law, a landowner may retain not more than five hectares out of the total area of his
agricultural land subject to CARP. The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or
contiguous, pertains to the landowner. If the area chosen for retention is tenanted, the tenant shall
have the option to choose whether to remain on the portion or be a beneficiary in the same or another
agricultural land with similar or comparable features.

C. The Voluntary Acquisition of Hacienda Caylaway

Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered for sale in 1989. The Hacienda has a total area of 867.4571
hectares and is covered by four (4) titles. In two separate Resolutions both dated January 12, 1989,
respondent DAR, through the

Regional Director, formally accepted the VOS over the two of these four titles. The land covered by two
titles has an area of 855.5257 hectares, but only 648.8544 hectares thereof fell within the coverage of
R.A. 6657. Petitioner claims it does not know where these portions are located.

Respondent DAR, on the other hand, avers that surveys on the land covered by the four titles were
conducted in 1989, and that petitioner, as landowner, was not denied participation therein, The results
of the survey and the land valuation summary report, however, do not indicate whether notices to
attend the same were actually sent to and received by petitioner or its duly authorized representative.
To reiterate, Executive Order No. 229 does not lay down the operating procedure, much less the notice
requirements, before the VOS is accepted by respondent DAR. Notice to the landowner, however,
cannot be dispensed with. It is part of administrative due process and is an essential requisite to enable
the landowner himself to exercise, at the very least, his right of retention guaranteed under the CARL.

3. NO.

The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itself authority to resolve
a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with an administrative body of special
competence. Respondent DAR is in a better position to resolve petitioner's application for conversion,
being primarily the agency possessing the necessary expertise on the matter. The power to determine
whether Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway are nonagricultural, hence, exempt from the coverage
of the CARL lies with the DAR, not with this Court.
 Hacienda Luisita v. PARC
G.R. No. 171101, July 05, 2011

Facts:
In 1957, the Spanish owners of the Compañia General de Tabacos de Filipinas (Tabacalera) sold
to Tarlac Development Corporation (TADECO) Hacienda Luisita and their controlling interest in
the sugar mill within the hacienda. The Philippine Government, through the Central Bank of the
Philippines, aided the buyer to obtain a dollar loan from a US bank. Also, the GSIS Board of
Trustees extended loan in favor of TADECO with a condition that said lots shall be divided at
cost to the tenants, should there be any, under Land Tenure Act. In 1963, the Agricultural Land
Reform Code (RA 3844) was enacted, abolishing share tenancy and converting it to leasehold
tenancy. Subsequently, Congress passed the Code of Agrarian Reform (RA 6389) declaring the
entire country a land reform area. A month after the declaration of Martial Law in 1972,
President Marcos allowed tenant-farmers to purchase the land they tilled or to change from
shared-tenancy to fixed-rent leasehold tenancy. In 1980, the Martial Law Administration filed a
suit before the RTC of Manila against TADECO to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the Ministry of
Agrarian Reform (now the DAR) for its distribution to farmers. The RTC ordered TADECO to
surrender the hacienda to the MAR. Then during the time of President Corazon C. Aquino, after
Marcos was ousted, she instituted Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and
created the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) as its policy-making body, thru RA
6657 (CARP Law of 1988) ushering a new process of land classification, acquisition, and
distribution. Consequently, the CA dismissed the case the Marcos administration initially
instituted and won against TADECO, et al. However, the dismissal was conditioned that there be
an approval of a stock distribution plan (SDP) to be submitted, approved by PARC, and
implemented as an alternative mode of land distribution, and failure to comply will cause the
revival of previous decision. Thereafter, the Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI) was formed as a spin-
off corporation to facilitate the SDP. In 1989, about 93% of the Farmworkers-beneficiaries
(FWBs) accepted and signed the proposed SDOP. Then, Stock Distribution Option Agreement
(SDOA) was entered into by TADECO/HLI and 5,848 qualified FWBs. A referendum conducted
by DAR showed that 5,177 FWBs out of 5,315 participants opted to receive shares in the HLI. A
petition was then filed for the revocation and nullification of the SDOA and the distribution of
the lands. The petition was filed by the AMBALA (composing about 80% of the 5,339 FWBs of
Hacienda Luisita). DAR constituted a Special Task Force to attend to the issues relating to the
SDP of HLI and the latter found that HLI failed to comply with their undertakings. On December
22, 2005, PARC affirmed the recommendation of DAR to recall/revoke the SDOP of
TADECO/HLI and the land be placed under compulsory coverage or mandated land acquisition.
Issue:
Whether or not PARC has jurisdiction to recall or revoke HLI’s SDP.
Ruling:
Yes. Under Sec. 31 of RA 6657, as implemented by DAO 10, the authority to approve the plan
for stock distribution of the corporate landowner belongs to PARC. However, contrary to
petitioner HLI’s posture, PARC also has the power to revoke the SDP which it previously
approved. It may be, as urged, that RA 6657 or other executive issuances on agrarian reform do
not explicitly vest the PARC with the power to revoke/recall an approved SDP. Such power or
authority, however, is deemed possessed by PARC under the principle of necessary implication,
a basic postulate that what is implied in a statute is as much a part of it as that which is
expressed. Following the doctrine of necessary implication, it may be stated that the conferment
of express power to approve a plan for stock distribution of the agricultural land of corporate
owners necessarily includes the power to revoke or recall the approval of the plan.
 Land Bank of the Philippines vs Soriano
G.R. Nos. 180772 and 180776, May 6, 2010

Facts:
Domingo and Mamerto Soriano are the registered owners of several parcels of rice land situated
in Oas, Albay. Out of the 18.9163 hectares of land owned by the respondents, 18.2820 hectares
were placed under the Operations Land Transfer and the CARP pursuant to Presidential Decree
No. 274 and Republic Act No. 6657. The LBP6 pegged the value of 18.0491 hectares of land at
₱482,363.95, while the remaining 0.2329 hectare was computed at ₱8,238.94. Not satisfied with
the valuation, respondents, instituted a Complaint for judicial determination of just compensation
with the Regional Trial Court of Legazpi City, sitting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC).
Respondents alleged that they are entitled to an amount of not less than ₱4,500,000.00 as just
compensation. The SAC rendered a judgment, ordering LBP to pay the respondents
₱894,584.94. The SAC applied the formula prescribed under Executive Order No. 228 in
determining the valuation of the property, i.e., Land value = Average Gross Production x 2.5 x
Government Support Price. It likewise granted compounded interest pursuant to Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1994, as amended by DAR
Administrative Order No. 2, series of 2004.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondents are entitled to the amount awarded to them.
Ruling:
Yes. In the instant case, while the subject lands were acquired under Presidential Decree No. 27,
the complaint for just compensation was only lodged before the court on 23 November 2000 or
long after the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 in 1988. Therefore, Section 17 of Republic Act
No. 6657 should be the principal basis of the computation for just compensation. As a matter of
fact, the factors enumerated therein had already been translated into a basic formula by the DAR
pursuant to its rule-making power under Section 49 of Republic Act No. 6657.
 Land Bank of the Philippines vs Natividad
G.R. No. 127198, May 16, 2005

Facts:
On May 14, 1993, private respondents filed a petition before the trial court for the determination
of just compensation for their agricultural lands situated in Arayat, Pampanga, which were
acquired by the government pursuant to PD 27, and rendered a judgement in favor of the
petitioner. DAR and Land Bank filed separate motions for reconsideration which were denied by
the trial court for being pro forma as the same did not contain a notice of hearing. Thus, the
prescriptive period for filing an appeal was not tolled. Land Bank consequently failed to file a
timely appeal and the assailed Decision became final and executory. Land Bank then filed a
Petition for Relief from Order citing excusable negligence as its ground for relief. Attached to
the petition for relief were two affidavits of merit claiming that the failure to include in the
motion for reconsideration a notice of hearing was due to accident and/or mistake. Land Bank
argues that the failure of its counsel to include a notice of hearing due to pressure of work
constitutes excusable negligence and does not make the motion for reconsideration pro forma
considering its allegedly meritorious defenses.
Issue:
Whether or not the trial court erred in declaring that PD 27 and Executive Order No. 228 (EO
228) are mere guidelines in the determination of just compensation.
Ruling:
No. Primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR to determine in a preliminary manner the just
compensation for the lands taken under the agrarian reform program, but such determination is
subject to challenge before the courts. The resolution of just compensation cases for the taking of
lands under agrarian reform is, after all, essentially a judicial function. In this case, the trial court
arrived at the just compensation due private respondents for their property, taking into account
its nature as irrigated land, location along the highway, market value, assessor’s value and the
volume and value of its produce. This Court is convinced that the trial court correctly determined
the amount of just compensation due private respondents in accordance with, and guided by, RA
6657 and existing jurisprudence.
 Lubrica vs Land Bank
G.R. No. 170220, Nov. 20, 2006,

Facts:
Petitioners own parcels of agricultural lands in Mindoro Occidental which were placed under
land reform pursuant to PD 27. The land was thereafter subdivided and distributed to farmer
beneficiaries. Petitioners rejected Land Bank’s valuation of their properties: P5,056,833.54 for
the 311.7682 hectares (TCT No. T-31) and P1,512,575.05 for the 128.7161 hectares. On January
29, 2003, the PARAD fixed the preliminary just compensation at P51,800,286.43 for the
311.7682 hectares (TCT No. T-31) and P21,608,215.28 for the 128.7161 hectares. LBP filed for
judicial determination of just compensation before RTC. RTC ordered LBP to deposit the
amounts provisionally determined by the PARAD as there is no law which prohibits LBP to
make a deposit pending the fixing of the final amount of just compensation. Court of Appeals
initially upheld Regional Trial Court decision. However, CA, in its Amended Decision, held that
the immediate deposit of the preliminary value of the expropriated properties is improper
because it was erroneously computed. Citing Gabatin v. Land Bank of the Philippines, it held
that the formula to compute the just compensation should be: Land Value = 2.5 x Average Gross
Production x Government Support Price. Specifically, it held that the value of the government
support price for the corresponding agricultural produce (rice and corn) should be computed at
the time of the legal taking of the subject agricultural land, that is, on October 21, 1972 when
landowners were effectively deprived of ownership over their properties by virtue of P.D. No.
27. According to the Court of Appeals, the PARAD incorrectly used the amounts of P500 and
P300 which are the prevailing government support price for palay and corn, respectively, at the
time of payment, instead of P35 and P31, the prevailing government support price at the time of
the taking in 1972.
Issue:
Whether or not the court a quo has decided the case in a way not in accord with the latest
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Hon. Eli G.C.
Natividad, et al., G.R. No. 127198, prom. May 16, 2005
Ruling:
YES. The Natividad case reiterated the Court’s ruling in Office of the President v. Court of
Appeals that the expropriation of the landholding did not take place on the effectivity of P.D. No.
27 on October 21, 1972 but seizure would take effect on the payment of just compensation
judicially determined. Likewise, in the recent case of Heirs of Tantoco, Sr. v. Court of Appeals,
we held that expropriation of landholdings covered by R.A. No. 6657 take place, not on the
effectivity of the Act on June 15, 1988, but on the payment of just compensation. In the instant
case, petitioners were deprived of their properties in 1972 but have yet to receive the just
compensation therefor. The parcels of land were already subdivided and distributed to the
farmer-beneficiaries thereby immediately depriving petitioners of their use. Under the
circumstances, it would be highly inequitable on the part of the petitioners to compute the just
compensation using the values at the time of the taking in 1972, and not at the time of the
payment, considering that the government and the farmer-beneficiaries have already benefited
from the land although ownership thereof have not yet been transferred in their names.
Petitioners were deprived of their properties without payment of just compensation which, under
the law, is a prerequisite before the property can be taken away from its owners. The transfer of
possession and ownership of the land to the government are conditioned upon the receipt by the
landowner of the corresponding payment or deposit by the DAR of the compensation with an
accessible bank. Until then, title remains with the landowner.
 JESUS PASCO et al. v. PISON-ARCEO AGRICULTURAL AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION
485 SCRA 514 (2006)

Facts:
Pison-Arceo Agricultural and Development Corporation, is the registered owner of a parcel of
land in Negros Occidental. Constructed on the said land are houses occupied by the corporation
‘s workers. Jesus Pasco et al. are former workers of the corporation. When their employment
contracts were terminated, they were asked to vacate the house but they refused to do so. The
corporation thereafter filed a complaint for unlawful detainer before the Metropolitan Trial Court
in Cities in Bacolod City. The trial court rendered judgment in favor of Pasco et al. On appeal,
the Regional Trial Court affirmed the decision. Pasco et al. appealed the decision contending that
the court has no jurisdiction over the case on the ground of a pending agrarian reform dispute
between them and the corporation. The Court of Appeals rendered a decision which affirmed the
RTC‘s decision.
Issue:
Whether or not one who has been identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as
potential agrarian reform beneficiary may be ejected from the land where he is identified as such,
by the landowner, who has already been notified by the DAR of the coverage of his land by the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the government.
Ruling:
The issuance during the pendency of the case of a Notice of Coverage to Pison-Arceo
Agricultural and Development Corporation does not, however, automatically make the ejectment
case an agrarian dispute over which the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
(DARAB) has jurisdiction. The issuance of a Notice of Coverage is merely a preliminary step for
the State‘s acquisition of the land for agrarian reform purposes and it does not automatically vest
title or transfer the ownership of the land to the government. Since during a field investigation
the DAR and Land Bank of the Philippines would make a determination as to whether, among
other things, “the land will be placed under agrarian reform, the land‘s suitability to agriculture,”
a Notice of Coverage does not ipso facto render the land subject thereof a land reform area. The
owner retains its right to eject unlawful possessors of his land, as what respondent Pison- Arceo
Agricultural and Development Corporation did in the present case. Nothing in the records of the
case shows that the DAR has made an award in favor of Spouses Pasco et al. Hence, no rights
over the land they occupy can be considered to have vested in their favor in accordance with
Section 24 of the CARL which provides that the rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary
shall commence from the time the DAR makes an award of the land to him, which award shall
be completed within one hundred eighty (180) days from the time the DAR takes actual
possession of the land.
 Cabral vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 101974 July 12, 2001

Facts:
On January 16, 1990, petitioner Victoria Cabral filed a petition before the Barangay Agrarian
Reform Council (BARC) for the cancellation of the Emancipation Patents and Torrens Titles
issued in favor of private respondents. The patents and titles covered portions of the property
owned and registered in the name of petitioner. Petitioner alleged therein that she was the
registered owner of several parcels of land covered by Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No. 0-
1670 of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan, among which is a parcel of land described therein as
Lot 4 of Plan Psu-164390. The petition further averred that as early as July 1973, petitioner
applied with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for the reclassification or conversion of
the land for residential, commercial or industrial purposes. The application for conversion,
however, was not acted upon. Instead, on April 25, 1988, Emancipation Patents, and, thereafter,
Transfer Certificates of Title, were issued in favor of private respondents. On January 19, 1990,
petitioner filed with the DAR itself another petition for the cancellation of the same
Emancipation Patents and Torrens Titles. On February 11, 1990, Regional Director Eligio Pacis
issued an order dismissing the petition for cancellation of Emancipation Patents. The Regional
Director likewise denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration dated July 11, 1990.
Consequently, petitioner filed a petition for certiorari in the Court of Appeals questioning the
jurisdiction of the Regional Director and claiming denial of due process. On January 8, 1991, the
appellate court dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Petitioner’s motion for reconsideration
was likewise denied.
Issue:
Whether or not the DAR Regional Director of Region III acted with jurisdiction when it took
cognizance of and resolved the conversion application and/or cancellation of CLT/EP petition of
petitioner-appellant.
Ruling:
No. Whatever jurisdiction the Regional Director may have had over the cancellation of
emancipation patents, it lost with the passage of subsequent laws. And it is amply clear from
these provisions that the function of the Regional Office concerns the implementation of agrarian
reform laws while that of the DARAB/RARAD/PARAD is the adjudication of agrarian reform
cases. The first is essentially executive. It pertains to the enforcement and administration of the
laws, carrying them into practical operation and enforcing their due observance. Thus, the
Regional Director is primarily tasked with "implementing laws, policies, rules and regulations
within the responsibility of the agency," as well as the "agency program in the region." The
second is judicial in nature, involving as it does the determination of rights and obligations of the
parties. To aid the DARAB in the exercise of this function, the Rules grant the Board and
Adjudicators the powers to issue subpoenas and injunctions, to cite and punish for contempt, and
to order the execution of its orders and decision, among other powers. The Rules also contain
very specific provisions to ensure the orderly procedure before the DARAB, RARADs and
PARADs. We hold that the DAR Regional Office has no jurisdiction over the subject case.
 Isidro vs Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 105586 December 15, 1993

Facts:
Respondent, Natividad Gutierrez is the owner of a parcel of land with an area of 4.5 hectares
located in Barrio Sta. Cruz, Gapan, Nueva Ecija. In 1985, Aniceta Garcia, sister of private
respondent and also the overseer of the latter, allowed petitioner Remigio Isidro to occupy the
swampy portion of the abovementioned land, consisting of one (1) hectare, in order to augment
his (petitioner’s) income to meet his family’s needs. The occupancy of a portion of said land was
subject to the condition that petitioner would vacate the land upon demand. Petitioner occupied
the land without paying any rental and converted the same into a fishpond. In 1990, private
respondent through her overseer demanded from petitioner the return of the land, but the latter
refused. A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed by private respondent against petitioner
before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Gapan, Nueva Ecija. Petitioner set up the following
defenses: (a) that the complaint was triggered by his refusal to increase his lease rental; (b) the
subject land is a fishpond and therefore is agricultural land; and (c) that lack of formal demand to
vacate exposes the complaint to dismissal for insufficiency of cause of action. MTC on 30 May
1991, dismissed the complaint, ruling that the land is agricultural and therefore the dispute over
it is agrarian which is under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of agrarian
relations as provided in Sec. 12(a) of Republic Act No. 946. Private respondent filed an appeal
before the RTC of Gapan, Nueva Ecija, which affirmed MTC’s decision in toto. Private
respondent appealed to CA. On 27 February 1992, CA reversed and set aside the decision of the
RTC, ordering petitioner to vacate the parcel of land in question and surrender possession thereof
to private respondent, and to pay private respondent the sum of P5,000.00 as and for attorney’s
fees and expenses of litigation. Petitioner moved for reconsideration but was denied.
Issue:
Whether or not the Municipal Trial Court has the jurisdiction in this case.
Ruling:
Yes. An agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether
leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including
disputes concerning farm workers associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It
includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under Republic Act No.
6657 and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farm workers,
tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate
relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee. It is
irrefutable in the case at bar that the subject land which used to be an idle, swampy land was
converted by the petitioner into a fishpond. And it is settled that a fishpond is an agricultural
land. But a case involving an agricultural land does not automatically make such case an agrarian
dispute upon which the DARAB has jurisdiction. (Reiterates essential requisites of tenancy
relationship) The fact remains that the existence of all the requisites of a tenancy relationship
was not proven by the petitioner. In the absence of a tenancy relationship, the complaint for
unlawful detainer is properly within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court.
 Laguna Estates Development Corporation vs. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 119357 July 05, 2000

Facts:
On 12 December 1989, some 234.76 hectares of agricultural land situated in Barangay Casile,
Cabuyao, Laguna belonging to the Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation ("SRRDC",
hereafter) was placed by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), through its adjudicatory
arm, public respondent DARAB, under the compulsory acquisition scheme of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), and subsequently, Certificates of Land
Ownership Award (CLOA’s) numbered 00130422, 00130423 and 00130424 with TCT Nos. C-
168, C-167 and C-169 334 were issued and award to farmers-beneficiaries, private respondents
herein, namely: Rosa T. Amante, et al., Rogelio O. Ayende, et al. and Juan T. Amante, et al.,
respectively. The compulsory acquisition and distribution of the said 234.76 hectares of land in
favor of private respondents were effected by virtue of the Decision dated 19 December 1991
issued by public respondent DARAB in DARAB Case No. JC-R-IV-LAG-0001-00, entitled
"Juan T. Amante, et al. vs. Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corp." "It appears that the aforesaid
agricultural lands in Bgy. Casile, Cabuyao, Laguna are isolated and/or separated from the rest of
the municipality of Cabuyao, and the only passage way or access road leading to said private
respondents’ agricultural lands is the privately-owned road network situated within the premises
of petitioners CSE and LEDC. Subject to reasonable security regulations, the subject road
network is open to the public. But after private respondents were awarded the aforesaid
agricultural lands under the CARP Law, petitioners CSE and LEDC prohibited and denied
private respondents from utilizing the subject road network, thereby preventing the ingress of
support services under the CARP Law, provisions for daily subsistence to, and egress of farm
produce from, Brgy. Casile where the farmlands awarded to private respondent are located. On
motion by private respondents, DARAB issued an Order on 25 May 1993 directing the
unhampered entry and construction of support services coming from the national government,
and other provisions for the use and benefit of private respondents in Brgy. Casile, and giving
private respondents a right of way over the subject road network owned by petitioners.
Issue:
Whether or not the DARAB has jurisdiction to grant private respondents who are beneficiaries of
an agrarian reform program or tenants of adjoining landholdings a right of way over petitioners’
network of private roads intended for their exclusive use
Ruling:
No. The DARAB has no jurisdiction over such issue. For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a
case, there must exist a tenancy relationship between the parties. Obviously, the issue of a right
of way or easement over private property without tenancy relations is outside the jurisdiction of
the DARAB. This is not an agrarian issue. Jurisdiction is vested in a court of general jurisdiction.
CREBA vs Secretary of Agrarian Reform
G.R. No. 183409, Jun 18, 2010

Facts:
Petitioner, CREBA is the umbrella organization of some 3,500 private corporations,
partnerships, single proprietorship and individuals directly or indirectly involved in land and
housing development, building and infrastructure construction, materials production and supply,
and services in the various related fields of engineering, architecture, community planning and
development financing. On 28 February 2002, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued another
Administrative Order, i.e., DAR AO No. 01-02, entitled "2002 Comprehensive Rules on Land
Use Conversion," which further amended DAR AO No. 07-97 and DAR AO No. 01-99, and
repealed all issuances inconsistent therewith. The aforesaid DAR AO No. 01-02 covers all
applications for conversion from agricultural to non-agricultural uses or to another agricultural
use. Thereafter, on 2 August 2007, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform amended certain provisions
of DAR AO No. 01-02 by formulating DAR AO No. 05-07, particularly addressing land
conversion in time of exigencies and calamities. To address the unabated conversion of prime
agricultural lands for real estate development, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform further issued
Memorandum No. 88 on 15 April 2008, which temporarily suspended the processing and
approval of all land use conversion applications.
Issue:
Whether or not the DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended, was made in violation of Section 65 of
Republic Act No. 6657, as it covers even those non-awarded lands and reclassified lands by the
LGUs or by way of Presidential Proclamations on or after 15 June 1988.
Ruling:
No. Section 65 of RA 6657 provides that “After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when
the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality
has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential,
commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the
landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the
reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition: Provided, That the beneficiary shall
have fully paid his obligation.” Conversion and reclassification differ from each other.
Conversion is the act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other
use as approved by the DAR while reclassification is the act of specifying how agricultural lands
shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, and commercial, as
embodied in the land use plan, subject to the requirements and procedures for land use
conversion. In view thereof, a mere reclassification of an agricultural land does not automatically
allow a landowner to change its use. He has to undergo the process of conversion before he is
permitted to use the agricultural land for other purposes. Nevertheless, emphasis must be given
to the fact that DAR’s conversion authority can only be exercised after the effectivity of
Republic Act No. 6657 on 15 June 1988. The said date served as the cut-off period for automatic
reclassification or rezoning of agricultural lands that no longer require any DAR conversion
clearance or authority. Thereafter, reclassification of agricultural lands is already subject to
DAR’s conversion authority. Reclassification alone will not suffice to use the agricultural lands
for other purposes. Conversion is needed to change the current use of reclassified agricultural
lands.