AGRARIAN REFORM RA 3844 Abolished shared tenancy. Now leasehold tenancy. Why is it that leasehold relationship was preferred?

a. Tenurial Security under Agrarian Land Reform relationship can exist even if there is death of the lessee or lessor, sale , transfer or conveyance of agricultural land. The transferee of the agriland, the vendee is bound by the leasehold relationship Should it be annotated? No. Not necessary. The law provides for that. Leasehold relationship will remain. To protect the lessee from possible ejectment or disposition of property. Refers to 2 parties It is referred as agricultural lessor and agricultural lessee Lease somebody must pay rental Can the lessor eject the tenant? Yes, the lessor has the grounds provided by 3844 to eject the tenant. Unless the ground for ejectment is not enumerated in 3844, the lessee cannot be ejected.

Grounds to dispossess a lessee: TOP-FNS a. Failure to comply with terms and conditions of agreement b. Planting of crops or the use of land for other purpose than that agreed upon c. Failure to adopt proven farm practices to conserve land d. Fault or negligence resulting in substantial damage e. Non-payment of rental when due f. Employed a sublessee Normally the grounds are last two grounds, under 3844, there is an express provision that the lessee will allow a sublessee. If they are agricultural workers under RA 3844, they are under Bill Of Rights, they are entitled to minimum wage law, among others. Agricultural lessee vs Civil lessee To distinguish lessee under Civil Code and under Agrarian Law 1. Grounds to eject - AL 3844 while CL Civil Code 2. Where will you file the ejectment case agri lessee DAR while civil lessee in regular courts Lessee has substantial rights, you dont have to allege , you have to support. Allegation only is not sufficient Extinguishment of relation vs dispossession

a. Extinguishment no court approval, voluntary act (abandonment of land without knowedge of lessor or voluntary surrender by lessee) or an act of God b. Dispossession with court order, premise of lessee

Can relationship be terminated by death? No. continue bet. Lessor and members of lessees immediate farm household to be chosen by lessor within 1 month from death. 1. Surviving spouse; 2. Eldest, 1 month after death, the lessor will choose Lease rental Shall not be more than the equivalent of 25% of the average normal harvest during the 3 agricultural years immediately preceding the date of leasehold after deducting amount used for the seeds and costs of harvesting, threshing, loading, hauling and processing.

PD

27 & RA 6657

DIFFERENCE: PD 27 rice & corn land RA 6657 all other agricultural land (including lands of public domain). Sigre v. CA : PD 27 is suppletory and operates separately from RA 6657. Can lands acquired under PD 27 be transferred by DAR to another qualified beneficiary? Estolas v. Mabalot : Land may only be transferred either by succession or to government. Land Bank v. Heirs of Cruz: -The determination of just compensation should be based on RA 6657 for lands covered under PD 27. PD 27 applies only suppletorily. CHAPTER 1 Is industrialization a component of Agrarian Reform?Yes. Sec.2 (RA 6657) sound rural development and industrialization to promote industrialization Industrial inputs necessary to agriculture (fertilizers, irrigation systems, tractors)

insecticides, hybrid seeds,

Can private corporation acquire ownership of alienable lands of public domain? Chavez v. PEA: No, only through lease not exceeding 25 yrs. Renewable not more than 25yrs. And not to exceed 1,000 hectares (CONST., Art. XII, Sec.3) Sec. 3 (b) Agriculture or Agricultural Activity - Means the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish including the harvesting of such farm products, and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by person whether natural or juridical.

Luz Farms v. Sec. Sec.3 (b) unconstitutional (raising of livestock, poultry and swine per SC) use of land is incidental and not the principal factor RA 7881 (effective May 1995) - amended Sec.3(b) and removed the raising of livestock, poultry or fish raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. Industrial, not agricultural activity. Great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in the form of industrial fixed assets, such as: animal housing structures and facilities, drainage, waterers and blowers, feedmill with grinders, mixers, conveyors, exhausts and generators, extensive warehousing facilities for feeds and other supplies, anti-pollution equipment like bio-gas and digester plants augmented by lagoons and concrete ponds, deepwells, elevated water tanks, pumphouses, sprayers, and other technological appurtenances DAR Admin. Order No. 01, S. 2004 (RULES & REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE EXCLUSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS USED FOR CATTLE RAISING FROM THE COVERAGE OF CARP) Objective: To prevent circumvention of CARP and to protect the rights of ARBs due to unauthorized change/conversion or fraudulent declaration of areas used for cattle purposes. Coverage: All applications for exclusion from CARP of private agricultural lands actually, exclusively and directly used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988. Types of animal: cattle (of bovine family), bull, calf, cow. Policies: (1) Those ADE used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 shall be excluded (exclusion to be granted only upon proof and continuously utilized up to time of application); (2) Any change in use shall be subject to policies on land conversion (3) Only the grazing/pasture area and for infrastructure necessary for cattle raising shall be excluded; all other areas shall be covered. (4) Encourage growth of cattle industry (5) If filing of exclusion is in response to notice of CARP coverage, DAR shall deny due course if application is filed 60 days after date of receipt of notice. (6) Only exclusion applications fully supported by documents shall be accepted DAR v. Sutton: Masbate land -cattle-breeding capital of Phil (VOS - due to Luz Farms - withdraw VOS) - Constitutionality of AO No. 9, S. 1993 (prescribing a maximum retention limit for owners of lands devoted to livestock raising); - SC nullified AO; RA 7881 changed definition of agricultural activity by dropping from its coverage lands that are devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine-raising. Congress clearly sought to align the provisions of our agrarian laws with the intent of the 1987 Constitutional Commission to exclude livestock farms from the coverage of agrarian reform.

Admin. Order No. 07, S. 2008 Policy guidelines: Lands ADE used for livestock purposes as of 15 June 1988 and continuously used shall be excluded; conversely, those not ADE are subject to CARP if one or more of the following conditions apply: (1) there is agricultural activity in the area (i.e., cultivation of soil, planting of crops, growing of trees including harvesting); (2) land is suitable for agriculture and occupied and tilled by farmers. In line with principle of regularity in the performance of official functions, all processes by DAR per AO No. 9 are valid. Sec. 3 (c) Agricultural land land devoted to agricultural activity & not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.

Natalia Realty v. DAR 1979 Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land located in the Municipalities of Antipolo, San Mateo and Montalban as townsite areas to absorb the population overspill in the metropolis which were designated as the Lungsod Silangan Townsite. The NATALIA properties are situated within the areas proclaimed as townsite reservation. NATALIA properties later became the Antipolo Hills Subdivision. Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision which consisted of roughly 90.3307 hectares. NATALIA immediately registered its objection to the Notice of Coverage SC: They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of the reservation. Lands previously converted by government agencies, other than DAR, to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL were outside the coverage of that law. Ruling not confined solely to agricultural lands located within townsite reservations, but applied also to real estate converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL. DAR AO No. 4 (Rules on exemption) - all lands already classified as commercial, industrial or residential before June 15,1988 no longer need conversion clearance Requirements: Sworn application, copy of title, certification from HLURB (zoning or classification, citing zoning ordinance), among others. Public notice. Disturbance compensation. Roxas & Co. Notice of coverage was wrongfully sent SC: . DAR's failure to observe due process in the acquisition of petitioners' landholdings does not ipso facto give the Supreme Court the power to adjudicate over petitioner's application for conversion of its haciendas from agricultural to non-agricultural. The power to determine whether Hacienda Palico, Banilad and Caylaway are non-agricultural which exempts from the coverage of the CARL lies with the DAR, not with the Supreme Court. Case was remanded to DAR for proper acquisition proceedings and determination of petitioner's application for conversion

NHA v. Allarde SC: As early as April 26, 1971, the Tala Estate (including the disputed lots) was reserved under Presidential Proclamation No. 843, for the housing program of the National Housing Authority, the same has been categorized as not being devoted to the agricultural activity contemplated by Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657, and is, therefore, outside the coverage of the CARL. Verily, the assailed Orders of the respondent Court declaring the lots under controversy as "agricultural land" and restraining the petitioner from involving the same in its housing project thereon, are evidently bereft of any sustainable basis

Advincula-Velasquez v. CA SC: Since the property was already reclassified as residential by the Metro Manila Commission and the HSRC before the effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6657, there was no need for the private respondent to secure any post facto approval thereof from the DAR Alangilan v. Office of President SC: It is beyond cavil that the Alangilan landholding was classified as agricultural, reserved for residential in 1982, and was reclassified as residential-1 in 1994. However, contrary to petitioner's assertion, the term reserved for residential does not change the nature of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural. As aptly explained by the DAR Secretary, the term reserved for residential simply reflects the intended land use. It does not denote that the property has already been reclassified as residential, because the phrase reserved for residential is not a land classification category. Indubitably, at the time of the effectivity of the CARL in 1988, the subject landholding was still agricultural. This was bolstered by the fact that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had to pass an Ordinance in 1994, reclassifying the

landholding as residential-1. If, indeed, the landholding had already been earmarked for residential use in 1982, as petitioner claims, then there would have been no necessity for the passage of the 1994 Ordinance.

AGRARIAN DISPUTE any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements (leasehold, tenancy, stewardship) over lands devoted to agriculture any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under CARL and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership. tenancy relationship

ESSENTIAL REQUISITIES: PSC-PPS 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) Parties (landowner & tenants) Subject matter is agricultural land Consent of parties Purpose is agricultural production Personal cultivation by tenant Sharing of harvest between parties

All requisites must concur, absence of one does not make one a tenant. Isidro v. CA - Private resp is owner of land. Sister of priv resp allowed Isidro to occupy swampy portion subject to condition to vacate upon demand. Failure to vacate, unlawful detainer was filed against Isidro. RTC dismissed bec land is agricultural and so agrarian. SC: Jurisdiction over subject matter determined from allegations of complaint. Court does not lose jurisdiction by defense of tenancy relationship and only after hearing that, if tenancy is shown, the court should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Case involving agri land does not automatically make such case agrarian. Six requisites were not present. There was no contract to cultivate & petitioner failed to substantiate claim that he was paying rent for use of land. SUPLICO v. CA Suplico is a lessee of rice land. Private respondent was allowed by Suplico to till the land while Suplico will provide the farm implements and thereafter Suplico was to receive cavans from the palay by way of rental. Years later, Suplico threatened to eject priv. resp. from the property, so private respondent filed an action for damages against Suplico in CAR. Resp. Owner intervened in case and alleged the absence of contractual relationship. Trial court declared private respondent as agricultural lessee and confirmed by CA. SC: - SC found no reasons to disturb findings 1. Private respondent was in actual possession of land with family in a farmhouse just like what a farm tenant normally would. 2. Private resp. and wife were personally plowing, planting, weeding and harvesting. 3. Management was left entirely to private respondent 4. Private respondent shared the harvest with Suplico.

MONSANTO v. ZERNA: tenancy relationship may be established verbally or writing Sps. Zerna were charged with qualified theft for the taking of coconuts owned by petitioner. They were acquitted but required Zerna to return P1,100 to Monsanto on the ground that Monsanto did not consent to harvest of coconut. Who is entitled to P1,100 proceeds of copra sale. This falls under DARAB There is Agrarian dispute: 1. Subject of dispute was taking of coconuts

2. Private respondents were overseers at the time of taking by virtue of Agreement . tenancy relationship may be established verbally or writing, expressly or impliedly - here there was agreement which contradicts petitioners contention that private respondents are mere overseers. Being overseers does not foreclose their being tenants. Petitioner allowed respondent to plant coconut, etc. Harvests: receipts of remittance by respondent. Petitioner is claiming the amount of P1,100 as balance from proceeds of copra sale. Private respondents contend that this P1,100 is their compensation pursuant to tenurial arrangements. Since this amount is intertwined with the resolution of agra dispute, CA correctly ruled that DARAB has jurisdiction. RTC has only jurisdiction over criminal and it acted beyond when it ruled that agri tenancy between parties. This belongs to DARAB.

BEJASA v. CA FACTS: Candelaria owned two parcels of land, which she leased to Malabanan. Malabanan hired the Bejasas to plant on the land and clear it, with all the expenses shouldered by Malabanan. Bejasas continued to stay on the land and did not give any consideration for its use, be it in the form of rent or a shared harvest ISSUE: Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship in favor of the Bejasas SC: Court found that there was no tenancy relationship between the parties. There was no proof that Malabanan and the Bejasas shared the harvests. Candelaria never gave her consent to the Bejasas stay on the land . There was no proof that the Dinglasans gave authority to the Bejasas to be the tenant of the land in question. Not all the elements of tenancy were met in this case. There was no proof of sharing in harvest. While Bejasa testified, SC said only Bejasas word was presented to prove this. Besides testimony was suspicious because of inconsistency Bejasa testified that he agreed to deliver 1/5 of harvest as owners share, yet at one time, he also mentioned that 25% was for Malabanan and 50% for owner. Moreover, landowners never gave consent, citing Chico vs. CA , 284 534 self serving statement are inadequate, proof must be adhered. Even assuming that landowner agreed to lease it for P20,000per year, such agreement did not prove tenancy . Consideration should be harvest sharing. VALENCIA v. CA FACTS: - Valencia is the owner of land, she leased the property for five (5)years to Fr. Andres Flores under a civil law lease concept; lease with prohibition against subleasing or encumbering the land without Valencias written consent. During the period of his lease, private respondents were instituted to cultivate without consent of Valencia. After lease, Valencia demanded vacate but refused; Private respondents were later awarded with CLTs after they filed application with DAR; CLTs were upheld by Exec Sec and CA. ALMUETE v. ANDRES (Issue on Ownership) Facts: Almuete was in exclusive possession of subject land. Unknown to Almuete, Andres was awarded homestead patent due to investigation report that Almuete was unknown and waived his rights; Andres also represented that Almuete sold the property to Masiglat for radiophone set and that Masiglat sold to him for a carabao and P600. Almuete filed an action for recovery of possession and reconveyance before trial court. Issue is who between 2 awardees of lot has better right to property. SC: This is controversy relating to ownership of farmland so, beyond the ambit of agrarian dispute. No juridical tie of landowner and tenant was alleged between petitioners and respondent. RTC was competent to try the case.

PASONG BAYABAS v. CA : no evidence Development of land: converted from agricultural to residential as approved by DAR. Petitioners, claimed they are actual tillers of land, they filed a complaint for damages alleging surreptitious conversion; priv resp denied cultivation & waiver of rights was executed by some. SC : no tenancy no allegation in complaint that petitioners members are tenants; waiver of rights constitutes abandonment. No substantial evidence that private respondent is landlord. Possession/entry is w/o knowledge of owner. Cultivation / possession not proven. As to the remaining twenty and more other complainants, it is unfortunate that they have not shown that their cultivation, possession and enjoyment of the lands they claim to till have been by authority of a valid contract of agricultural tenancy. On the contrary, as admitted in their complaint a number of them have simply occupied the premises in suit without any specific area of tillage being primarily mere farm helpers of their relatives ESCARIZ v. REVILLEZA : tenancy is not presumed Involving fruit on land owned by private respondent. Petitioner is claiming tenancy. DARAB considered petitioner a tenant; CA reversed SC: Tenancy is not presumed. There was no evidence to prove consent of parties and sharing of harvest. SC agreed with CA that there is no evidence on record to prove the existence of the following elements: (a) the consent of the parties and (b) the sharing of harvests.

HEIRS OF JUGALBOT V. CA FACTS: Jugalbot was issued EP; EP was challenged by Heirs of priv resp before DARAB and seek cancellation of title and recovery possession; on appeal, DARAB upheld but CA reversed. SC: Absence of tenancy relationship. The taking of property violated due process (CA was correct in pointing out that Virginia A. Roa was denied due process because the DAR failed to send notice of the impending land reform coverage to the proper party); no ocular inspection or any on-site fact-finding investigation and report to verify the truth of the allegations of Nicolas Jugalbot that he was a tenant of the property. By analogy, Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals applies to the case at bar since there was likewise a violation of due process. No concrete evidence of cultivation; No proof was presented except for their self-serving statements. Independent evidence, aside from self-serving statements, is needed. Plus CA findings- Jugalbot was soldier of US Army and migrated to US and returned only in 1998, wife and daughter were residents of California. Land involved is residential and not agricultural because of zoning ordinance. Coverage Section 4: All alienable and disposable public lands. All private lands devoted to or suitable to agriculture Schedule of implementation Sec. 5 The distribution xxx shall be implemented immediately and completed within ten years from effectivity hereof. Sec. 63: The initial amount needed to implement this Act for the period of ten years upon approval hereof shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund created under Sections 20 and 21 of Executive Order No. 299. xxx.. RA 8542: amended Sec. 63 as follows: The amount needed to implement this Act until 2008 shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund. RA 9700, Sec. 21: The amount needed to further implement the CARP as provided in this Act, until June 30, 2014, upon expiration of funding under Republic Act No. 8532 and other pertinent laws, shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund and other funding sources in the amount of at least One hundred fifty billion pesos (P150,000,000,000.00)

HOMESTEAD GRANTEES (Sec.6) HOMESTEAD PATENT A mode of acquiring alienable and disposable lands of public domain for agricultural purposes conditioned upon actual cultivation and residence. filed at CENRO where land being applied is located.

who are qualified - citizens of Philippines over 18 years old & not an owner of more than 12 hectares of land (Art XII, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution) designed to distribute disposable agricultural lots of the State to land-destitute citizens for their home and cultivation. Pursuant to such benevolent intention the State prohibits the sale or encumbrance of the homestead (CA 141, Section 116) within five years after the grant of the patent. After that five-year period the law impliedly permits alienation of the homestead, but in line with the primordial purpose to favor with the homesteader and his family the statute provides that such alienation or conveyance (Section 117) shall be subject to the right of repurchase by the homesteader, his widow or heirs. CARL recognizes rights of homesteaders(Sec.6,) expressly recognized in Sec. 6, Art XIII, Constitution ALITA v. CA: (1989) private respondents predecessors-in-interest have acquired 2 parcels of land in Zamboanga del Sur thru homestead patent petitioners/ tenants refuse to vacate relying on PD27 SC: PD decreed the emancipation of tenants from bondage of soil and transferring to them ownership of land they till. However, PD27 cannot be involved to defeat the very purpose of CA 141 (Public Land Act) Phil. Constitution respects the superiority of homesteaders rights and CARL also. Sec. 6: Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead. PARIS v. ALFECHE (2001) Paris is owner of 10 hectares in Bukidnon and another property of 13 hectares. She admitted that land is fully tenanted by private respondents Alfeche,et al. Paris claimed that she is entitled to retention and that as original homestead grantee, she is entitled to retain the lands to the exclusion of tenants. SC : Petitioners contention is w/o legal basis. PD applies to all tenanted private agriculture lands primarily devoted to rice and corn. Nowhere does it appear that lots obtained by homestead patents are exempted from its operation. Under RA 6657, rights of homestead grantee are provided but with condition: only for as long as they continue to cultivate them. That parcels of land are covered by homestead will not automatically exempt them from operation of land reform. It is the fact of continued cultivation by original grantees or direct compulsory heirs that shall exempt their lands. Petitioner can retain however 5 hectares which require no qualifying condition (Sec.6)

RETENTION RIGHTS NCC: conjugal total is 5; capital/paraphernal not more than 5 each but not exceed 10 FC (Aug.3,1988) per DAR Adm. Order No. 2, s. 2003: capital/paraphernal - not to exceed 5 provided with judicial separation absolute (presumed) not to exceed 5 LANDOWNERs RETENTION RIGHTS Is this right defeated by the issuance of CLTs/EPs or CLOAs? DAEZ v. CA Issuance of EPs/CLOAs to beneficiaries does not absolutely bar landowner from retaining the area. In fact, EP or CLOA may be cancelled if land covered in later found to be part of landowners retained area. In this case, CLTs of private respondent were leased w/o according Daez her right of choice. So DAR was ordered to fully accord Daez her rights under Sec.6 of RA 6657. Retention by landowner: 5 hectares

 Retention by each child of landowner: 3 hectares provided: 1. at least 15 years of age; and 2. actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm DAR Adm. Order # 2, S.2003 Who may apply for retention Period to exercise right of retention Where to file Instance where owner is considered to have waived his right of retention Operating produces : MARO PARO REG. DIRECTOR- Sec. (Appeal) That landholdings of landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and below shall not be covered for acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries. (RA 9700, Sec. 3) SEC. 6-A. Exception to Retention Limits. - Provincial, city and municipal government ,units acquiring private agricultural lands by expropriation or other modes of acquisition to be used for actual, direct and exclusive public purposes, such as roads and bridges, public markets, school sites, resettlement sites, local government facilities, public parks and barangay plazas or squares, consistent with the approved local comprehensive land use plan, shall not be subject to the five (5)hectare retention limit under this Section xxx. (RA 9700, Sec. 4) Sec. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions from coverage of CARL (a) Lands ADE used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves (exempt); (b) private lands ADE used for prawn farms and fishponds (exempt) (c) lands ADE used and found to be necessary for national defense, school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations, seeds and seedlings research, church sites and convents, mosque sites, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and farms and all lands with 18% slope and over (exempt)

CENTRAL MINDANAO v. DARAB The subject lands are exempted because they are actually, directly & exclusively used and found necessary for school site and campus, including experimental farm stations for educational purposes and for establishing seed and seeding research The construction of DARAB in Section 10 restricting the land area of CMU to its present needs overlooked the significant factor it growth of a university in years to come. By the nature of CMU, which is a school established to promote agriculture & industry, the need for vast tract of agriculture land for future programs of expansion is obvious. While portion of CMU land was leased by Phil. Packing Corp.(now Del Monte), the agreement was prior to CARL & was directly connected to the purpose & objectives of CMU as educational institution As to determination of when and what lands are found to be necessary for use of CMU, school is in best position to resolve & answer the question. DARAB & CA have no right to substitute unless it is manifest that CMU has no real need for land. Atlas Fertilizer v. Sec. Atlas engaged in the aquaculture industry utilizing fishponds and prawn farms; challenged RA 6657 which coverage lands devoted to the aquaculture industry, particularly fishponds and prawn farms. SC: R.A. No. 7881 expressly state that fishponds and prawn farms are excluded from the coverage of CARL. In view of the foregoing, the question concerning the constitutionality of the assailed provisions has become moot and academic with the passage of R.A. No. 7881 Sanchez v. Marin Issue:

Whether the subject fishpond is exempted/excluded from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the government by virtue of the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 7881 to R.A. No. 6657 SC: Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7881 amended Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657 by expressly exempting/excluding private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds from the coverage of the CARL.

REPUBLIC v. CA Tax declaration classified subject land as agricultural. DAR issued notice of coverage & owner applied for exemption. Application was denied and on appeal the Court of Appeals created a commission to conduct ocular inspection and survey the land. Later, based on the report submitted by the commission, the Court of Appeals reversed the Order of the DAR and exempted the lands from CARL. Republic contends that tax declaration classified it as agriculture & which cannot be altered by mere ocular inspection. SC: There is no law/jurisprudence that land classification in tax declaration is conclusive; tax declaration is clearly not sole basis of classification of land. SC gave credence to commissions report. Based on their report, it was found that the land use map submitted by private respondent was an appropriate document consistent with the existing land use. It was confirmed that the lands are not wholly agricultural as they consist of mountainous area with an average of 28% slope. The CARL has further provided that all lands with 18% slope and over except those already developed shall be exempt from the coverage of CARL. . (Sec. 11) : COMMERCIAL FARMS Commercial farms private agricultural lands devoted to saltbeds, fruit farms, orchards, vegetable and cut-flower farms and cacao, coffee and rubber plantations. They are subject to compulsory acquisition and distribution after 10 years from effectivity. LUZ FARMS Sec. II which includes private agricultural land devoted to commercial livestock, poultry & swine raising in definition of commercial farms is invalid. Adm. Order #01 (2004): rules & regulations governing exclusion of agricultural land used for cattle raising from CARP. Citing Luz Farms case private agricultural land or portions thereof actually, exclusively &directly used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 shall be excluded. Exclusion shall be granted only upon proof of AED prior to 15 June 1988 & continuously utilized for such purpose up to application. Any act to change or convert ; w/ intent to avoid CARP,shall be invalid. Only the grazing area & portions of property required for infrastructure necessary for cattle raising shall be considered for exclusion DAR A.O #9, S of 1998 allows commercial farms certain options, subject to approval of DAR & workers: (aside from voluntary & compulsory coverage) CLOAs are issued in name of cooperative of workers - joint venture - grower ship agreement - lease back - direct payment

DAR v. SUTTON : Land devoted to cow & calf breeding. Lands under VOS before CARP. After CARP & Luz Farms case, Sutton filed withdrawal of VOS. DAR issued A.O #9 (1993) which provide that only portions of land used for raising of livestock, poultry & swine shall be excluded. DAR partially exempted portion but ordered acquisition the rest. SC: AO is invalid as it contravene Constitution since livestock , swine/poultry raising do not fall under agriculture & agricultural activity

Adm. Order #7 (2008) (Guidelines per Sutton Case (livestock raising) Lands ADE used for livestock like cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 & continuously devoted shall be excluded. Those not ADE are subject to CARP provided that the agricultural activity in land is suitable for agriculture presently tilled by farmers

IMPROVEMENT OF TENURIAL & LABOR RELATION WHAT ARE THE WAYS IN DISTRIBUTING LANDS TO QUALIFIED FARMERS? 1. Compulsory acquisition (Sec.16) 2. Voluntary offer to sell/voluntary land transfer (Sec.20) 3. Non-land transfer schemer stock distribution option(SDO); production & profit sharing (PPS)- Sec. 13/32; leasehold operation(Sec.12) Sec.12 of 6657 mandates DAR to determine & fix the lease rentals within the retained areas and areas not yet acquired. Sec. 6 of 6657 recognizes the right of farmer to elect whether farmer-beneficiary OR leaseholds in retained area. Sec.67 of 6657 directs RD to register patents, title & documents required for implementation of CARP Pursuant to DARs mandate to protect the rights & improve tenurial & economic status of farmers in tenanted lands, DAR issued AO 02-06(REVISED RULES & PROCEDURES GOVERNING LEASEHOLD IMPLEMENTATION IN TENANTED AGRICULTURAL LANDS): -Leasehold is based on tenancy relationship (repeat 6 requisites) -Leasehold relation shall not be extinguished by expiration at term nor by sale. In case of alienation, purchaser/transferee shall be subjugated to rights/obligation of lessor. -DARAB has jurisdiction to cancel leasehold contract . -The consideration of lease shall not be more than 25% of average normal harvest during 3 agri years -AO 02-06 states, among others, the rights & obligations of lessor/lessee. CHAPTER IV REGISTRATION Sec. 14 & 15 require the registration of landowners & beneficiaries w/ DAR. Purpose is to establish databank & identify actual famer-beneficiaries. Fortich vs. Corona : intervenors claimed that they are farmworkers & so intervened in case. SC: There is no ruling yet from DAR whether intervenors are beneficiaries, so they have no standing yet to intervene in the case. DAR safeguards the list of ARB & provide IDs as proof of being bonafide beneficiaries DARAB has jurisdiction to disqualify an ARB.

LAND ACQUISITION

Landlessness is acknowledged as the core problem in the rural areas and the root cause of peasant unrest. In order to hasten the implementation of the program, the Department of Agrarian Reform has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land acquisition. To the same end, the law provides for the steps in acquiring private lands through administrative instead of judicial proceedings. This procedure is allowed provided the requirements of due process as to notice and hearing are complied with. Compulsory acquisition may be defined as the mandatory acquisition of agricultural lands including facilities and improvements necessary for agricultural production, as may be appropriate, for distribution to qualified beneficiaries upon payment of just compensation.

The Notice of Coverage (NOC) commences the compulsory acquisition of private agricultural lands coverable under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Along the various phases of the CARP proceedings, the process stalls because of Land Owner (LO) resistance, most of whom invoke the ground of lack of notice or non-observance of due process in attacking the proceedings.

CHAPTER V LAND ACQUISITION Sec. 16 outlines the procedure for acquisition of private land Take note of Sec.16(d) & (e): (1) practice of having no deed of transfer or conveyance (2) titles are cancelled w/o owners copy surrendered (in Torren's System, if there is refusal in involuntary dealings remedy is file petition in court (3) RD titles are cancelled while owners copy is subsisting Sec. 66 (Exemptions from taxes &fees of land transfer) Sec. 67 (Free Registration of patents, titles & documents required for implementation of CARP) Sec. (e) : Once DAR request and LBP makes deposit of initial valuation, DAR can request RD to cancel title & transfer it to Republic of Phil. So even if landowners protests valuation, distribution of land will proceed. CLOAs are issued upon land acquisition: so cancellation of title of landowner can simultaneously go w/ issuance of CLOA. In Association of small land owners, SC did not say automatically. SC said that title and ownership remain w/ LO until full payment of past conversation. CONFED vs. DAR Compulsory Acquisition Notice of Acquisition First step: identification of the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries. Law is silent Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989 Valid implementation , two notices DAR A.O. No.12, Series of 1989, amended in 1990 by DAR A.O. No.9, Series of 1990 and in 1993 by DAR A.O No.1, Series of 1993 Roxas case : CLOA was not properly issued, DAR should be given chance to validate proceedings. Fortich case: CLOA was illegal & should be cancelled for being in violation of law. Assoc. of Small Landowners: Upheld validity of Sec. 16 RA 6657 (manner of acquisition of private agricultural lands and ascertainment of just compensation). Section 16(e) of the CARP Law provides that: Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment, or in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries Sec. 16, RA 6657 The title of the section states: Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. Section 6, RA 9700 The title was amended: "SEC. 16. Procedure for Acquisition and Distribution of Private Lands." Confed v. DAR 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. Identification process in Sec. 16 is silent so DAR filled gap (AO #12, s. 989)

Notice of Coverage: Notifies landowner that his property shall be placed under CARP and that he is entitled to exercise his retention right; Notifies him that a public hearing shall be conducted where he and representatives of the concerned sectors of society may attend to discuss the results of the field investigation, the land valuation and other pertinent matters. Also informs the landowner that a field investigation of his landholding shall be conducted where he and the other representatives may be present. Notice of Acquisition: The Notice shall include, among others, the area subject of compulsory acquisition, and the amount of just compensation offered by DAR. Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value, the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD) shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the Order of Acquisition. However, in case of rejection or non-reply, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall conduct a summary administrative hearing to determine just compensation. Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just compensation, the BLAD shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the required Order of Acquisition. Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in case of acceptance, or upon deposit of payment in the designated bank, in case of rejection or non-response, the Secretary shall immediately direct the pertinent Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Once the property is transferred, the DAR, through the PARO, shall take possession of the land for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries. RA 6657: Revolutionary kind of expropriation affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long in excess of max retention limits; intended for the benefit not only of a particular community or of a small segment of the population but of the entire Filipino nation, from all levels of our society, from the impoverished farmer to the land-glutted owner; does not cover only the whole territory of this country but goes beyond in time to the foreseeable future; Constitution has ordained this revolution in the farms, calling for "a just distribution" among the farmers of lands that have heretofore been the prison of their dreams and deliverance Despite the revolutionary or non-traditional character of RA 6657, however, the chief limitations on the exercise of the power of eminent domain, namely: (1) public use; and (2) payment of just compensation, are embodied therein as well as in the Constitution. With respect to "public use, in Association of Small Landowners declared that the requirement of public use had already been settled by the Constitution itself as it "calls for agrarian reform, which is the reason why private agricultural lands are to be taken from their owners, subject to the prescribed maximum retention limits. On just compensation, judicial determination is expressly prescribed in Section 57 of RA 6657 as it vests on the Special Agrarian Courts original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners. It bears stressing that the determination of just compensation during the compulsory acquisition proceedings of Section 16 of RA 6657 is preliminary only, court can review.

Section 16 (f) clearly provides: (f)Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation Application of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court? Rules of Court, including Rule 67 thereof, is not completely disregarded in the implementation of RA 6657 since the Special Agrarian Courts, in resolving petitions for the determination of just compensation, are enjoined to apply the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court.

Section 58 of RA 6657, like Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, provides for the appointment of commissioners by the Special Agrarian Courts. Sec. 58: may; motu proprio or instance of party Rule 67: shall

Land Bank v. CA Private respondent challenged the admin order issued by DAR permitting the opening of trust account by LBP, in lieu of depositing in cash or in LBP bonds. SC: Sec. 16 (e) is explicit that deposit be in cash or in LBP bonds; Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made in any other form like a trust account; There was no basis for issuance of order. Santos v. LBP : Facts: RTC required payment of compensation for petitioner's land taken under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, to be made in cash and bonds. According to petitioner, said order illegally amended the judgment rendered which directs payment of compensation to be made "in the manner provided in RA 6657. SC: Trial court decision directing payment of just compensation in the manner provided by RA 6657 is not illegally amended but is merely clarified by an order issued during execution proc that such amount shall be paid in cash and bonds. CHAPTER VI COMPENSATION Just Compensation: full & fair equivalent of property taken from owner by expropriation (Assoc. of Small Landowners). The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real, substantial, full, ample. FACTORS (Section 17): 1. cost of acquisition ; 2. current value of like properties;3. actual use & income & nature; 4. sworn valuation by owner; 5. tax declaration; 6. assessment made by Government assessors. Sec. 7, RA 9700: "SEC. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. In determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the value of the standing crop, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, the assessment made by government assessors, and seventy percent (70%) of the zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), translated into a basic formula by the DAR shall be considered, subject to the final decision of the proper court. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the Government to the property as well as the nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation." LBP v. Dumlao Facts: Respondents are owners of agri lands covered under PD 27; Determination of just compensation remained pending with DAR, so they filed complaint with RTC for determination. SC: if just compensation was not settled prior to the passage of RA No. 6657, it should be computed in accordance with said law, although property was acquired under PD No. 27; the determination made by the trial court, which relied solely on the formula prescribed by PD No. 27 and EO No. 228, is grossly erroneous. The amount of P6,912.50 per hectare, which is

based on the DAR valuation of the properties "at the time of their taking in the 1970s", does not come close to a full and fair equivalent of the property taken from respondents; CA's act of setting just compensation in the amount of P109,000.00 would have been a valid exercise of this judicial function, had it followed the mandatory formula prescribed by RA No. 6657. However, the appellate court merely chose the lower of two (2) values specified by the commissioner as basis for determining just compensation, namely: (a) P109,000.00 per hectare as the market value of first class unirrigated rice land in the Municipality of Villaverde; and (b) P60.00 per square meter as the zonal value of the land in other barangays in Villaverde. This is likewise erroneous because it does not adhere to the formula provided by RA No. 6657. It cannot be overemphasized that the just compensation to be given to the owner cannot be assumed and must be determined with certainty. Section 17 was converted into a formula by the DAR through AO No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended by AO No. 11, Series of 1994: Basic formula (Voluntary Offer to Sell) or [Compulsory Acquisition] regardless of the date of offer or coverage of the claim: LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1) Where: LV = Land Value CNI = Capitalized Net Income CS = Comparable Sales MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration The above formula shall be used if all the three factors are present, relevant and applicable. Note: 1. PD 27: uses average crop harvest as a consideration; RA 6657: factors for consideration in determining just compensation. 2. RA 6657 for lands covered by PD 27 and just compensation has not been determined at the time of passage of RA 6657 applies because PD 27 and EO 228 have only suppletory effect. Take into account the nature of land (i.e., irrigated), market value, assessed value at the time of the taking, location (i.e., along highway) and the volume and value of its produce, like: (a) prevailing market value of in the area and adjacent areas; (b) presence and availability of an irrigation system to augment and increase agricultural production; (c) available comparable sales in the area; (d) average harvests per hectare. The date of taking of the subject land for purposes of computing just compensation should be reckoned from the issuance dates of the emancipation patents. Why? EP constitutes the conclusive authority for the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of the grantee. It is from the issuance of an emancipation patent that the grantee can acquire the vested right of ownership in the landholding, subject to the payment of just compensation to the landowner. However, their issuance dates are not shown. As such, the trial court should determine the date of issuance of these emancipation patents in order to ascertain the date of taking and proceed to compute the just compensation due to respondents. Petitioners argument that respondents should not be paid yet pending determination by DAR is specious. To wait for the DAR valuation despite its unreasonable neglect and delay in processing is to violate the elementary rule that payment of just compensation must be within a reasonable period from the taking of property; Citing Cosculluela v. CA, just compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" for the property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss

Sps. Lee v. LBP

If valuation is based not on the factors, it is not valid . (Note that in this case, there was admission that valuation was not based on factors under CARL: a representative of the company admitted that it did not consider the CARP valuation to be applicable). Case remanded. LBP v. Heirs of Cruz If valuation is not based on any evidence, it is w/o basis, so determination be remanded. In this case, decision of PARAD and SAC points to no evidence, so case was remanded. Is prior recourse to DARAB necessary before case for determination of JC may be filed? No: (a) because DAR may continue to alienate the lots during the pendency of protest; (b) Sec. 57 of RA 6657 states that SAC has orig and exclusive jurisdiction. Content and Manner (Section 18) Sec. 18 speaks of cash or shares of stock, tax credits or LBP bonds. Is this not violation of usual way of payment in cash? No, because revolutionary kind. Parties involved (Section 18) Land Bank v. CA: The parties are DAR, landowner and LBP. The law does not mention the participation of farmer-beneficiary. So consent of farmer-beneficiary is not required in establishing proper compensation. Voluntary offer (Section 19) Section 19 provides for additional 5% cash payment if LO voluntarily offers land for sale. Voluntary land transfer (Secs. 20 and 21) How is VLT made? Sec. 20 LO may enter into voluntary arrangement for direct transfer to qualified beneficiaries but st subject to guidelines (i.e., all notices for VLT be submitted to DAR within 1 year of implementation of CARP, terms and conditions shall not be less favorable to transferee). Sec. 21 direct payment may be made in cash or kind by ARB under terms mutually agreed and which shall be binding upon registration and approval by DAR. Sec. 44 (2) provides that PARCOM shall recommend to PARC the adoption of direct payment scheme. So, AO #2, s. 1995 was issued: Beneficiaries are determined by DAR; Area to be transferred to ARB should not be less than the area which the govt would otherwise acquire; CLOAs should bear proper annotations. QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES (1) The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority: (a) agricultural lessees and share tenants; (b) regular farmworkers; (c) seasonal farmworkers; (d) other farmworkers; (e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands; (f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and (g) others directly working on the land; (2) The children of landowners who are qualified shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents. (3) Actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or removed therefrom.

(4) Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No.27 who have culpably sold, disposed of, or abandoned their lands are disqualified to become beneficiaries under the Program. (5) A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude, and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. (6) If, due to the landowners retention rights or to the number of tenants, lessees, or workers on the land, there is not enough land to accommodate any or some of them, they may be granted ownership of other lands available for distribution under the Act, at the option of the beneficiaries. (8) No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land. (Sec. 23) AWARD TO BENEFICIARIES Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award, which shall contain the restrictions and conditions provided for in the Act, and shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title. (Sec. 24) Issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificate When certificate issued. Section 24 of R.A. No. 6657 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 180 days from the time the DAR takes actual possession of the land. Ownership of the lands by the beneficiary shall be evidenced by an Emancipation Patent (EP) or a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA), which shall contain the restrictions, and conditions provided by law and which shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title. In several instances, however, the EP or CLOA cannot be immediately issued pending the fulfillment of certain legal and administrative requirements. Examples of these are: (a) The Supreme Court ruling in the case of Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (G.R. No. 76742, 14,July 1989.) that title to all expropriated properties shall be transferred to the State only upon full payment of compensation to their respective landowners; (b) The conduct of subdivision surveys to define the specific parcel of land being awarded through the EP or CLOA. Cont. of Issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificate (1) Thus, pending the fulfillment of the said requirements, the identified beneficiaries may already be in possession of the land but still have no EP or CLOA therefor. For this reason, the DAR shall first issue a CARP Beneficiary Certificate (CBC) to provide the would-be beneficiaries, an intermediate document to evidence that they have been identified and have qualified as agrarian reform beneficiaries under the CARP. Moreover, aside from attesting to the inchoate right of the identified beneficiary to be awarded the land or portion thereof, the CBC issued shall entitle the recipient to receive support services under the CARP. PAYMENT BY BENEFICIARIES (1)Lands awarded pursuant to the Act shall be paid for by the beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual amortization at 6% interest per annum subject to the following rules: (a) The payments for the first three (3) years after the award may be at reduced amounts as established by the PARC. (b) The first five (5) annual payments may not be more than 5% of the value of the annual gross production as established by the DAR. (c) Should the scheduled annual payments after the fifth year exceed 10% of the annual gross production and the failure to produce accordingly is not due to the beneficiarys fault, the LBP may reduce the interest rate or reduce the principal obligation to make the repayment affordable. (2) The LBP shall have a lien (i.e., prior right) by way of mortgage on the land awarded to the beneficiary; and this mortgage may be foreclosed by the LBP for non-payment of an aggregate of three(3) annual amortization. The LBP shall advice the DAR of such proceedings and the latter shall subsequently award the forfeited landholding to other qualified beneficiaries. A beneficiary whose land

has been foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently disqualified from becoming a beneficiary under the Act. (Sec. 26.) TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LANDS (1) Lands acquired by beneficiaries under the Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years. However, the children of the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of the availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the land is situated. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) shall, in turn, be given the due notice thereof by the BARC.

(2) If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights to the land may be transferred or conveyed, with prior approval of the DAR, to any heir of the beneficiary or to any other beneficiary who, as a condition for such transfer or conveyance, shall cultivate the land himself. NON-LAND TRANSFER SCHEMES (1) Leasehold Operations (LO)- lands within the land owners retained areas or lands not yet due for distribution are placed under leasehold to ensure farmers security over the land they till and pre-empt their displacement while waiting for the eventual distribution of the land; (2) Production Profit Sharing (PPS)- This scheme is an interim measure while the lands owned or operated by agricultural entities await coverage under the CARP. There entities are companies mostly involved in the commercial production of rubber, banana, and pineapple; (3) Stock Distribution Option (SDO). - Under this arrangement, the farmers are entitled to dividends and other financial benefits and are also assured of at least a representatives at the Board of Directors, management or executive committee to protect the rights and interest of shareholders; and (4) Commercial Farm Deferment (SFD). This scheme provides corporate landowners of newlyestablished commercial plantations enough time to recover their investment before such agricultural lands are covered by CARP. The deferment period was up to 1998. Pending final land transfer, however, these corporations shall implement a production and profit-sharing scheme in their farms. The monitoring of non-land transfer activities by the field offices of the DAR has not been given much priority, as there has been greater pressure for them to deliver their land acquisition and distribution (LAD) targets.