Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
C.
- J. Isagani Cruz
[W]e do not deal here with the traditional exercise of
the power of eminent domain. This is not an ordinary
expropriation where only a specific property of relatively
limited area is sought to be taken by the State from its owner
for a specific and perhaps local purpose. What we deal with
here is a revolutionary kind of expropriation.
The expropriation before us affects all private
agricultural lands wherever found and of whatever kind as
long as they are in excess of the maximum retention limits
allowed their owners. This kind of expropriation is 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. Its purpose does not cover only the
whole territory of this country but goes beyond in time to the
foreseeable future, which it hopes to secure and edify with
the vision and the sacrifice of the present generation of
Filipinos. Generations yet to come are as involved in this
program as we are today, although hopefully only as
beneficiaries of a richer and more fulfilling life we will
guarantee to them tomorrow through our thoughtfulness
today. And, finally, let it not be forgotten that it is no less than
the Constitution itself that 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
but can now become the key at last to their deliverance.
I.
RA 3844
A. Security of Tenure
Section 7. Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation - The
agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the
agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until
such leasehold relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be
entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected
therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes herein provided.
B.
Section 9. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not
Extinguished by Death or Incapacity of the Parties - In case of
Employed a sublessee
Sta Ana vs. Sps. Carpo: It is a fundamental rule in this jurisdiction that
for non-payment of lease rentals to warrant the dispossession and
ejectment of a tenant, the same must be made in a willful and
deliberate manner (Cabero v. Caturna, et al., CA). For a valid ouster or
ejectment of a farmer-tenant, the willful and deliberate intent not to pay
lease rentals and/or share can be ascertained when there is a
determination of will not to do a certain act.
Considering the circumstances obtaining in this case, it cannot be
concluded that the defendants-appellants deliberately failed or refused
to pay their lease rentals. It was not the fault of defendants-appellants
herein that the rentals did not reach the plaintiffs-appellees because
the latter choose to lend a deaf ear to the notices sent to them. Clearly,
therefore plaintiffs-appellees failed to show by substantial evidence that
the defendants-appellants deliberately failed or refused to pay their
lease rentals. It has been held that the mere failure of a tenant to pay
the landowners share does not necessarily give the latter the right to
eject the former when there is lack of deliberate intent on the part of the
tenant to pay (Roxas y Cia v. Cabatuando, 1 SCRA 1106).
Natividad vs Mariano: In the present petition, we do not find the
respondents alleged non-payment of the lease rentals sufficient to
warrant their dispossession of the subject property. The respondents
alleged non-payment did not last for the required two-year period. To
reiterate our discussion above, the respondents rental payments were
not yet due and the respondents were not in default at the time Ernesto
filed the petition for ejectment as Ernesto failed to prove his alleged
prior verbal demands. Additionally, assuming arguendo that the
respondents failed to pay the lease rentals, we do not consider the
failure to be deliberate or willful. The receipts on record show that the
respondents had paid the lease rentals for the years 1988-1998. To be
deliberate or willful, the non-payment of lease rentals must be absolute,
i.e., marked by complete absence of any payment. This cannot be said
of the respondents case. Hence, without any deliberate and willful
refusal to pay lease rentals for two years, the respondents ejectment
from the subject property, based on this ground, is baseless and
unjustified.
D. Period of Redemption
In its disquisition, the DARAB held that absence of written notice to the
tenant of the sale, as well as to the DAR, is indispensable, particularly
in view of Sec. 12 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by Republic
Act No. 6389, which mandates that the 180-day period must be
reckoned from the notice in writing upon registration of the sale.
Sec. 12 of Republic Act No. 3844 or the Agricultural Land Reform Code
of 1963, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, otherwise known as
the Code of Agrarian Reforms of the Philippines, provides:
was executed by the De Leon sisters when they sold the property to
him. DTIaCS
Moreover, Lim claimed that respondent and her family surreptitiously
entered the subject land and planted a few crops to pass themselves
off as cultivators thereof; that respondent tried to negotiate with
petitioner Lim for the sale of the land to her, as the latter was interested
in entering into a joint venture with another residential developer, which
shows that respondent has sufficient resources and cannot be a
beneficiary under the CARP; that the land is no longer classified as
agricultural and could not thus be covered by the CARP. Per
certification issued by the Office of the Municipal Planning and
Development Coordinator of Bacoor, Cavite, the land is classified as
residential pursuant to a Comprehensive Land Use Plan approved by
the Sangguniang Panlalawigan.
Issue:
Whether or not the land is exempted.
Held:
In the instant case, there is no substantial evidence to support the
appellate court's conclusion that respondent is a bona fide tenant on
the subject property. Respondent failed to prove the third and sixth
elements cited above. It was not shown that the De Leon sisters
consented to a tenancy relationship with respondent who was their
sister-in-law; or that the De Leon sisters received any share in the
harvests of the land from respondent or that the latter delivered a
proportionate share of the harvest to the landowners pursuant to a
tenancy relationship.
The affidavits did not mention at all that the De Leon sisters received a
portion of the harvests or that respondent delivered the same to her
sisters-in-law. The affidavits failed to disclose the circumstances or
details of the alleged harvest sharing; it merely stated that the affiants
have known respondent to be the cultivator of the land since time
immemorial. It cannot therefore be deemed as evidence of harvest
sharing.
That respondent was allowed to cultivate the property without
opposition, does not mean that the De Leon sisters impliedly
recognized the existence of a leasehold relation with respondent.
Occupancy and continued possession of the land will not ipso facto
make one a de jure tenant.
Finally, the sale of the subject land to petitioners did not violate
Sections 65 33 and 73 34 (c) of R.A. No. 6657. There was no illegal
conversion of the land because Sec. 65 applies only to lands which
were covered by the CARP, i.e., those lands beyond the five-hectare
retention limit allowed to landowners under the law, which were
distributed to farmers-beneficiaries. In the instant case, it was not
shown that the subject land was covered by the CARP. Neither was it
shown that the sale was made to circumvent the application of R.A.
6657 or aimed at dispossessing tenants of the land that they till.
4. 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.
The other modes, which are likewise available to the landowner at his
option, are also not unreasonable because payment is made in shares
of stock, LBP bonds, other properties or assets, tax credits, and other
things of value equivalent to the amount of just compensation.
LBP v Dumlao
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
valuations paid to the former land owners (LBP merely advances the
payment). 78 If the farmer-beneficiaries are made to pay for lands
valued as residential lands (the valuation for which is substantially
higher than the valuation for agricultural lands), it is not unlikely that
such farmers, unable to keep up with payment amortizations, will be
forced to give up their landholdings in favor of the State or be driven to
sell the property to other parties. This may just bring the State right
back to the starting line where the landless remain landless and the
rich acquire more landholdings from desperate farmers.
LBP v Nable
Heirs of Lorenzo v LBP
Petitioner are owners of land; first valuation was rejected but upon recomputation and order of RRAD, the revaluation was accepted by
owners LBP filed MR but denied, LBP filed an opposition for
determination of JC with the RTC
-Petitioner submit that LBP has no legal personality
-SEC 18, clearly states there should be a consensus among
-LBP is an indispensable party in expropriation proceedingsund4r RA
6657 and thus has the legal personality to question the determination.
DAR v Heirs of Domingo
Facts:
The late Angel T. Domingo (Domingo) is the registered owner of a
70.3420-hectare rice land situated at Macapabellag, Guimba, Nueva
Ecija, covered by Transfer Certificate of Title No. NT-97157.
On October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. 27 2 (P.D. No. 27) was
issued, pursuant to which actual tenant farmers of private agricultural
lands devoted to rice and corn were deemed as full owners of the land
they till. The land transfer program under P.D. No. 27 was subsequently
implemented by Executive Order No. 228.
On April 26, 2000, Domingo filed with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of
Guimba, Nueva Ecija a complaint for determination and payment of just
compensation against the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and
DAR.
Domingo opposed the said valuation and claimed that the just
compensation for the subject land should be computed using the
parameters set forth under Republic Act No. 6657 4 (R.A. No. 6657).
The LBP and DAR disputed Domingo's valuation and claimed that the
determination of just compensation should be governed by the
provisions of P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O. No. 228.
ISSUE:
Whether the method set forth under R.A. No. 6657 in the computation
of just compensation may be applied to private agricultural lands taken
by the government under the auspices of P.D. No. 27 in relation to E.O.
No. 228.
HELD:
Under the factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform
process is still incomplete as the just compensation to be paid private
respondents has yet to be settled. Considering the passage of
Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657) before the completion of this process,
the just compensation should be determined and the process
concluded under the said law. Indeed, RA 6657 is the applicable law,
with PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect, conformably with
our ruling in Paris v. Alfeche.
beneficiary in one lump sum for the amounts the latter has already
paid, together with the value of improvements he has made on the
land.