Chapter 4

Registration

-Fortich v Corona; merely recommendees so they do not have the standing to be in

court

-Concha v. Rubio; MARO named petitioners as benefeciaries

-SC; the group refused to sign the CA forms
-They alleged that they did not receive compensation money

Chapter 5
Procedure

What is the procedure, what is the effect if there is a violation of the procedure?

-2 notices
1. Notice of Coverage
2. Notice of Acquisition

What is the purpose? Due process

1 important item: Offer, how much is the just compensation

A-C MARO

Par. D- Adjudication (DAR)

The owner is supposed to notify the DAR of his choice

Summary Administrative Proceedings- Rejection/No Reply

Normally the land owner will go to DAR; Land Bank has already made an offer here,
but will normally go to RTC for just compensation

Sec. 57, the DAR has exclusive original jurisdiction

Par. E (Implementation)
if the land owner will not reply/reject

DAR WILL:
1. Deposit
2. Certification
3. Certification will be shown to ROD
4. ROD will cancel the title
5. DAR will possess
6. DAR will redistribute

LBP v. Heirs of Trinidad

-CA committed an error because that will thwart the process of Agrarian Reform
-Deposit will trigger the cancellation of the Land owner's title

Par. F Any party including Land Bank

Even if there is no deed of transfer

Confed v. DAR
-Under 16 AO No. s1989
-Revolutionary kind of expropriation

Notice of Coverage
-notifies the landowner that his property shall be placed under CARP

Notice of Acquisition
-Area and amount of just compensation to be determined by DAR

Limitations on the power of eminent domain

- purpose
- just compensation

Purpose was already enshrined in the constitution

Rule 67 Expropriation
-Expropriation by DAR does not violate Rule 67
-It does not violate because it allows for the appointment of commissioners
-The deposit can be through LBP Bonds

LBP v. Santos
-withdrawal of the amount deposited
-nobody can prevent the landowner from withdrawing the amount deposited in Land
Bank, even pending the determination of just compensation
-DAR cannot use it as a ground that the land owner did not comply with the
documentary requirements

Effect of violation?

Roxas & Co. case

-the notice of coverage was given not to the authorized person
-DAR should be given chance to validate the proceedings

Fortich case
-issue: validity of the win-win resolution

Heirs of Deleste v. LBP

-Cancellations of the EPs and OCTs were declared warranted for violation of due
process
-DAR did not inform Dr. Deleste
-SC nullified the CLOAs issued
-applied the dissenting opinion of J. Ynares-Santiago in the Roxas Case

Chapter 6 Just Compensation

LBP v. Dumlao
-If the land was acquired under pd 27, but the landowner was not paid and the CARL
was already in effect, the law that applies is CARL

Judge must base the ruling on the formula by DAR

Must be able to determine the just compensation and must rely on the evidence
presented

2 values and the commissioner merely chose the lower of 2 values

FORMULA

LV=(CNI X 0.06) + (CS X 0.03) + (MV X 0.10)

LV= LAND VALUE

CNI= Capitalized Net Incomed
CS = Comparable Sales

RA 9700, 70% of the BIR zonal value

SECTION 17, FACTORS were converted by DAR

Date of Taking = reckoning point from the issuance dates of emancipation patents
When the Govt will pay the landownwer

The SC is not consistent

PD 27 production based
RA 6657 several factors

RA 9700 sec 17
Value of the standing crop
70% of the zonal valuation of the BIR

Spouses Lee v LBP

LBP v. Livioco
-must be valued as agricultural land

The courts must apply the formula subject to 1 exception