Sei sulla pagina 1di 8

AGRARIAN LAW l ATTY. CAPANAS l TANYA IBANEZ

REVOLUTIONARY KIND OF EXPROPRIATION

REVOLUTIONARY KIND OF EXPROPRIATION All private agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the maximum retention limits allowed their owners.

Take note: 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 is the purpose? It 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.

CONFED v. DAR Petitioners claim that they own private agricultural lands devoted to sugarcane. They and their predecessors-in-interest have been planting sugarcane on their lands allegedly since time immemorial.

They contend that in the exercise by the State of the power of eminent domain, which in the case of RA 6657 is the acquisition of private lands for distribution to farmer-beneficiaries, expropriation proceedings, as prescribed in Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, must be strictly complied with.

Under RA 6657, there are two modes of acquisition of private agricultural lands: compulsory and voluntary. The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land acquisition to hasten the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). 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 of 1989, which set the operating procedure in the identification of such lands.

Two chief limitations in the exercise of eminent domain

1. Taking must be for public use

2. Payment of just compensation

SC: In this case, there is no more need to prove public use because this has been settled in the Constitution when it called for Agrarian Reform. So there is only one limitation remaining: just compensation.

RA 3844: AGRICULTURAL LAND REFORM CODE

SECURITY OF TENURE

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 unless authorized by the Court for cause herein provided.

In other words. The landowner cannot just dispossess, remove or eject a tenant or lessee from the land without authorized cause.

Liabilities of lessor if he ejects tenant without authorization

a) Fine or imprisonment

b) Damages suffered

c) Attorney’s fees

d) Remuneration for last income

LEASEHOLD SURVIVES EVEN AFTER DEATH

Leasehold relation not extinguished by death or incapacity Section 9 In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his landholding, the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by the agricultural lessor within 1 month from such death or permanent incapacity, from among the following:

a) Surviving spouse

b) Eldest direct descendant by consanguinity

c) The next eldest descendant/s in the order of their age

Provided, that in case the death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee occurs during the agricultural year, such choice shall be exercised at the end of that agricultural year:

Provided further, that in the event the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his choice within periods herein provided, the priority shall be in accordance with the order herein established.

In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor, the leasehold shall bind his legal heirs.

PERIOD OF REDEMPTION

PERIOD OF REDEMPTION

Section 12. Lessee’s right of Redemption In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of

the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at

a reasonable price and consideration. Provided, that the entire landholding sold must be redeemed. Provided further, that where there are 2 or more

agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to the said preferential right only

to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption

may be exercised within two years from the registration of the sale, and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption.

General rule:

The agricultural lessee shall have the right to redeem the landholding within 2 years from registration of the sale, provided:

The entire landholding sold must be redeemed

Where there are 2 or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitle only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him.

Po v. Dampal Ruling: Sec. 12. Lessees right of redemption. In case the landholding is sold

to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter

shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration: Provided, That where there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption under this

Section may be exercised within one hundred eighty days (180 days) from notice in writing which shall be served by the vendee on all lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian Reform upon the registration of the sale, and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption. The redemption price shall be the reasonable price of the land at the time of the sale.

The admitted lack of written notice on Dampal and the DAR thus tolled the running of the prescriptive period. Petitioner’s contention that Dampal must be considered to have had constructive knowledge thereof fails in light of the express requirement for notice to be in writing.

GROUNDS TO DISPOSSESS

GROUNDS TO DISPOSSESS

1. Failure to comply with terms and conditions of agreement

2. Planting of crops or the use of land for other purpose than that agreed upon

3. Failure to adopt proven farm practices to conserve land

4. Fault or negligence resulting in substantial damage

5. Non-payment of rental when due

One of the important grounds is this non-payment of the rental when due. Going back to the relationship, LO provides the land, and the lessee provides the labor and when there is production they are supposed to divide the produce. The produce there to be given by the lessee to the LO is the rental. The rental is FIXED by law. The rental shall not exceed 25% of the average normal harvest. D pwede patas.an. Nganu man? Maalkansi ang lessee. Kung magsabot sila ug 50-50, unsaon pagka.uplift sa economic status sa lessee?! Pwede paubsan? Pwede.

6. Employed a sublessee

Take note: Under the current law, CARL, there is no provision on ejectment. So which one will you consult? This law (RA 3844). There is no provision under CARL regarding the rights and obligations, you have to consult this law. That’s why this one is still very applicable with respect to leasehold.

Sta. Ana v. Carpo Ruling: Section 37 the burden of proof to show the existence of a lawful case for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee rest upon the agricultural lessor. Good faith was clearly demonstrated by Marciano and petitioner when, because respondents refused to accept the proffered payment, they even went to the point of seeking government intervention in order to address their problems with respondents. Absent such deliberate and willful refusal to pay lease rentals, petitioner's ejectment from the subject land is not justified.

1 | U

N I

V

E R S I T Y

O F

S A N

C A R L O S

AGRARIAN LAW l ATTY. CAPANAS l TANYA IBANEZ

Natividad v. Mariano Ruling: The agricultural lessee's failure to pay the lease rentals, in order to warrant his dispossession of the landholding, must be willful and deliberate and must have lasted for at least two (2) years. Mere failure of an agricultural lessee to pay the agricultural lessor's share does not necessarily give the latter the right to eject the former absent a deliberate intent on the part of the agricultural lessee to pay.

The respondents’ alleged non-payment did not last for the required two-year period. The 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.

RECLASS OF LAND AS GROUND TO EXTINGIUISH LEASEHOLD

RECLASSIFICATION AS GROUND TO EXTINGUISH LEASEHOLD

Santos v. CA Land was reclassified to residential lands. Consequently, the juridical tie between petitioners and respondent was severed, for no tenurial relationship can exist on a land that is no longer agricultural.

Section 36 provides the different grounds and manner by which a tenant can be lawfully ejected or dispossessed of his landholding. One of them is the reclassification of the landholding from agricultural to non-agricultural.

However, a mere reclassification of agricultural land does not automatically allow a landowner to change its use and thus cause the ejectment of the tenants. He has to undergo the process of conversion before he is permitted to use the agricultural land for other purposes.

Conversion The act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use as approved by the Department of Agrarian Reform.

Reclassification The act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, commercial, as embodied in the land use plan, subject to the requirements and procedure for land use conversion.

RA 6657: COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW

AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY VIS-A-VIS RAISING OF LIVESTOCK

AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY

Section 3 (b) 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. DAR Ruling: Sec 3 (b) was declared unconstitutional (“raising of livestock, poultry and swine) use of land is incidental and not the principal factor. Raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. Hence, lands devoted to livestock are not to be covered under CARP.

It is an 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, waters and blowers, feed mill 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, deep wells, elevated water tanks, pump houses, sprayers, and other technological appurtenances.

Take note: Livestock and poultry do not sprout from the land.

Republic v. Lopez Facts: Petitioner, pursuant to the Luz Farms case, filed with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) an application for exemption of his lots from coverage of the CARL because the said parcels of land are used for grazing and habitat of petitioner's 105 heads of cattle, 5 carabaos, 11 horses, 9 heads

of goats and 18 heads of swine, prior to the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).

Ruling: Limot lands were not directly, actually and exclusively used for livestock raising. Therefore, the Limot lands cannot be claimed to have been actually, directly and exclusively used for SNLABC's livestock business, especially since these were only intermittently and secondarily used as grazing areas. The said lands are more suitable and are in fact actually, directly and exclusively being used for agricultural purposes.

DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND

AGRICULTURAL LAND

Section 3 (c) Refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.

Alangilan v. Office of the President Petitioner insists on exemption of the Alangilan landholding from CARP coverage. It argues that the subject landholding had already been converted into non-agricultural use long before the advent of the CARP. The passage of the 1982 Ordinance, classifying the property as reserved for residential, it asserts, effectively transformed the land into non-agricultural use, and thus, outside the ambit of the CARL.

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

AGRARIAN DISPUTE

1. Any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements (leasehold, tenancy, stewardship) over lands devoted to agriculture

2. Any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under CARL and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership.

Essential requisites of leasehold relationship: PSC-PPS

1)

Parties (landowner & tenants)

2)

Subject matter is agricultural land

3)

Consent of parties

4)

Purpose is agricultural production

5)

Personal cultivation by tenant

6)

Sharing of harvest between parties

Take note:

All requisites must concur, absence of one does not make one a tenant. Hence, no agrarian dispute.

SIR: When you read the cases involving agrarian dispute take note that “parties” are related to “consent” because I think they are inseparable. Another issue is this “subject matter is agricultural land”.

Isidro v. CA Facts: Private respondent is owner of land. Sister of private respondent allowed Isidro to occupy swampy portion subject to condition to vacate upon demand. Failure to vacate, unlawful detainer was filed against Isidro. RTC dismissed because land is agricultural and so agrarian.

Ruling: Jurisdiction over subject matter is determined from the allegations in the 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 agricultural 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.

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.

2 | U

N I

V

E R S I T Y

O F

S A N

C A R L O S

AGRARIAN LAW l ATTY. CAPANAS l TANYA IBANEZ

Ruling: 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.

Almuete v. Andres 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.

Issue: Whether there is agrarian dispute

Ruling: NO. This is controversy relating to ownership of farmland so it is 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.

Nicorp Devt v. De Leon Facts: Respondent filed a complaint before the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) praying that petitioners be ordered to respect her tenancy rights over a parcel of land in the name of the De Leon sisters.

Respondent alleged that she was the actual tiller and cultivator of the land since time immemorial with full knowledge and consent of the owners, who were her sisters-in-law and that petitioners entered the land and uprooted and destroyed the rice planted on the land and graded portions of the land with the use of heavy equipment; that the incident was reported to the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) which issued a Cease and Desist Order 5 but to no avail.

Respondent thus prayed that petitioners be ordered to respect her tenancy rights over the land; restore the land to its original condition and not to convert the same to non-agricultural use; that any act of disposition of the land to any other person be declared null and void because as a tenant, she allegedly had a right of pre-emption or redemption over the land.

Petitioner Lim denied that respondent was a tenant of the subject property under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). He alleged that respondent is no longer physically capable of tilling the land; that the MARO issued a certification that the land had no registered tenant; that respondent could not be regarded as a landless tiller under the CARP because she owns and resides in the property adjacent to the subject land which she acquired through inheritance; that an Affidavit of Non-Tenancy was executed by the De Leon sisters when they sold the property to him.

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 there is agrarian dispute.

Held: No. There is no substantial evidence to support 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 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 merely stated that the De Leon sisters 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.

Heirs of Quilo v. DBP

Ruling: Notice of conference and the affidavits only showed that Quinto filed

a complaint against the spouses Oliveros regarding the land he was

cultivating. The affidavits confirmed merely that Quinto had been planting on

the land. Documents no way confirmed that his presence on the land was based on a tenancy relationship that the spouses Oliveros had agreed to.

Mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land does not automatically establish a leasehold relation or make one a tenant. The affidavit only stated that Quilo had given his share of the harvest to the spouses (the details fell short)

Petitioners should have presented receipts or any other evidence to show that there were sharing of harvest and that there was an agreed system of sharing between them. Deposit cannot prove the existence of a sharing agreement. It must be showed that the deposit is made in relation to tenancy.

Reyes v. Heirs of Floro Ruling: Certification from Bautista has little evidentiary value, without any corroborative evidence. The certification was not even presented as a witness. Similarly, Reyes was not included as a legitimate and properly registered agricultural tenant in the supposed Deed of Absolute sale with Agricultural Tenants Conformity which Bautista executed in favor of Zenaida. Zenaida was convicted of falsification of public document.

What is the value of a notarized document?

Before a document is received by the court, they will look into the question

of admissibility. If notarized, there is no need to present a witness, since

there is a presumption. If not notarized, you need a witness to testify on the

document.

Davao New Town v. Spouses Saliga Issue: At the core of the controversy is the questioned reclassification of the property to non-agricultural uses. This issue is intertwined with and on which depends the resolution of the issue concerning the claimed agricultural leasehold relationship.

Ruling: No tenancy relationship exists between DNTDC and the respondents for the tenancy relationship between the ceased when the property was reclassified.

Court outlined the essential requisites of a tenancy relationship, all of which must concur for the relationship to exist.

1. The parties are the landowner and the tenant

2. The subject is agricultural land

3. There is consent

4. The purpose is agricultural production

5. There is personal cultivation

6. There is sharing of harvests

The absence of any of these requisites does not make an occupant a cultivator, or a planter, a de jure tenant. Consequently, a person who is not a de jure tenant is not entitled to security of tenure nor covered by the land reform program of the government under any existing tenancy laws.

In this case, we hold that no tenancy relationship exists between DNTDC, as

the owner of the property, and the respondents, as the purported tenants; the second essential requisite as outlined above the subject is agricultural land is lacking. To recall, the property had already been reclassified as non- agricultural land. Accordingly, the respondents are not de jure tenants and are, therefore, not entitled to the benefits granted to agricultural lessees under the provisions of P.D. No. 27, in relation to R.A. No. 6657.

HOMESTEAD PATENT

HOMESTEAD PATENT

A mode of acquiring alienable and disposable lands of public domain for

agricultural purposes conditioned upon actual cultivation and residence.

Where do you file the application? Before the CENRO where the land being applied is located.

Who are qualified? Citizens of Philippines over 18 years old and not an owner of more than 12 hectares of land (Art XII, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution)

WHO CAN CLAIM EXEMPTION

Section 6. Retention Limits. In no case shall retention by the landowner exceed 5 hectares. 3 hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least 15 years of age and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm. Provided, 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.

3 | U

N I

V

E R S I T Y

O F

S A N

C A R L O S

AGRARIAN LAW l ATTY. CAPANAS l TANYA IBANEZ

Qualifications under Sec 6 in order to retain the homestead:

1. Original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs

2. Who still own the homestead

3. As long as they continue to cultivate (most important)

RETENTION LIMIT OF LANDOWNER

WHAT IS NOT COVERED?

Section 6. Retention Limits Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed 5 hectares. 3 hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least 15 years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm: Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the areas originally retained by them thereunder.

HOW MANY HECTARES ARE NOT COVERED?

Section 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

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.

markets, school sites,

AWARD TO CHILD OF LANDOWNER

AWARD TO CHILD OF LANDOWNER Three hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications:

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.

Take note:

One part used for school and campus site

Another part not used, part is leased to Del Monte Phil. Packing Co.

Central Mindanao is an agricultural school

Supreme Court did not use the phrase “found to be necessary”, but impliedly it was referring to it. Because even if that portion of land was not used, if it was found to be necessary for future expansion, it is to be exempted from coverage.

LAND DISTRIBUTION TO QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES

WAYS IN DISTRIBUTING LANDS TO QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES

1. Compulsory acquisition (sec 16)

2. Voluntary offer to sell or voluntary land transfer (sec 20)

3. Non-land transfer schemes

a. Stock distribution option (SDO)

b. Production and profit sharing (PPS)

c. Leasehold operation (sec 12)

What are the two aspects of land transfer schemes?

1. Voluntary The landowner will volunteer to convey the land to the government, agree on the price and then execute the deed of conveyance

2. Compulsory If the landowner refuses the notice of acquisition and notice of coverage. Gov. will have to expropriate. This time is a different expropriation.

(1)

That he is at least fifteen (15) years of age That he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm

 

(2)

IDENTIFICATION AND SELECTION OF BENEFICIARIES

Take note: The word used by law with respect to the children or child of the landowner is NOT retention but AWARD.

Meaning: For a child to be awarded by the government with 3 hectares, he has to comply with these qualifications

Who normally examines the qualifications? MARO. And with due respect with MAROs, it is also possible that it is in the appreciation of these qualifications that corruption can come in, with or without consideration.

EXEMPTION FROM COVERAGE

EXEMPTION FROM COVERAGE

Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusion from coverage of CARL

1. Lands ADE (actually, directly and exclusively) used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds,

watershed and mangroves.

2. Private lands ADE used for prawn farms and fishponds

3. Lands ADE used and found 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.

Take note: Lands with 18% slope or over is exempt because of possible soil erosion

Central Mindanao v. DARAB Ruling: 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.

Who has jurisdiction in the identification/selection of beneficiaries? It is DAR who is mandated to select CARP beneficiaries. Jurisdiction lies with the Office of the DAR Secretary to resolve the issues of classification of landholdings for coverage (whether the subject property is a private or government owned land), and identification of qualified beneficiaries.

LEASEHOLD CONTRACT

Who executes a leasehold contract? The agricultural lessor and lessee.

Who has jurisdiction to cancel a leasehold contract? DARAB. (Department of Agrarian Adjudication Board). It exercises quasi- judicial powers. With respect to quasi-judicial powers, leasehold contract involves rights, obligations and others terms of the contract

Take note: Agricultural leasehold relation shall not be extinguished by mere expiration of the term of period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the land. In case the agricultural lessor sells, alienates or transfers the legal possession of the landholding, purchaser or transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor.

JURISDICTION TO ISSUE/CANCEL CLOA

Certificate of Land Ownership Award CLOA is a document evidencing ownership of the land granted or awarded to the beneficiary by DAR

Who has jurisdiction to issue, correct or cancel CLOAs? The DAR Secretary. The cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of the CLOAs by the DAR in the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations to parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees are within the jurisdiction of the DAR and not the DARAB.

4 | U

N I

V

E R S I T Y

O F

S A N

C A R L O S

AGRARIAN LAW l ATTY. CAPANAS l TANYA IBANEZ

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION

What is compulsory acquisition? 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.

What is the rationale? 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 DAR 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.

Section 16 Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:

(a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries,

the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof.

(b) Within 30 days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal

delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.

(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall pay the

landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he

executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the Government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.

(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary

administrative proceedings to determine the compensation of the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to summit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.

(e) 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 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.

(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the

court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.

Who shall be notified? The landowner is sent a notice of acquisition which shall contain the offer/valuation by the DAR. Notice is done either through personal delivery or registered mail, and posting in a conspicuous place in the municipal building or barangay hall.

NOTICE OF COVERAGE AND ACQUISITION

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.

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.

LBP v. Heirs of Trinidad

Facts: Private respondent is the registered owner of a parcel of agricultural land which was covered by RA No. 6657 through the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) scheme of the CARP. He offered to the DAR the price of P2M per hectare for said portion of the land covered by CARP. Petitioner Land Bank

of the Philippines (LBP) valued and offered as just compensation the amount

of P1,145,806.06 or P76,387.57 per hectare. The offer was rejected by private respondent. LBP deposited for the account of private respondent P1,145,806.06 in cash and in bonds as provisional compensation for the acquisition of the property.

Thereafter, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), through the Regional Adjudicator (RARAD) for Region XI conducted summary administrative

proceedings under DARAB to fix the just compensation, where they rendered

a decision fixing the compensation of the property at P10,294,721.00 or P686,319.36 per hectare.

Petitioner LBP filed a petition against private respondent for judicial determination of just compensation before the Special Agrarian Court.

Private respondent, on the other hand, filed a similar petition against DAR before the same Special Agrarian Court and filed a Motion for Delivery of the Initial Valuation praying that petitioner LBP be ordered to deposit the DARAB determined amount of P10,294,721.

Petitioner LBP filed a Manifestation praying that the amount of the deposit should only be the initial valuation of the DAR/LBP in the amount of P1,145,806M and not P10,294,721.00 as determined by the DARAB.

Consequently, a decision was issued ordering petitioner LBP to deposit for release to the private respondent the DARAB determined just compensation

of P10,294,721M Petitioner LBP filed a motion for reconsideration of the said

order to deposit.

Issue: The lone issue in this controversy is the correct amount of provisional compensation which the LBP is required to deposit in the name of the landowner if the latter rejects the DAR/LBP's offer. Petitioner maintains it should be its initial valuation of the land subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) while respondent claims it pertains to the sum awarded by the PARAD/RARAD/DARAB in a summary administrative proceeding pending final determination by the courts.

Question was on the correct amount of provisional compensation which LBP was required to deposit.

Is it the amount stated in par (a) which is supposed to be contained in the notice of acquisition? or

Is it the amount based on par (d) after the conduct of summary proceedings?

Held: Supreme Court held that par (e) should be related to pars (a), (b) and (c), considering that the taking of possession by the State is the next step after DAR and LBP supplied with the notice requirements.

In effect, SC is saying that it is the offer of the LBP that will determine what

the correct amount to be deposited is and not the amount after the determination of just compensation in a summary administrative proceeding.

Reason: If the DAR will wait for the summary administrative proceedings, this will hamper land redistribution process.

JUST COMPENSATION

JUST COMPENSATION

What is meant by just compensation? The 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 and

ample.

What are the factors to consider in determining just compensation?

a. The cost of acquisition of the land

b. The value of the standing crop

c. The current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income

d. The sworn valuation by the owner

e. Tax declarations

f. Assessment made by government assessors

g. 70% of the zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), translated into a basic formula by the DAR

5 | U

N I

V

E R S I T Y

O F

S A N

C A R L O S

AGRARIAN LAW l ATTY. CAPANAS l TANYA IBANEZ

Take note: 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.

Preliminary determination The determination of just compensation by the DAR during the compulsory acquisition proceedings of Section 16 of RA 6657 is preliminary only. Hence, the court can review. Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.

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.

Association of Small Landowners v. Sec of DAR Ruling: We 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 whenever found and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the maximum retention limits allowed their owners. Such a program will involve not mere millions of pesos. The cost will be tremendous.

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.

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.

Therefore, payment of the just compensation is not always required to be made fully in money.

LBP v. Dumlao Facts: Respondents are owners of agricultural lands covered under PD 27. Determination of just compensation remained pending with DAR, so they filed complaint with RTC for determination.

Ruling: 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 date of taking of the subject land for purposes of computing just compensation should be reckoned from the issuance dates of the emancipation patents because 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.

Petitioner’s 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;

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

Principle: If an agricultural land is acquired under PD 27 but just compensation has not been paid until RA 6657 took effect, just compensation will be computed on the basis of the present law, NOT under PD 27.

Reason: It is inequitable that just compensation should be determined under PD 27 because just compensation is defined as the full and ample value of

the land to be given to the LO. Under PD 27, there is only one factor in determining just compensation (average crop harvest), while in RA6657, there are a lot.

DAR v. Heirs of Domingo Facts: The late Angel T. Domingo is the registered owner of a rice land. PD 27 was subsequently issued and 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 RA 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.

Ruling: 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.

It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guideline provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure to determine the just compensation for a considerable length of time. That just compensation should be determined in accordance with RA 6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.

LBP v. Livioco Facts: Respondent Livioco was the owner of 3 sugar land. He offered his sugar land to the DAR for acquisition under the CARP at P30.00 per square meter. The voluntary-offer-to-sell (VOS) form he submitted to the DAR indicated that his property is adjacent to residential subdivisions and to an international paper mill.

The DAR referred Livioco's offer to the LBP for valuation. LBP set the price at P3.21 per square meter for 26 hectares. Livioco was then promptly informed of the valuation. However,Livioco did not act upon the notice given to him by both government agencies. Subsequently, LBP issued a certification to the Register of Deeds of Pampanga that it has earmarked the amount of P827,943.48 as compensation for Livioco's 26 hectares.

It was only two years later that Livioco requested for a reevaluation of the compensation on the ground that its value had already appreciated from the time it was first offered for sale. The request was denied by the Regional Director on the ground that there was already a perfected sale.

Unable to recover his property but unwilling to accept what he believes was an outrageously low valuation of his property, Livioco finally filed a petition for judicial determination of just compensation against DAR, LBP, and the CLOA holders.

In this Petition before us, LBP assails the CA's assent to the valuation of Livioco's property as a residential land. It maintains that it is not the State's policy to purchase residential land. Since the property was acquired under the CARP, it had to be valued as an agricultural land.

Issue: Was the compensation for respondent's properly determined?

Held: For purposes of just compensation, the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the time of taking. There are three important concepts in this definition the character of the property, its price, and the time of actual taking.

The lower courts erred in ruling that the character or use of the property has changed from agricultural to residential, because there is no allegation or proof that the property was approved for conversion to other uses by DAR. It is the DAR that is mandated by law to evaluate and to approve land use conversions so as to prevent fraudulent evasions from agrarian reform coverage.

Even reclassification and plans for expropriation by LGUs will not ipso facto convert an agricultural property to residential, industrial or commercial. Thus,

6 | U

N I

V

E R S I T Y

O F

S A N

C A R L O S

AGRARIAN LAW l ATTY. CAPANAS l TANYA IBANEZ

in the absence of any DAR approval for the conversion of respondent's property or an actual expropriation by an LGU, it cannot be said that the character or use of said property changed from agricultural to residential. Respondent's property remains agricultural and should be valued as such. Hence, the CA and the trial court had no legal basis for considering the subject property's value as residential.

Respondent's evidence of the value of his land as residential property could, at most, refer to the potential use of the property. While the potential use of an expropriated property is sometimes considered in cases where there is a great improvement in the general vicinity of the expropriated property, it should never control the determination of just compensation.

The potential use of a property should not be the principal criterion for determining just compensation for this will be contrary to the well-settled doctrine that the fair market value of an expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the time of taking, not its potential uses. If at all, the potential use of the property or its "adaptability for conversion in the future is a factor, not the ultimate in determining just compensation."

It would also be contrary to the social policy of agrarian reform, which is to free the tillers of the land from the bondage of the soil without delivering them to the new oppression of exorbitant land valuations. Note that in lands acquired under RA 6657, it is the farmer-beneficiaries who will ultimately pay the valuations paid to the former land owners (LBP merely advances the payment). 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.

Sir’s discussion: Landowner tried to prove that lot was residential not agricultural for higher just compensation. There were several evidences presented by owner; certification from the municipal planning office, zoning, HLURB, etc.

SC: No clearance from DAR. No allegation or proof that there was a conversion clearance from agricultural to residential. That means that the land has to be valued as agricultural land, NOT residential.

DISCUSSION: Do you need conversion clearance? SIR: IMO, no more.

You need conversion clearance for purposes of real property tax in LGU

Or assurance from DAR that your land is not covered under DAR because the use is not anymore for agricultural activity

Under sec. 17, no factor of conversion but actual use of the land

LBP v. Nable Ruling: The Congress has thereby required that any determination of just compensation should consider the following factors, namely: (a) the cost of the acquisition of the land; (b) the current value of like properties; (c) the nature, actual use and income of the land; (d) the sworn valuation by the owner; (e) the tax declarations; (f) the assessment made by government assessors; (g) the social and economic benefits contributed to the property by the farmers and farmworkers and by the Government; and (h) the fact of the non-payment of any taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the land.

Although Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657 has not explicitly mentioned the farming experience and the thumb method of conversion as methods in the determination of just compensation, LBP cannot deny that such methods were directly relevant to the factors listed in Section 17, particularly those on the nature, actual use and income of the landholding.

LBP v. DAR Facts: The valuation made by PARAB was rejected by the landowners. After re-computation upon order of PARAD, a revaluated amount was made but LOs still found it low. LOs appealed to DARAB. Pending resolution of their appeal, Los interposed a Motion to Withdraw Amended Valuation seeking the release to them of the amount representing the difference between the initial value.

Ruling: There is a need to allow the landowners to withdraw immediately the amount deposited in their behalf, pending final determination of what is just compensation for their land.

It is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain if you do not allow withdrawal. Also, it is unnecessary to distinguish between provisional compensation under Section 16 (e) and final compensation under Section 18 for the purposes of exercising the landowners’ right to appropriate the same. The immediate effect in other situations in the same, the landowner is deprived of the use and possession of his property for which he should be fairly and immediately compensated.

SC invalidated LBP’s practice of opening trust accounts in favor of the landowner.

In case the amount has already been deposited, even if the landowner questions the accuracy or the validity of the amount deposited and will thereafter file with the RTC for determination of just compensation, the LO can withdraw the amount deposited. Part of his right to just compensation

It should be deposited in the name of the landowner, not trust accounts (trust accounts not expressly stated in Sec. 18)

Heirs of Deleste v. LBP Facts: Petitioners contend that DAR failed to notify them that it is subjecting the subject property under the coverage of the agrarian reform program, hence, their right to due process of law was violated.

Ruling: SC agreed with petitioners. The importance of an actual notice in subjecting a property under the agrarian reform program cannot be underrated, as non-compliance with it trods roughshod with the essential requirements of administrative due process of law.

It was incumbent upon the DAR to notify Deleste, being the landowner of the subject property. It should be noted that the deed of sale executed by Hilaria in favor of Deleste was registered on March 2, 1954, and such registration serves as a constructive notice to the whole world that the subject property was already owned by Deleste by virtue of the said deed of sale. In Naval v. CA, this Court

The registration of an instrument involving unregistered land in the Registry of Deeds creates constructive notice and binds third person who may subsequently deal with the same property.

It bears stressing that the principal purpose of registration is "to notify other persons not parties to a contract that a transaction involving the property has been entered into." There was, therefore, no reason for DAR to feign ignorance of the transfer of ownership over the subject property.

Moreover, that DAR should have sent the notice to Deleste, and not to the Nanamans, is bolstered by the fact that the tax declaration in the name of Virgilio was already canceled and a new one issued in the name of Deleste. Although tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are nonetheless "good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or, at least, constructive possession."

Petitioners' right to due process of law was, indeed, violated when the DAR failed to notify them that it is subjecting the subject property under the coverage of the agrarian reform program.

GOVERNING LAW

RA 6657 Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law Main governing law of Agrarian Land Reform here in the Philippines.

PAYMENT OF INTEREST

PAYMENT OF INTEREST

Apo Fruits v. CA Facts: RT rendered judgment ordering DAR/LBP to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the above-fixed amount of fair, reasonable and just compensation computed from the time the complaint was filed until the finality of this decision. After this decision becomes final and executory, the rate of 12% shall be additionally imposed on the total obligation until payment thereof is satisfied.

Issue: Whether or not the interest was validly imposed.

Held: NO. It is true that Land Bank sought to appeal the RTC's decision to the CA, by filing a notice of appeal; and that Land Bank filed in March 2003 its petition for certiorari in the CA only because the RTC did not give due course to its appeal. Any intervening delay thereby entailed could not be attributed to Land Bank, however, considering that assailing an erroneous order before a higher court is a remedy afforded by law to every losing party, who cannot thus be considered to act in bad faith or in an unreasonable manner as to make such party guilty of unjustified delay.

The mere fact that LBP appealed the decisions of the RTC and the Court of Appeals does not mean that it deliberately delayed the payment of just compensation. It may disagree with DAR and the landowner as to the amount of just compensation to be paid to the latter and may also disagree with them and bring the matter to court for judicial determination. This makes LBP an indispensable party in cases involving just compensation for lands taken under the Agrarian Reform Program, with a right to appeal decisions in such

7 | U

N I

V

E R S I T Y

O F

S A N

C A R L O S

AGRARIAN LAW l ATTY. CAPANAS l TANYA IBANEZ

cases that are unfavorable to it. Having only exercised its right to appeal in this case, LBP cannot be penalized by making it pay for interest.

Interest on the just compensation is imposed only in case of delay in the payment thereof which must be sufficiently established. Given the foregoing, we find that the imposition of interest on the award of just compensation is not justified and should therefore be deleted.

LBP v. Rivera Facts: The respondents are the co-owners of a parcel of agricultural land that was placed under the coverage of PD 27. After DAR directed payment, LBP approved the payment of P265,494 inclusive of 6% increment.

Consequently, the respondents instituted a civil case for determination and payment of just compensation before the Regional Trial Court.

LBP filed its answer, stating that rice and corn lands placed under the coverage of Presidential Decree No. 27 were governed and valued in accordance with the provisions of Executive Order No. 228 and that the administrative valuation of lands covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order No. 228 rested solely in DAR and LBP was the only financing arm.

Ruling: The constitutional limitation of "just compensation" is considered to be the sum equivalent to the market value of the property, broadly described to be the price fixed by the seller in open market in the usual and ordinary course of legal action and competition or the fair value of the property as between one who receives, and one who desires to sell, if fixed at the time of the actual taking by the government. Thus, if property is taken for public use before compensation is deposited with the court having jurisdiction over the case, the final compensation must include interest on its just value to be computed from the time the property is taken to the time when compensation is actually paid or deposited with the court. In fine, between the taking of the property and the actual payment, legal interests accrue in order to place the owner in a position as good as (but not better than) the position he was in before the taking occurred.

The Bulacan trial court, in its 1979 decision, was correct in imposing interest on the zonal value of the property to be computed from the time petitioner instituted condemnation proceedings and "took" the property in September 1969. This allowance of interest on the amount found to be the value of the property as of the time of the taking computed, being an effective forbearance, at 12% per annum should help eliminate the issue of the constant fluctuation and inflation of the value of the currency over time.

LBP v. Gallego Facts: Respondents are co-owners of parcels of agricultural land. DAR placed a portion of the property under the coverage of PD27. However, teh parties failed to agree on the amount of just compensation which prompted respondents to file a petition before the RTC for the determination of just compensation.

The trial court adopted the formula prescribed in PD27 in arriving at the amount of just compensation. Also, trial court also imposed "interest in kind" payable from 1972 to 2002 by multiplying by 1.8 the Average Gross Production of palay of 121.6 cavans per hectare multiplied by 2.5.

Ruling: In the determination of the interest, if it is payable in kind, its value shall be appraised at the current price of the products or goods at the time and place of payment.

BENEFICIARIES

QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES

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.

Take note: Presupposing that the beneficiary has registered with the department.

6. If, due to the landowner’s 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.

7. Farmers already in place and those not accommodated in the distribution of privately-owned lands will be given preferential rights in the distribution of lands from the public domain.

8. No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land. (Sec. 23)

DAR v. Polo Coconut Plantation Co. Facts: Beneficiaries to be awarded with the land of Polo Coconut were questioned by Polo Coconut. According to them, the beneficiaries are not tenants of their land, thus not qualified.

Ruling: Section 22 of the CARL does not limit qualified beneficiaries to tenants of the landowners. It is DAR who is mandated to select CARP beneficiaries. Thus, the DAR cannot be deemed to have committed grave abuse of discretion simply because its chosen beneficiaries were not tenants of Polo Coconut.

PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER BY BENEFICIARY

PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER BY BENEFICIARY

Section 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands 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.

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.

General Rule:

Lands acquired by beneficiaries may not be sold, transferred or conveyed for

a

period of 10 years. Hence, any sale during the 10 year prohibitory period

is

void.

Exceptions:

1. Hereditary succession

2. To the government

1.

The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as

3. To the Land Bank of the Philippines

4. Other qualified beneficiaries

Take note: Waiver of rights and interests over the landholdings is void.

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;

RIGHT TO REPURCHASE

(b)

Regular farmworkers;

In case the land is sold, the children of the spouse of the transferor shall

(c)

Seasonal farmworkers;

have a right to repurchase the land from the government or the LBP within

(d)

Other farmworkers;

2 years.

(e)

Actual tillers or occupants of public lands;

(f)

Collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries

(g)

Others directly working on the land

Take note: Previous law: there is no provision that (a) and (b) should be prioritized. Amendment: they are prioritized of that same landholding up to a maximum of 3 hectares each.

 

2.

The children of landowners who are qualified shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents.

8 | U

N I

V

E R S I T Y

O F

S A N

C A R L O S