THIS WILL SUPPLEMENT YOUR TEXTBOOK COVERAGE OF THE EXAM IS ENTIRE RA 6657 *Study Prohibited acts and omissions

under Section 73 SECTIONS 1-2

the Implementing Rules and Guidelines promulgated in accordance therewith, and DECLARED them invalid. Does the same rationale for exempting lands used for raising swine, poultry and livestock also apply to prawn forms and fishponds? Yes, it does.

May ones rights under the agrarian reform program be sold, transferred or conveyed?

Generally, no. However, in Corpuz v. Grospe, (333 SCRA 425 (2000) the Supreme Court held that it is valid if done in favor of the government, thus:

Section 1 of RA 7881 amends sections 3-b of the CARL, as it pertains to the definition of agricultural activity. Section 2 of the same law amends section 10 of the CARL by exempting private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds as of March 12, 1995 provided that (1) Said lands have not been distributed , and (2) No Certificate of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAs) have been issued to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs). Section 3 of the same law amends section 11 of the CARL by excluding commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising and aquaculture, including fishponds and prawn farms from the classification of commercial farms that are due for coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) after a ten year deferment period. What was the basis of the Supreme Court in ruling that poultry, swine and livestock farms are not covered by CARP?

In Estola v. Mabalot (G.R. No. 133706, May 7, 2002) the Supreme Court explained that, for abandonment to exist, there must be an actual, not merely a projected, relinquishment; otherwise, the right or claim is not vacated or waived and, thus, susceptible of being appropriated b another (Citing Medrana v Office of the President, 188 SCRA 818, August 21, 1990)

Is the transfer Samahang Nayon valid?

or

conveyance

to

the

Yes, because it is considered as a transfer to the government, and an exercise by the tenant of his right to voluntarily surrender the land under RA 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code).

The Supreme Court, in a separate decision in the Luz Farms case, ruled that the land is not a primary resource in this industry. No land is tilled and no crop is harvested in the livestock and poultry farming. There are neither tenants nor landlords, only employers and employees who are covered by the minimum wage law and not tenancy law. Livestock and poultry do not sprout from the land, neither are they fruits of land. Hence, livestock and poultry cannot be included in the scope of the Agrarian Reform Program. (c) Agricultural Land refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial, or industrial land. In Roxas & Co., Inc. v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court used the definition applicable to agrarian reform cases, as follows: In Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform and Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, this Court had occasion to rule that agricultural lands are only those which are arable and suitable. It is at once noticeable that the common factor that classifies land use as agricultural, whether it be public or private land, is its suitability for agriculture. What constitutes an agrarian dispute? Agrarian dispute, is defines under section 3, para. (d) of RA 6657 (CARL), above.

According to Corpuz v. Grospe (333 SCRA 425 (2000) such transfer is founded not only on PD 27, but also on RA 3844 section 8, para. (2), which provides that the agricultural leasehold relations shall be extinguished by voluntary surrender by the tenant of the land to the landlord.

SECTION 3 - DEFINITIONS.

Does the foregoing definition effectively place every agricultural enterprise or activity under the coverage of CARL? No, it does not. In fact, in Luz Farms v. The Honorable Secretary of Agrarian Reform, (192 SCRA 51 (1990) the Supreme Court struck down as null and void for being unconstitutional sect ions 3, para. (b), 11, 13 and 32 of RA No. 6657 insofar as the inclusion of the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage as well as

What is the consequence if an occupant, cultivator or planter is unable to show the existence of some of these requisites of tenancy relationship? In case of failure to prove all these requisites of tenancy, the occupant, cultivator or planter will not be considered as a de jure tenant. In that situation, he shall not be entitled to security of tenure, and he will not be a farmer-beneficiary entitled to land ownership under the agrarian reform program. As the Supreme Court held in the The Heirs of Jose Juanite v. Court of Appeals. Another consequence is that the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) will not have jurisdiction over the controversy. In Hon. Antonio M. Nuesa v. Hon. Court of Appeals, the Court reversed the Court of Appeals and struck down all the proceedings before the various levels of the DARAB for being null and void. What is the consequence of failure to question the exercise of jurisdiction by the DARAB over a matter not falling within the DARABs jurisdiction? The first view is enunciated in the case of Spouses Atuel, et al. v. Spouses Bernabe Valdez, where the Supreme Court held that the active participation of the parties in the proceedings before the DARAB does not vest jurisdiction on the DARAB, as jurisdiction is conferred only by law, and an order or decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity. However, the second view holds that the party could be held to be guilty of estoppels by laches. This was the holding in the March 2002 case of Oca v. Court of Appeals, where the Supreme Court explained that, on grounds of justice and equity, jurisdiction cannot be allowed to be impugned for the first time before the Supreme Court, after the case had been pending before the PARAD, the DARAB, and the Court of Appeals for a long time already. What is the main factor or determinant for the existence of a tenancy relationship? The primary factor that determines whether a tenancy relationship exists is intent. The doctrine that tenancy is established by the parties meeting of the minds (contract) as to its requisites or essential elements was applied by the Supreme Court in Remigio Isidro v. The Hon. Court of Appeals. When the tenancy relationship is established, does that relationship end with the sale or conveyance of the property? No, it does not. In the case of Philbancor Finance, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court held that despite the expiration of the period for redemption by the agricultural lessees of lands with foreclosed mortgages, they could continue in the possession and enjoyment of the land, because the right of tenancy attaches to the land itself by operation of law.

Does the court lose jurisdiction simply because agrarian relations is raised as a defense in an ejectment case? No, the defense of agrarian relations does not take away jurisdiction of the court in an ejectment case. This was the explained in Onquit v. Binamira-Parcia. What is the difference between a share tenant and a farm worker? The Supreme Court made the distinction Hernandez v. Hon. Intermediate Appellate Court. in

Does death or permanent incapacity of an agricultural tenant/lessee cut off the tenancy relationship or agricultural leasehold? No. Section 9 of RA 3844 (the Agricultural Land Reform Code) provides that neither death nor permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee shall terminate the relationship. The owner shall choose the lessees replacement from among the persons qualified to take the place of the lessee. Does expiration of the period of lease, in accordance with the parties agreement, terminate the agricultural leasehold? What are the valid causes for termination of severance of the tenancy relationship? Section 36 of RA 3844 provides that expiration of the period of lease per agreement of the parties does not terminate the leasehold. There must, in addition, be a final and executor judgment finding the existence of valid cause(s) for termination of the lease. Who was the burden of providing that there exists a lawful cause for ejecting an agricultural lessee? The agricultural lessor has the burden of proof, pursuant to Section 37 of RA 3844. Does an allegation or claim that one is a tenant automatically give rise to security of tenure? Not necessarily. The elements of tenancy must first be proven in order to entitle the claimant to security of tenure. Who are the tenants or tillers of the soil entitles to land distribution? As held in the case of Caballes v. DAR, the essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are as follows:

1. the parties are the landowner and the

2. 3. 4. 5. 6. tenant the subject is agricultural land; there is consent; the purpose is agricultural production there is personal cultivation; and there is sharing of harvest

SECTION 4 - SCOPE

The order in which the various classes of land are listed seems to show that private lands are supposed to be the last priority. Why has so much private land been distributed, while there remain vast tracts of public lands? According to Senator Heherson Alvarez, the preference for, and inclusion of, privately-owned land was due to the prohibitive expense of developing government lands, the preference of the agrarian reform beneficiaries for the same and the complex problems of resettling tillers.

1 Remain in the retained are: the tenant shall be considered as leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary; or 2. Be a beneficiary in another agricultural land: the tenant shall lose his right as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. May a landowner who failed who failed to secure the retention rights under PD 27 acquire the same under RA 6657? Yes. In the case of Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc., et al. v. Honorable Secretary of Agrarian Reform, the Supreme Court ruled: Landowners who were unable to exercise their rights for retention under PD No. 27 shall enjoy the retention rights granted by RA No. 6657 under the conditioned therein prescribed. The last paragraph of RA 6657 Section 6 states: Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management, contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of the Act shall be null and void, does this mean that landowner may no longer enter into any transactions? No. What is prohibited is a transaction entered into in order to circumvent a tenants right to security of tenure or deprive a qualified beneficiary of his constitutional right to ownership of land. What is proscribe are only those acts which are are patently designed to circumvent the law. However, there may be instances where a landowner may enter into allowable contracts or transactions, such as, to install a tenant in a land that has no previous tenant, or where the previous tenant has died and has left no interested heirs to succeed him or where the land has been abandoned and would otherwise become idle without the installation of a new tenant. SECTION 10 EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS May a landowner claim exception because he has recently developed his land into a pilot production center for hybrid seeds? No. According to the DAR Primer on Land Exemption, the four conditions must have been all present as June 15, 1988, the date of effectivity of CARL, namely, that the land must be (1) actually, (2) directly, (3) exclusively used and (4) found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, seeds and seedlings research and pilot production center. May a state college claim that part of its property being cultivated by farmers cannot be covered under CARP because it is reserved for the future expansion of the campus? Yes. That are being cultivated by farmers can still be exempted from the CARP coverage. In the case of the Central Mindanao University v. DARAB, the Supreme Court ruled that the University has the prerogative to determine

SECTION 5 - SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION. May it be argued that distribution of all lands under RA 6657 must be implemented and covered within the original ten (10) year period rather than the extended period? Yes, because section 5 and section 7 of the CARL, are clearly mandatory. However, while RA 6657 was enacted on June 10, 1988, and the 10-year period would be expired on June 10, 1998, RA 8532 was enacted also in 1998 apparently extending the period for implementation (0r completion) up to 2008 by amending section 63 of the CARL, to read as follows: The amount needed to implement this Act (CARL) until 2008 shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund. SECTION 6 RETENTION LIMITS Is a homestead subject to CARL? Section 6 above, among others, provides that the original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of the CARL shall retain the same area as long they continue to cultivate said homestead. Therefore, a homestead shall not be subject to compulsory coverage if the following conditions are present: 1 The original homestead grantee or his direct compulsory heir still owns the original homestead at the time of the effectivity of the CARL; 2 The original homestead grantee or his direct compulsory heir(s) was cultivating the homestead ad of the effectivity of the CARL on June 18, 1989. Is personal cultivation a mandatory preconditioned to be entitled to retention? No, personal cultivation preconditioned for retention. is not mandatory

What happens if the area that the landowner chooses to retain is tenanted? In case the area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the following options:

whether a particular part of the school property is necessary for educational purposes. Hence, in this case, that parcel of land is exempted. Why are lands with 18 slope and undeveloped lands exempt from CARPs coverage? The exemption is specifically mentioned in RA 6657, section 10 and is based on the Forestry Code which provides that such lands should not be disposed of and developed for agriculture because such type of lands are highly susceptible to soil erosion. SECTION 11- COMMERCIAL FARMING Are there administrative policies covering expiration of deferments of commercial farms? Yes. All commercial farms whose deferment expired last June 15, 1998 are subject to immediate acquisition and distribution under the CARP. Those whose deferments have yet to expire will be acquired and distributed only upon expiration of their respective deferment periods. As a general rule, acquired commercial farms shall be distributed to qualified beneficiaries based on the order of priority prescribed under section 22 of RA 6657. Those who have worked longest on the land shall be given preference. What is the commercial farms? mode of acquisition of

The right of the LO to reject the offered compensation is recognized by section 16 of RA 6657 and by the Supreme Court itself. But is it constitutional to transfer title and possession even if the LO has rejected the offered compensation? Under section 16, the DAR may still proceed to take the land even if the LO has rejected the amount offered as compensation so long as it makes the deposit of cash and bond as payment. However, in Association of Small Landowners v. Honorable Secretary of Agrarian Reform, title and ownership remains with the LO until full payment of just compensation. There is no automatic transfer of title and ownership. Are untitled covered by CARL? private agricultural lands

Yes. The Department of Justice, in Opinion No. 176, series of 1992, has opined that the term private agricultural land should be interpreted as including all lands, whether titled or untitled. There should be no distinction in the application of the law where none is indicated. General words and phrases in a statute should be accorded their natural and general significance. Upon whom should notices of compulsory acquisition be served? In Roxas & Co., Inc. v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., notice should be sent to the landowner, and if a corporation or partnership, to its president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent or any of its directors or partners. However, service upon an administrator who is not shown to be authorized to received notices or act on behalf of the corporation in relation to the compulsory acquisition is not valid. What is the procedure in the compulsory acquisition of private lands which must be followed according to the Supreme Court? In Roxas & Co., Inc. v. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., our Supreme Court rules that under CARL, there are two modes of acquisition of private land; compulsory and voluntary. The procedure set forth in section 16 of RA 6657 must be followed, else, the acquisition would be illegal: In the compulsory acquisition of private lands, the landholding, the landowners and the farmer beneficiaries must first be identified, After identification, the DAR shall send a Notice of Acquisition to the land owner, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post it in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Within thirty days from receipt of the Notice of Acquisition, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejections of the offer. If the landowner accepts, he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the certificate of title. Within thirty days from the execution of the deed of transfer, the LBP pays the owner the purchase price. If the landowner rejects the DARs offer or fails to make a reply, the DAR conducts summary administrative

Commercial farms with be expired deferment period shall be acquired either through voluntary offer to sell (VOS), compulsory acquisition (CA), or direct payment scheme (DPS). SECTION 16- PROCEDURE FOR ACQUISITION OF PRIVATE LANDS Can the DAR cancel the landowners titles and issue CLOAs unilaterally upon acquisition? Under DARAB 2003 Rules of Procedure, the DAR Secretary can issue EPs and CLOAs and select beneficiaries, exemplifying how far DAR has infringed on landowners rights. The practice is that almost simultaneously with the cancellation of the title of the landowner in favor of the Republic of the Philippines. CLOAs are issued cancelling the ROP title even if the FBs have not even started amortizing or paying for the land. This is specifically provided for under AO no. 10, series of 1990, which authorizes the issuance of CLOAs immediately upon land acquisition. However, the amortization period for the FBs to pay the compensation is 30 annual payments. Yet final titles or CLOAs are issued even if the 30 year period for amortization has not even begun to run. What is painful to the landowner is that he can not protest its issuance until after the fact under AO No. 2, series of 1994 on the sole ground that the beneficiary is not qualified. What happens when the LO rejects the compensation offered? May his land be taken upon mere deposit of the down payment and bonds?

proceedings to determine just compensation for the land. The landowner, the LBP representative and other interested parties may submit evidence on just compensation within fifteen days from notice. Within thirty days from submission, the DAR shall decide the case and inform the owner of its decision and the amount of just compensation. Upon receipt by the owner of its decision and the sponding payment, or, in case rejection or lack of response from the latter, the DAR shall deposit the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds with an accessible bank. The DAR shall immediately take possession of the land and cause the issuance of a transfer certificate of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The land shall then be redistributed to the farmer beneficiaries. Any party may question the decision of the DAR in the regular courts for final determination of just compensation,

Unless accepted by the landowner the determination by the DAR/LBP is only preliminary; otherwise, courts have the right of review with finality.

Is prior recourse to the DARAB necessary before a case for the determination of just compensation, or for a criminal violation of the CARP Law, may be filed before the Regional Trial Court, as a Special Agrarian Court? No, such prior recourse to the DARAB is not necessary. If the preliminary determination of compensation by the LBP and the DAR has been rejected by the landowner, and there has not yet been a final determination of just compensation, can the landowner withdraw the amount of compensation deposited in his name? Yes, the landowner can withdraw the amount even while there is still no final determination of just compensation. According to the Supreme Court to allow the taking of the landowners property and in the meantime withhold the right of the landowners to appropriate the amounts already deposited in their behalf as compensation for their properties simple because they rejected the DARs valuation, and notwithstanding that they have already been deprived of the possession and use of such properties is n oppressive exercise of eminent domain. Is the determination of just compensation by the DAR final and conclusive upon the landowner and other interested parties? No. The Supreme Court has repeatedly declared that the determination of just compensation is a function addressed to the courts of justice and may not be usurped or taken away by any branch or official of the government. In fact, section 16 (f) of RA 6657 clearly provides: Any party who disagrees with the decision (of DAR) may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.

SECTION 17 COMPENSATION

DETERMINATION

OF

JUST

What are the factors in the evaluation of the property expropriated? The Supreme Court, in the case of Republic v. Lichauco, established the factors to be considered and not be considered in evaluating the property expropriated, thus: In evaluating the property expropriated in the case at bar, it is considered improper to consider as basis the following factors; (1) the value of other properties which in their nature are not similar to or are located far away from the property taken; (2) the buying power of the tenants in whose favor the expropriation is made or the fact that the transaction would be exempt from income tax; or (3) the price offered by the owners for the property by way of compromise to avoid protracted and expensive litigation and subject to the condition that the

SECTION 18 COMPENSATION

VALUATION

AND

MODE

OF

Is the consent of the tenant necessary to the valuation or just compensation of lands expropriated under the agrarian reform program? In Landbank of the Philippines v. Court of Appeals and Jose Pascual, the Supreme Court answered this query in the negative. Are landowners entitled to recover interest from the time of taking? Owners of expropriated lands are entitled to recover interest from the date the condemnor takes possession of the lands and the amount granted by the court shall cease to earn interest only from the moment they are paid to the owners or deposited in Court. Is the determination of just compensation by the DAR/LBP final?

SECTION 20 VOLUNTARY LAND TRANSFER How does the voluntary land transfer work? Under Section 20 of RA 6657, landowners of agricultural lands subject to acquisition under the CARP may enter into a voluntary arrangement for the direct transfer of their lands to qualified beneficiaries. Section 21 further provides that direct payment may be made in cash or in kind by the agrarian reform beneficiary (ARB) to the landowner under terms to be mutually agreed upon by both parties and which shall be binding upon registration with and approval by the DAR,

SECTION 22 QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES What is a landless resident? A landless beneficiary is one who owns less than three hectares of agricultural land. This section does not define a landless resident. It may mean a squatter. What must a claimant show in order to be entitled to be a beneficiary of the agrarian reform program? The claimant must prove that he is landless peasant. (In the language of the Constitution, he must be either farmer or a regular farm worker, who is landless.) Is transfer of ownership and possession to the farmer beneficiary automatic under the CARL? The CARL requires the receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with the landowner. No outright change of ownership is contemplated either. Does the landowner have the right to participate in the identification of farmer-beneficiaries of his land? Yes. Failure to notify the landowner regarding the placement of his land under agrarian reform, which deprives him of an opportunity to participate in the inclusion-exclusion proceedings (i.e., identification of farmer-beneficiaries), is a violation of the land owners right due process. This was the ruling of the Supreme Court in Samahang Magbubukid ng Kapdula, Inc. v. Court of Appeals.

Likewise, if one owns two hectares of agricultural land, he may still qualify as a landless beneficiary to the extent of an additional hectare of the land he tills. SECTION 31- CORPORATE LANDOWNERS How was the stock distribution option been applied? Can it still be availed of at present? Under section 31, corporations owning agricultural lands utilized for agricultural production and existing as of June 15, 1988 (the date of the effectivity of CARL) may apply for and avail of the voluntary stock distribution plan and retain control of their agricultural operations. Like in the case of Hacienda Luisita, new corporations incorporated after the effectivity of CARL may also apply, provide that they are spin-offs from their mother corporations, which are otherwise qualified to apply but have organized a separate corporation to facilitate stock distribution. The stock distribution option had to be filed and approved within two years from the effectivity of the CARL and prior to DARs notice of compulsory acquisition. What are the basic criteria for evaluation of the Stock Distribution Option? The basic criteria for Distribution Option are as follows: 1 evaluating a Stock

3 SECTION 23 DISTRIBUTION LIMIT 4 What is the difference between the areas that a beneficiary may own under PD 27 and under RA 6657? Under PD 27 a tenant is deemed an owner if he tills a farm which is not irrigated and is not more than five hectares. But if the ricelands is irrigated, it is enough if the area is three hectares. On the other hand, under Section 23 of RA 6657, a qualified beneficiary cannot own more than three hectares. It does not specify whether the three hectares are irrigated or not. Moreover, under the above definition, a person who owns more three hectares of commercial or residential land but does not own any agricultural land can qualify as a landless beneficiary and is therefore qualified to acquire three hectares of the agricultural land he tills.

That the continued operation of the corporation withy its agricultural land intact is viable, with potential for growth and increased profitability; That the plan for stock distribution to qualified beneficiaries would result in increased income and greater benefits to them, than if the lands were divided and distributed to them individually; That the stock distribution plan is acceptable to a majority, defined as 50% plus 1 of all the qualified beneficiaries; That the plan shall include a provision that the books of the corporation shall be subject to periodic audit by certified Public Accountants chosen by the beneficiaries; That irrespective of the value of the beneficiaries equity in the corporation, they shall be assured of at least one (1) representative in the Board of Directors or in the management or executive committee, if one exists, of the corporation and the corporation must amend its by laws and/or articles of incorporation to provide such; That the beneficiary who avails of a stock option must first execute the necessary waiver from being a beneficiary in another stock distribution plan under this rule and/or land distribution under Section 22 of RA 6657; and Other criteria that the DAR may prescribe in making its own independent evaluation of the stock distribution plan of the corporate landowner-applicant.

SECTION 34PAYMENT OF COOPERATIVE OR ASSOCIATION

SHARES

OF

What does EO 229 say about the composition and function of BARC? Section 19 of Executive Order 229 enumerates the composition of the BARC. It is composed of eleven representatives including those from the Land Bank, DA, NGOs, DENR, ARBs, Non-ARBs, and one representative from the Landowners. The members of the BARC serve without any remuneration, either salary or honorarium. Agrarian disputes lodged before the BARC shall be mediated or conciliated within 30 days, failing which, the BARC shall issue a certification of its proceedings.

Who was the authority to determine just compensation for lands under RA 6657? Under the above provisions of law, it is clearly the DAR that primarily determines the valuation of the land for purposes of just compensation.

SECTION 44 BARC Certification is not required in the following cases: What is the PARCOMMs function in the implementation of agrarian reform? The PARCCOM shall recommend to the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) the following: 1 Market prices to be used in the determination of the profit sharing obligation of agricultural entities in the province in relation to Section 32 of RA No. 6657; Adoption of the Direct Payment Scheme (DPS) between the landowner and the farmer and/or farm worker-beneficiary provided that the following provisions shall be followed: (a) amount and terms of payment are not more burdensome to the agrarian reform beneficiary (ARB) than under the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) coverage provision of the CARL ; (b) that the ARBs agree to the amount and the terms of payment; (c) that the DAR shall act as mediator in cases of disagreement between the land-owner and the farmer, and (d) that the farmer and/or farm worker-beneficiary shall be eligible to borrow from the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) an amount equal to eighty-five percent (85%) of the selling price of the land that they have acquired, pursuant to the said banks credit loan assistance program; and Continuous processing of application for leaseback arrangements, joint-venture agreements and other schemes that will optimize the operating size for agricultural production, and also promote both security of tenure and income to ARBs. However, leaseback arrangements shall be the last resort. The PARC shall provide the guidelines for the province-by-province implementation of the CARP taking into account the following: (a) Peculiarities and needs of each place; (b) Kind of crops needed or suited; (c) Land distribution work load (d) Beneficiary development activities; (e) Promote the development of identified Agrarian Reform Communities (ARCs) SECTION 46 (1) Where the issue involves the valuation of land to determine just compensation for its acquisition; Where one party is a public or private corporation, partnership, association or juridical person, or a public officer or employee and the dispute relates to the performance of his official functions; Where the matter at issue involves merely the administrative implementation of agrarian reform law, rule, guideline or policy; and,

(2)

(3)

(4)

Such other cases where the Secretary of Agrarian Reform shall determine that the matter at issue is beyond the pale of mediation, conciliation or compromise. What is the extent of the jurisdiction of the DAR? The DAR has exclusive and original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except: (1) (2) (3) Those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DA and the DENR Petitions for the determination of just compensation; and Prosecution of criminal offenses under CARL

What is the scope of the jurisdiction of the DARAB? The DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) has primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of agrarian laws, as well as their implementing rules and regulations. (See Machete vs. Court of Appeals, 250 SCRA 176 [1995]) How may the functions of the DAR Regional Offices be distinguished from those of the DAR Adjudication Board and its adjudicators?

The functions of the Regional Office concerns the implementation of agrarian reform laws while that of the DARB/RARAD/PARAD is the adjudication of the agrarian reform case (See Cabral vs. Court of Appealss, G.R. No. 101974 July 12, 2001). The first is essentially executive. It pertains to the enforcement an administration of the laws carrying them into practical operation ad enforcing due observance. The second is judicial in nature involving as it does the determination of the rights and obligations of the parties. extend lands? Does the jurisdiction of the DARAB to all disputes over agricultural

In Landbank of the Phil. vs. Arlene De Leon, G.R. No. 143275, September 10, 2002, the Supreme Court said that a petition for review, not an ordinary appeal, is the proper procedure in effecting an appeal from such decisions because of the need for absolute dispatch in the dtermination of just compensation. SECTION 65. CONVERSION OF LAND What is land conversion? Conversion of the act changing the current use of a piece of land into some other use. Specifically, for the DAR, land use conversion refers to the change from agricultural to nonagricultural use (residential, commercial, industrial, etc) From a more technical perspective, conversion is defined as the act of authorizing the change of the current use of a piece of land into some other use Is the conversion? DAR against land use

No. DARAB does not have jurisdiction over controversies that do not relate to tenurial arrangements, even if agricultural lands are involved. The law states that an agrarian dispute must be a controversy relating to tenurial arrangement over lands devoted to agriculture (see Isidro vs. Court of Appeals, 216 SCRA 503 [1993]). What must exist in order that DARAB may entertain a case? Agricultural tenancy or agricultural leasehold relationship must be shown to exist. Where there is no proof of that a tenancy relationship exists, then the DARAB cannot exercise jurisdiction over a case (see Benavidez vs. Court of Appeals, 313 SCRA 714 [1999] May the court issue an injunctive writ against the DAR?

No. The DAR recognizes that land use conversion is necessary in the countrys march to progress. CARP is not the only program of the government. Other programs on tourism, housing, and industrialization are being pursued and these all require land. What areas are highly restricted from conversion? 1. 2. 3. Irrigable lands not covered by irrigation projects Agro industrial croplands or lands presently planted to industrial crops Highlands located in elevation of 500 meters or above and have potential for growing semitemperate and high value crops Lands covered with notice of valuation and acquistion or subject of a perfected agreement on voluntary land transfer/direct payment scheme Environmentally critical areas as determined by the DENR

Yes. Inspite of Section 5 of RA 6657, in meritorious cases where administrative irregularities have been committed tantamount to grave abuse of discretion or where constitutional rights have been violated or where graft and corruption is being committed (Malaga vs. Penachos, G.R. no. 86695, September 3, 1992). SECTION 56 Special Agrarian Court May a case for just compensation be filed directly with the Special Agrarian Court without first filing it with the DARAB, RARAD or PARAD for preliminary determination of of the value? Yes. The case maybe filed directly with the Special Agrarian Court under Section 57 of RA 6657 which states that the RTC has original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners (see Landbank of the Phil. vs. CA, G.R. No. 126332, November 16, 1999). SECTION 60. Appeals What is the proper procedure for an appeal from the just compensation cases decided by the Special Agrarian Court?

4.

5.