Comprehensive

Agrarian Reform
Program Cases
 G.R. No. 188174
June 29,2015
DAR through Provincial Agrian
Reform Officer of Davao and
Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
of Calinan, Davao
vs
Woodland Agro-Development Inc.
FACTS:
• Woodland is the registered owner
of a parcel of agricultural land
covered by Transfer Certificate of
Title (TCT) No. T-113207 with an
area of 10.0680 hectares located
at Subasta, Calinan, Davao City.
• On 11 December 2003, the DAR
issued an NOC placing 5.0680
hectares under the coverage of
the CARL for having exceeded the
retention limit provided by law.

• TCT No. T-113207 was canceled,

and a new title covering 5.0680
hectares was issued in the name
of the Republic of the Philippines.
• Thereafter, on 14 February 2005,
Certificates of Land Ownership
Award (CLOAs) were issued in favor
of five farmer beneficiaries.

• On 3 March 2005, Woodland filed

with the RTC a Complaint for
"Declaratory Relief, Annulment of the
Notice of Coverage under R.A. 6657,
with Prayer for the Issuance of a
Temporary Restraining Order and/or
Writ of Preliminary Injunction.
• Woodland contended that the
issuance of the NOC was illegal,
because R.A. 6657 had already
expired on 15 June 1998. It
argued that pursuant to Section 5
of the law, the agency had a
period of ten (10) years to
implement the CARP from the
time of its effectivity on 15 June
1988.
• It further argued that the CARL's
amendatory law, R.A. 8532, did not
extend the DAR's authority to acquire
agrarian lands for distribution. It
theorized that the budget
augmentations legislated in R.A.
8532 pertained only to the funding
requirements of the other facets of
the CARP implementation and
excluded the acquisition of private
agricultural lands.
• The DAR hinged its Answer on
(DOJ) Opinion No. 009, Series of
1997 issued by Teofisto
Guingona, Jr. He opined that
Section 5 was merely directory in
character; that the 10-year period
of implementation was only a
time frame given to the DAR for
the acquisition and distribution
of public and private agricultural
lands covered by R.A. 6657.
• The schedule was meant to guide
the DAR in setting its priorities,
but it was not by any means a
limitation of authority in the
absence of more categorical
language to that effect.
• The RTC ruled that the DAR's act
of sending Woodland an NOC
was already a breach of R.A.
6657, since the NOC was issued
beyond the 10-year period
prescribed by law.
ISSUE:

•Whether or not can DAR

(petitioner) still issue
Notices of Coverage after
15 June 1998.
RULING:
• The Court cannot subscribe to
Woodland's stance that the
DAR's authority to issue
notices of coverage and
acquisition ceased after the 10-
year implementation period
mentioned in Section 5 of the
CARL.
• The success of the CARP depends
heavily on the adept
implementation by the DAR. The
agency's primordial procedural
tool for realizing the law's
objectives is the issuance of
Notices of Coverage and
Acquisition.
• The success of the CARP depends
heavily on the adept
implementation by the DAR. The
agency's primordial procedural
tool for realizing the law's
objectives is the issuance of
Notices of Coverage and
Acquisition.
• For the court, to sustain
Woodland's theory that the DAR
can no longer issue those notices
after 15 June 1998 despite the
enactment of R.A. 8532 would
thwart the CARP's purpose.
• As amended by R.A. 8532, the
first paragraph of Section 63
stated:"The amount needed to
implement this Act until the year
2008 shall be funded from the
Agrarian Reform Fund.“
• In 2009, Congress again amended
certain provisions of the CARL,
including Section 63
• The amendment stated that The
amount needed to further
implement the CARP as
provided in this Act, until June
30, 2014, upon expiration of
funding under Republic Act No.
8532 and other pertinent laws,
shall be funded from the
Agrarian Reform Fund and
other funding sources in the
amount of at least One hundred
fifty billion pesos "
• It showed that the CARP was
indeed extended from 1998 to
2008 via R.A. 8532. Had there
been no prior extension from
1998 to 2008, how else could the
CARP have been extended by R.A.
9700 until 30 June 2014? There
could have been an extension
only if the program sought to be
extended had not expired.
• The fact that Section 63 falls under
the chapter on "Financing" only
emphasizes its general applicability.
Hence, the phrase "until the year
2008" used in R.A. 8532 unmistakably
extends the DAR's authority to issue
NOCs for purposes of acquiring and
distributing private agricultural
lands.

• Finally, R.A. 9700 extended the

acquisition and distribution of all
agricultural lands until 30 June 2014.
• WHEREFORE, the foregoing
Petition is GRANTED. The
Decision dated 2 February 2009
and Order dated 8 May 2009 of
the Regional Trial Court of Davao
City Branch 14 in Special Civil
Case No. 30855-2005 are
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
DAR's Notice of Coverage dated
11 December 2003 and Notice of
Acquisition dated 5 October 2004
are UPHELD with full effect. SO
ORDERED.
G.R. No. 132477
August 31, 2005

ROS
vs.
DAR
FACTS:

• Petitioners are the owners /

developers of several parcels of
land. By virtue of a Municipal
Ordinance, these lands were
reclassified as industrial lands.
•As part of their preparation
for the development of the
subject lands as an industrial
park, petitioners secured all
the necessary permits and
appropriate government
certifications.
• However, the DAR disallowed the
conversion of the subject lands for
industrial use and directed the
petitioners to cease and desist from
further developments on the land.

• Petitioners filed with the RTC a

Complaint for Injunction with
Application for Temporary
Restraining Order and a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction.
• However, the RTC, ruling that it is
the DAR which has jurisdiction,
dismissed the complaint.

• When the case was brought to the

SC, it was referred to the CA.
However, the CA affirmed the
dismissal of the case. Hence, this
petition.
ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the DAR has the
primary jurisdiction over the
case.

2. Whether or not the RTC can

issue a writ of injunction against
the DAR.
RULING: #1
• After the passage of Republic Act
No. 6657, otherwise known as
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program, agricultural lands,
though reclassified, have to go
through the process of
conversion, jurisdiction over
which is vested in the DAR.
• The Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) is mandated to
“approve or disapprove
applications for conversion,
restructuring or readjustment of
agricultural lands into non-
agricultural uses,” pursuant to
Section 4(i) of Executive Order
No. 129-A, Series of 1987.
• It being settled that jurisdiction
over conversion of land is vested
in the DAR, the
complaint for injunction was
correctly dismissed by the trial
and appellate courts under the
doctrine of primary jurisdiction.
RULING: #2
•Section 68 of Rep. Act No.
6657 provides:

Immunity of Government Agencies

from Undue Interference. – No
injunction, restraining order,
prohibition or mandamus shall be
issued by the lower courts against.
• the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), the Department of
Agriculture (DA), the Department
of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), and the
Department of Justice (DOJ) in
their implementation of the
program.
 G.R. No. 133706
May 7, 2002
Francisco Estolas
vs.
Adolfo Mabalot
FACTS:
• Adolfo Mabalot was awarded with
an agricultural land by virtue of
PD 27. Corresponding Certificate
of Land Transfer was issued on
November 11, 1973. In May 1978,
he needed money for medical
treatment and passed the land to
Francisco Estolas in exchange of
P5,800 and P200 worth of rice.
• According to Mabalot, the
transfer was only a verbal
mortgage but Estolas treated the
same as sale. Department of
Agrarian Reform then issued a
Transfer Certificate Title in favor
of Estolas. In 1988, Mabalot tried
to redeem the land from
petitioner but was unsuccessful.
• DAR Regional Office decided in
favor of the petitioner
contending that there was
abandonment on the part of the
respondent. DAR Central Office,
however, reversed its regional
office’s decision. Estolas
appealed but Court of Appeals
ruled in favor of respondent,
• contending that the transfer of
land to petitioner is void and
there was no abandonment by
respondent since failure on the
redemption was due to a higher
redemption price set by the
petitioner.
 issue
• Whether or not Is the transfer of
the agricultural land valid
 ruling

• Presidential Decree 27 provides

that title to land acquired
pursuant to its mandate or to that
of the Land Reform Program of
the government shall not be
transferable except to the
grantee’s heirs by hereditary
succession or back to the
government by other legal means.
• Supreme Court ruled in favor of
the respondent. It affirmed the
decision of the Court of Appeals
and cited that there is no room
for interpretation in the provision
of PD 27 regarding transfer of
agricultural land. It affirmed, as
well, CA’s decision on the non-
abandonment of the subject land
by the respondent.
 G.R. No. 158228
March 23, 2004
• DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM, as represented by its
Secretary, ROBERTO M.
PAGDANGANAN
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
CULTURE AND SPORTS (DECS)
 facts
• Lot No. 2509 and Lot No. 817-D
consisting of an aggregate area of
189.2462 hectares are located at
Hacienda Fe, Escalante, Negros
Occidental and Brgy. Gen. Luna,
Sagay, Negros Occidental,
respectively.
• On October 21, 1921, these
lands were donated by the late
Esteban Jalandoni to
respondent DECS.
Consequently, titles thereto
were transferred in the name of
DECS.
• On July 15, 1985, DECS leased
the lands to Anglo Agricultural
Corporation for 10 agricultural
crop years, and was renewed
• On June 10, 1993, Eugenio
Alpar and several others,
claiming to be permanent and
regular farm workers of the
subject lands, filed a petition
for Compulsory Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP)
coverage with the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Office (MARO)
of Escalante.
• After investigation, MARO Piñosa,
sent a "Notice of Coverage" to
respondent DECS, stating that the
subject lands are now covered by
CARP and inviting its
representatives for a conference
with the farmer beneficiaries.
Then, MARO Piñosa submitted his
report to OIC-PARO Stephen M.
Leonidas,
• who recommended to the DAR
Regional Director the approval of
the coverage of the landholdings.
• On August 7, 1998, DAR Regional
Director Dominador B. Andres
approved the recommendation.
• Respondent DECS appealed the
case to the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform which affirmed the Order
of the Regional Director.
• Aggrieved, respondent DECS filed
a petition for certiorari with the
Court of Appeals, which set aside
the decision of the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform.
• Hence, the instant petition for
review.
 issue
• Whether or not the subject
properties are exempt from the
coverage of Republic Act No.
6657, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law of 1998
 Ruling

• Yes. The SC agrees with the

contention of DAR that the
subject lands are not exempt
from the CARP coverage because
the same are not actually, directly
and exclusively used as school
sites or campuses, as they are in
fact leased to Anglo Agricultural
Corporation.
• Further, to be exempt from the
coverage, it is the land per se, not
the income derived therefrom,
that must be actually, directly and
exclusively used for educational
purposes.
• Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657
enumerates the types of lands
which are exempted from the
coverage of CARP as well as the
purposes of their exemption, viz:
• c) Lands actually, directly and
exclusively used and found to be
necessary for national
defense, school sites and
campuses, including experimental
farm stations operated by public
or private schools for educational
purposes, … , shall be exempt
from the coverage of this Act.
• The importance of the phrase
"actually, directly, and exclusively
used and found to be necessary"
cannot be understated, as what
respondent DECS would want us
to do by not taking the words in
their literal and technical
definitions. The words of the law
are clear and unambiguous.
 G.R. No. 170018
September 23, 2013
•Department of Agrarian
Reform
•vs.
•Court of Appeals
 facts
• BATCO was the owner of several
parcels of agricultural land. On
September 20, 1989, the aforesaid
lands were voluntarily offered for
sale (VOS) to the government
pursuant to Section 19 of Republic
Acts No. (RA) 6657 otherwise
known as the “Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1998”
• On May 6, 1997, BATCO
received a Notice of Land
valuation and acquisition from
DAR, however BATCO
rejected the valuation and
opposed the same before the
DAR Adjudication Board
(DARAB)
• On May 6, 1998, BATCO filed
before the DAR Regional Office
a petition for the exemption of
the subject portion from the
coverage of the government's
Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP). It
alleged that almost all of the
entire subject lands have been
devoted to cattle and livestock
production since their
acquisition in1987.
The DAR Regional Director’s
Ruling
• Director Tamin issued an Order
dismissing BATCO's petition,
holding that based on the DAR's
ocular inspection/investigation, the
subject portion was "not
exclusively, directly and actually
used for livestock, poultry, and
swine raising as of June15, 1988,
the date of effectivity of RA 6657,
and contrary to the spirit and
intent of DAR AO 09-93.“
• Hence, the subject portion is
not exempt from CARP
coverage. Accordingly, new
certificates of title were issued
in favor of MCFARMCO.
• BATCO appealed to the Office
of the DAR Secretary,
reiterating its claim that the
subject portion was devoted to
cattle production prior to June
15, 1988.
• But subsequently, BATCO
further admitted that only a
portion of the subject lands
was devoted to livestock
raising, for which the
corresponding exemption was
prayed.
 DAR Secretary’s Ruling
• On August 31, 1999, Secretary
Morales issued an Order denying
BATCO's motion for
reconsideration.
• BATCO's appeal was
initially dismissed but
subsequently reinstated by the
CA.
• On September 6, 2005, the CA
issued a Decision reversing and
setting aside Secretary Morales’
February 25, 1999 Order.
• The CA gave credence to
BATCO's documentary evidence
to support its claim of the
existence and presence of
livestock in the lands in
question starting the year 1987
•The CA cancelled TCT in the
name of MCFARMCO and
directed the Basilan RD to
issue a new set of titles in
BATCO's favor.
 ISSUE
• Whether or not the CA gravely abused
its discretion in excluding/exempting
the subject lands from CARP coverage
despite BATCO's admission that only a
portion thereof was devoted to
livestock raising and considering its
previous voluntary offer of the lands
to the government under the VOS
scheme.
 ruling
• The CA gravely abused its
discretion in declaring the subject
lands as exempt from CARP
coverage and ordering the
cancellation of MCFARMCO's
certificates of title and the
issuance of new titles in BATCO's
favor.
• The determination of the land’s
classification as either an
agricultural or industrial land –
and, in turn, whether or not the
land falls under agrarian reform
exemption – must be
preliminarily threshed out before
the DAR, particularly, before the
DAR Secretary.
• Verily, issues of exclusion or
exemption partake the nature of
Agrarian Law Implementation
cases which are well within the
competence and jurisdiction of
the DAR Secretary.
• Towards this end, the latter is
ordained to exercise his legal
mandate of excluding or
exempting a property from CARP
coverage based on the factual
circumstances of each case and
in accordance with the law and
applicable jurisprudence.
• Thus, considering too his
technical expertise on the matter,
courts cannot simply brush aside
his pronouncements regarding
the status of the land in dispute,
i.e., as to whether or not it falls
under CARP coverage.
 G.R. No. 103302
August 12, 1993
• NATALIA REALTY, INC., AND ESTATE
DEVELOPERS AND INVESTORS
CORP.
vs.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM, SEC. BENJAMIN T. LEONG
and DIR. WILFREDO LEANO, DAR
REGION IV
 FACTS

• Natalia Realty, Inc. is the owner of

three (3) contiguous parcels of land
located in Antipolo, Rizal.
• On April 18, 1979, Presidential
Proclamation No. 1637 set aside lands
located in the Municipalities of
Antipolo, San Mateo and Montalban as
townsite areas to absorb the
population overspill in the metropolis.
• The NATALIA properties are
situated within the proclaimed
areas.
• Estate Developers and Investors
Corporation, as developer of
NATALIA properties, applied for
and was granted preliminary
approval and locational clearances
by the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission and
likewise issued development
permits after complying with the
• Thus, the NATALIA properties
later became the Antipolo Hills
Subdivision.
• When the “Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988”
went into effect, DAR, through its
Municipal Agrarian Reform
Officer, issued a Notice of
Coverage on the undeveloped
portions of the Antipolo Hills
Subdivision.
• Subsequently, members of the
Samahan ng Magsasaka sa
Bundok Antipolo, Inc. filed a
complaint against NATALIA and
EDIC before the DAR Regional
Adjudicator to restrain petitioners
from developing areas under
cultivation by them.
• The Regional Adjudicator
temporarily restrained petitioners
from proceeding with the
development of the subdivision.
Petitioners then moved to dismiss
the complaint; it was denied.
• Petitioners NATALIA and EDIC
elevated their cause to the DAR
Adjudication Board (DARAB);
however, the DARAB remanded
the case to the Regional
Adjudicator for further
proceedings.
• NATALIA wrote respondent
Secretary of Agrarian Reform
reiterating its request to set aside
the Notice of Coverage. Neither
respondent Secretary nor
respondent Director took action
on the protest-letters, compelling
the petitioners to institute this
proceeding.
• NATALIA and EDIC argue that the
properties ceased to be
agricultural lands when they were
included in the areas reserved
by Presidential Proclamation for
the townsite reservation.
• DAR then contended that the
permits granted were not valid
and binding since they did not
comply with the implementing
Standards, Rules and Regulations
of PD 957 (The Subdivision and
Condominium Buyers Protective
Decree),
• and that there was no valid
conversion of the properties for
no application for conversion of
the NATALIA lands from
agricultural to residential was
ever filed with the DAR.
 ISSUE
• Whether lands not classified for
agricultural use, as approved by the
Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board and its agencies prior to June
15, 1988, are covered by the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
RULING
• Section 4 of R.A. 6657 provides
that the CARL shall "cover,
regardless of tenurial
arrangement and commodity
produced, all public and private
agricultural lands." As to what
constitutes "agricultural land," it
is referred to as land devoted to
agricultural activity and not
classified as mineral, forest,
residential, commercial or
industrial land. "
• It is clear that the undeveloped
portions of the Antipolo Hills
Subdivision cannot be
considered as agricultural
lands for they were intended for
residential use.
• Indeed, lands not devoted to
agricultural activity are outside
the coverage of CARL. These
include lands previously
converted to non-agricultural
uses prior to the effectivity of
CARL by government agencies
other than respondent DAR.
• Since the NATALIA lands were
converted prior to June 15,
1988, respondent DAR is bound
by such conversion. It was
therefore error to include the
undeveloped portions of the
Antipolo Hills Subdivision within
the coverage of CARL.
• The Supreme Court ruled for
petitioners and held that public
respondents gravely abused
their discretion in issuing the
assailed Notice of Coverage of
lands over which they no longer
have jurisdiction.
 •DAR
•VS.
•CUENCA
 FACTS
• Private respondent Cuenca is the
registered owner of a parcel of
land situated in La Carlota City and
devoted principally to the planting
of sugar cane. The MARO of La
Carlota City issued and sent a
NOTICE OF COVERAGE to private
respondent Cuenca placing the
landholding under the compulsory
coverage of R.A. 6657.
• The NOTICE OF COVERAGE
also stated that the Land Bank
of the Philippines (LBP) will
determine the value of the
subject land pursuant to
Executive Order No. 405.
Private respondent Cuenca
filed with the RTC for
Annulment of Notice of
Coverage and Declaration of
Unconstitutionality of E.O. No.
405.
• Cuenca alleged that the
implementation of CARP in his
landholding is no longer with
authority of law considering that, if
at all, the implementation should
have commenced and should have
been completed between June 1988
to June 1992; that Executive Order
No. 405 amends, modifies and/or
repeals CARL and,
• therefore, it is unconstitutional
considering that then President
Corazon Aquino no longer had law-
making powers; that the NOTICE
OF COVERAGE is a gross violation
of PD 399.

• Private respondent Cuenca prayed

that the Notice of Coverage be
declared null and void ab initio.
• The respondent Judge denied
MARO Noe Fortunados motion to
dismiss and issued a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction directing
Fortunado and all persons acting in
his behalf to cease and desist from
implementing the Notice of
Coverage, and the LBP from
proceeding with the determination
of the value of the subject land.
• The DAR thereafter filed before the
CA a petition for certiorari
assailing the writ of preliminary
injunction issued by respondent
Judge on the ground of grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack of
jurisdiction.
• Stressing that the issue was not
simply the improper issuance of
the Notice of Coverage, but was
mainly the constitutionality of
Executive Order No. 405, the CA
ruled that the Regional Trial Court
(RTC) had jurisdiction over the
case. Consonant with that
authority, the court a quo also had
the power to issue writs and
processes to enforce or protect the
rights of the parties.
 ISSUE

• Whether the complaint filed by

the private respondent is an
agrarian reform and within the
jurisdiction of the DAR, not with
the trial court
RULING
• A careful perusal of respondents
Complaint shows that the principal
averments and reliefs prayed for
refer -- not to the pure question of
law spawned by the alleged
unconstitutionality of EO 405 -- but
to the annulment of the DARs
Notice of Coverage. Clearly, the
main thrust of the allegations is the
propriety of the Notice of Coverage,
as may be gleaned from the
following averments.
• The main subject matter raised by
private respondent before the trial
court was not the issue of
compensation. Note that no
amount had yet been determined
nor proposed by the DAR. Hence,
there was no occasion to invoke the
courts function of determining just
compensation.
• To be sure, the issuance of the
Notice of Coverage constitutes the
first necessary step towards the
acquisition of private land under
the CARP. Plainly then, the
propriety of the Notice relates to
the implementation of the CARP,
which is under the quasi-judicial
jurisdiction of the DAR.
• Thus, the DAR could not be ousted
from its authority by the simple
expediency of appending an
allegedly constitutional or legal
dimension to an issue that is
clearly agrarian.
G.R. No. 86889 December 4,
1990
•Luz Farms
•vs.
•Secretary of DAR
 Facts:
• On 10 June 1988, RA 6657 was
approved by the President of the
Philippines, which includes,
among others, the raising of
livestock, poultry and swine in its
coverage.
• Petitioner Luz Farms, a
corporation engaged in the
livestock and poultry business,
avers that it would be adversely
affected by the enforcement of
sections 3(b), 11, 13, 16 (d), 17
and 32 of the said law. Hence,
it prayed that the said law be
declared unconstitutional.
• The mentioned sections of the
law provies, among others, the
product-sharing plan, including
those engaged in livestock and
poultry business.

• Luz Farms further argued that

livestock or poultry raising is
not similar with crop or tree
farming.
• That the land is not the
primary resource in this
undertaking and represents no
more than 5% of the total
investments of commercial
livestock and poultry raisers.
That the land is incidental but
not the principal factor or
consideration in their industry.
• Hence, it argued that it should
not be included in the coverage
of RA 6657 which covers
“agricultural lands”.
 Issue:
• Whether or not certain provisions
of RA 6657 is unconstitutional for
including in its definition of
“Agriculture” the livestock and
poultyr industry?
Ruling:
• Looking into the transcript of
the Constitutional Commission
on the meaning of the word
“agriculture”, it showed that
the framers never intended to
include livestock and poultry
industry in the coverage of the
constitutionally mandated
agrarian reform program of the
government.
 GR. 171101

•Hacienda Luisita INC

•Vs.
•Presidential Agrarian
Reform Council (PARC), et.
al.
 FACTS
• On March 17, 1988, Tadeco’s
proposed to PARC a stock
distribution plan (SDP) in favor of
its farmworkers. [Under EO 229
(Sec10) and later RA 6657(Sec31),
Tadeco had the option of availing
stock distribution as an alternative
modality to actual land transfer to
the farmworkers.]
• On August 23, 1988, Tadeco
organized a spin-off
corporation, herein petitioner
HLI, as vehicle to facilitate
stock acquisition by the
farmworkers. For this purpose,
Tadeco conveyed to HLI the
agricultural land portion
(4,915.75 hectares) and other
farm-related properties of
Hacienda Luisita in exchange
• On 1989, some 93% of the then
farmworker-beneficiaries
(FWBs) complement of
Hacienda Luisita signified in a
referendum their acceptance of
the proposed HLI’s Stock
Distribution Plan (SDP). The
SDP was formally entered into
by Tadeco, HLI, and the 5,848
qualified FWBs. This was
attested to by then DAR
• The SDP embodied the basis
and mechanics of HLI’s stock
distribution scheme which was
eventually approved by the
PARC after a follow-up
referendum conducted by the
DAR, in which 5,117 FWBs, out
of 5,315 who participated,
opted to receive shares in HLI.
• On 1995, HLI applied for the
conversion of 500 hectares of
land of the hacienda from
agricultural to industrial use,
pursuant to Sec. 65 of RA 6657.
• Which states
• “ SECTION 65. Conversion of
Lands. — After the lapse of five (5)
years from its award, when the
land ceases to be economically
feasible and sound for agricultural
purposes, or the locality has
become urbanized and the land
will have a greater economic value
for residential, commercial or
industrial purposes, the DAR,
• upon application of the
beneficiary or the landowner,
with due notice to the affected
parties, and subject to existing
laws, may authorize the
reclassification or conversion of
the land and its disposition:
Provided, That the beneficiary
shall have fully paid his
obligation.”
• On 1996, HLI, in exchange for
subscription of 12,000,000
shares of stocks of Centennary,
ceded 300 hectares of the
converted area to the latter.
Subsequently, Centennary
sold the entire 300 hectares for
PhP750 million to Luisita
Industrial Park Corporation
(LIPCO), which used it in
developing an industrial
• Later, LIPCO transferred these 2
parcels to RCBC in payment of
LIPCO’s PhP431,695,732.10 loan
obligations. LIPCO’s titles were
cancelled and new ones were
issued to RCBC. Apart from the
500 hectares,
• another 80.51 hectares were
later detached from Hacienda
Luisita and acquired by the
government as part of the Subic-
Clark-Tarlac Expressway (SCTEX)
complex. Thus, 4,335.75
hectares remained of the original
4,915 hectares Tadeco ceded to
HLI.
 Issue
•Whether or not Sec. 31 of RA
6657, which allows stock
transfer in lieu of outright
land transfer,
unconstitutional?
 ruling
• There is, thus, nothing
unconstitutional in the formula
prescribed by RA 6657. The policy
on agrarian reform is that control
over the agricultural land must
always be in the hands of the
farmers.
• Then it falls on the shoulders of
DAR and PARC to see to it the
farmers should always own
majority of the common shares.
Before the SDP is approved, strict
scrutiny of the proposed SDP
must always be undertaken by
the DAR and PARC,
• such that the value of the
agricultural land contributed to
the corporation must always be
more than 50% of the total assets
of the corporation to ensure that
the majority of the members of
the board of directors are
composed of the farmers.
• The PARC composed of the
President of the Philippines and
cabinet secretaries must see to it
that control over the board of
directors rests with the farmers
by rejecting the inclusion of non-
agricultural assets which will
yield the majority in the board of
directors to non-farmers.
• Any deviation, however, by PARC or
DAR from the correct application of
the formula prescribed by the
second paragraph of Sec. 31 of RA
6675 which states that “Upon
certification by the DAR,
corporations owning agricultural
lands may give their qualified
beneficiaries the right to purchase
such proportion of the capital stock
of the corporation that the
agricultural land,
• actually devoted to agricultural
activities, bears in relation to the
company's total assets, under
such terms and conditions as
may be agreed upon by them ”
does not make said provision
constitutionally infirm. Rather, it
is the application of said
provision that can be challenged.
• Ergo, Sec. 31 of RA 6657 does
not trench on the constitutional
policy of ensuring control by the
farmers.
G.R. No. 188299 January 23,
2013
• HEIRS OF LUIS A. LUNA and REMEGIO A.
LUNA, and LUZ LUNA-SANTOS, as
represented by their Attorneys-in-Fact,
AUREA B. LUBIS, Petitioners,
• v.
• RUBEN S. AFABLE, TOMAS M. AFABLE,
FLORANTE A. EVANGELISTA, LEOVY S.
EVANGELISTA, JAIME M. ILAGAN, ET. AL.,
Respondents.
 facts
• The heirs of Luis A. Luna and
Remegio A. Luna, and Luz Luna-
Santos (“Heirs”) are co-owners of
a parcel of land located in Brgy.
Guinobatan, Calapan City,
Oriental Mindoro which was
subjected to compulsory
acquisition
• under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP). Respondents Ruben
Afable, Tomas Afable, Florante
Evangelista, Leovy Evangelista,
Jaime Ilagan, et al. (Afable, et al.)
were identified by the DAR as
qualified farmer-beneficiaries.
Hence, Certificates of Land
Ownership Award (CLOAs) were
issued to them.
• The heirs sought the
cancellation of the said CLOAs
before the DAR Adjudication
Board (DARAB) Calapan City.
Their petition was anchored
mainly on the reclassification of
the land in question into a light
intensity industrial zone
pursuant to Municipal
Ordinance No. 21, series of
1981,
• enacted by the Sangguniang
Bayan of Calapan, thereby
excluding the same from the
coverage of the agrarian law.
DARAB Calapan City ordered the
cancellation of the CLOAs.
Aggrieved, Afable et al. appealed
to the DARAB Central Office and
the latter ruled in their favour.
• The heirs appealed the decision
to the Office of the President
which ruled that the parcel of
land is excluded from the
coverage of CARP. Then, Afable
et al. appealed the Office of the
President’s decision to the Court
of Appeals. The CA granted the
appeal. Hence, the heirs appealed
to the Supreme Court.
 issue
• Whether or not Municipal
Ordinance No. 21 validly
reclassified the parcel of land
from agricultural to non-
agricultural, and therefore,
exempt from CARP?
 Ruling
• The land is outside the coverage
of the agrarian reform program.

• Local governments have the

power to reclassify agricultural
into non-agricultural lands.
• Sec. 345 of RA No. 2264 (The
Local Autonomy Act of 1959)
specifically empowers municipal
and/or city councils to adopt
zoning and subdivision
ordinances or regulations in
consultation with the National
Planning Commission. By virtue
of a zoning ordinance, the local
legislature may arrange,
• prescribe, define, and apportion
the land within its political
jurisdiction into specific uses
based not only on the present,
but also on the future projection
of needs. The regulation by local
legislatures of land use in their
respective territorial jurisdiction
through zoning and
reclassification is an exercise of
police power.
• The power to establish zones for
industrial, commercial and
residential uses is derived from
the police power itself and is
exercised for the protection and
benefit of the residents of a
locality.
•Petition granted. The Decision
of the Office of the President
is REINSTATED.
 G.R. No. 162070
October 19, 2005

• Department of Agrarian Reform,

represented by Secretary Jose
Mari B. Ponce (OIC)
vs.
Delia T.Sutton, Ella T. Sutton-
Soliman and Harry T. Sutton
 facts

• Respondents herein inherited a

land which has been devoted
exclusively to cow and
calf breeding. Pursuant to the then
existing agrarian reform program
of the government,
• Respondents made a voluntary
offer to sell (VOS) their
landholdings to petitioner DAR
to avail of certain incentives
under the law. a new
agrarian law, Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 6657, also known
as the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law (CARL) of 1988,
took effect.
• It included in its coverage
farms used for raising
livestock, poultry and swine.
Thereafter, in an en banc
decision in the case of Luz
Farms v. Secretary of DAR this
Court ruled that lands devoted
to livestock and poultry-raising
are not included in the
definition of agricultural land.
• Hence, we declared as
unconstitutional certain
provisions of the CARL insofar
as they included livestock farms
in the coverage of agrarian
reform. Thus, respondents filed
with petitioner DAR a formal
request to withdraw their VOS
as
• their landholding was devoted
exclusively to cattle-raising and
thus exempted from the coverage
of the CARL. However,
DAR issued A.O. No. 9, series of
1993 which provided that only
portions of private agricultural
lands used for the raising of
livestock, poultry and swine as of
June 15, 1988 shall be excluded
from the coverage of the CARL.
• The DAR Secretary issued an
Order partially granting the
application of respondents for
exemption from the coverage of
CARL but applying the retention
limits outlined in the DAR A.O.
No. 9. Respondents moved for
reconsideration.
• They contend that their entire
landholding should be exempted
as it is devoted exclusively to
cattle-raising and appealing that
the DAR A.O. No. 9 be declared
unconstitutional.
 issue
• Whether or not DAR
Administrative Order No. 09,
Series of 1993 which prescribes a
maximum retention for owners of
lands devoted to livestock raising
is constitutional?
 ruling
• The A.O. sought to regulate
livestock farms by including them
in the coverage of agrarian reform
and prescribing a maximum
retention limit for their ownership
is invalid as it contravenes the
Constitution.
• The Court clarified in the Luz
Farms Case that livestock,
swine and poultry-raising are
industrial activities and do not
fall within the definition of
“agriculture” or “agricultural
activity.” The raising
of livestock, swine and
poultry is different from crop
or tree farming.
• It is an industrial, not an
agricultural activity. DAR has no
power to regulate livestock farms
which have been exempted by the
Constitution from the coverage
of agrarian reform. It has
exceeded its power in issuing
the assailed A.O. The assailed
A.O. of petitioner DAR was
properly stricken down as
unconstitutional as it enlarges
• the coverage of agrarian reform
beyond the scope intended by the
1987 Constitution.
 G.R. No. 109568
August 8, 2002
•Roland Sigre
•vs.
•Court of Appeals & Lilia
Gonzales
 facts
• Lilia Gonzales, in her capacity as a co-
administratrix of the estate of Matias
Yusay, filed a petition for prohibition
and mandamus, seeking to prohibit
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
from accepting leasehold rentals from
Ernesto Sigre and for LBP to turnover
to Gonzales the rentals previously
remitted by Sigre.
• Sigre was a tenant of Gonzales in
an irrigated rice land in Iloilo. He
remitted rental payments to
Gonzales until the issuance of
memorandum circular no. 6
series of 1978 by the Department
of Agrarian Reform, which set
the guidelines in the rental
payments by farmer-beneficiaries
under the land transfer program
of PD No. 27.
• Pursuant to the issuance, Sigre
stopped paying Gonzales and
remitted the rentals to LBP
instead. Gonzales questioned the
validity of the circular and the
constitutionality of PD 27. The
Court of Appeals ruled in favor of
Gonzales and ordered LBP to
return the
• rentals to the respondent and
Sigre to revert direct payment to
Gonzales. Rolando Sigre, who
substituted Ernesto, filed
consolidated petitions for review
alleging that erred and acted with
grave abuse of discretion.
 issue

• Whether or not the DAR

Memorandum Circular No. 6
invalid? Is PD No. 27
unconstitutional?
 ruling
• PD No. 27 decrees the
emancipation of tenants from the
bondage of the soil, transferring
to them the ownership of the land
they till and providing the
instruments and mechanism
therefor.
• PD No. 816 provides that
rentals are to be paid to the
landowner by agricultural
lessee until after the valuation
of the property shall have been
determined.
• The Supreme Court ruled in
favor of Rolando Sigre and
granted his consolidated
petitions.
• The Court ruled that DAR
Memorandum Circular No. 6 is
not in conflict with PD 816,
which states that tenant-farmer
(agricultural lessee) shall pay
lease rentals to the landowner
until the value of the property
has been determined or agreed
upon by the landowner and
DAR.
• The circular only supplements
such Presidential Decree by
mandating that tenant-farmer
pays rental to LBP after the
value has been determined.
Moreover, the Court reiterated
that there is no question on the
constitutionality of PD 27,
• providing for the emancipation
of tenants from the bondage of
soil and transferring to them
the ownership of the land they
till.
 G.R. No. 139285
December 21, 2007
• Roman Catholic Archbishop of
Caceres
• vs.
• Secretary of Agrarian Reform &
DAR Regional
• Director (Region V)
 facts

• The Archbishop of Caceres owned

several parcels of land planted
with rice, corn and coconut trees.
He filed petitions for exemption
from Operation Land Transfer
(OLT) under PD 27 of these lands
with the Municipal Agrarian
Reform District Office in Naga
City.
• Two petitions were however
denied by the Regional Director
of Department of Agrarian
Reform. The petitioner
contended that such lands were
donations and he held the
property only in trust capacity.
He argued that the donations
had stipulations prohibiting him
to sell, exchange,
• lease, transfer, encumber or
mortgage the subject lands, from
which he concluded that he was
the “landowner” as contemplated
by the PD 27 and RA 6657. The
petition was dismissed by the
Court of Appeals, hence this
petition for review on certiorari.
 issue
•Whether or not the subject
lands exempt from Operation
Land Transfer under PD 27?
 ruling
• RA 6657 provides for an exclusive list
of exemptions as follows:
• Lands actually, directly, exclusively
used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves,
reforestation, fish sanctuaries and
breeding grounds, watersheds and
mangroves shall be exempt from the
coverage of this Act.
• Private lands actually, directly,
exclusively used for prawn
farms and fishponds shall be
exempt from the coverage of
this Act: Provided, that said
prawn farms and fishponds
have not been distributed and
Certificate of Land Ownership
Award (CLOA) issued under the
Agrarian Reform Program.
• In cases where the fishponds or
prawn farms have not been
subjected to the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law, the
consent of the farmworkers
shall no longer be necessary;
however, the provision of
Section 32-A hereof on
incentives shall apply.
• Lands actually, directly, and
exclusively used and found to be
necessary for national defense,
school sites and campuses,
including experimental farm
stations operated by public or
private schools for educational
purposes, seeds and seedlings
research and pilot production
center, church sites and convents
appurtenant thereto,
• mosque sites and Islamic centers
appurtenant thereto, communal
burial grounds and cemeteries,
penal colonies and penal farms
actually worked by the inmates,
government and private research
and quarantine centers and all
lands with eighteen percent (18%)
slope and over, except those
already developed, shall be exempt
from the coverage of this Act. (As
amended by RA 7881)”
• The Court affirmed the decision
of the Court of Appeals in
holding that subject lands are
not exempt from the Operation
Land Transfer of PD 27 and RA
6657. Supreme Court held that
the Archbishop cannot claim
exemption in behalf of the
Filipino faithful as the lands in
question clearly do not fall
under any of the exemptions
• The law is clear on the
exemptions granted and there is
no room for interpretation.
According to the decision in this
case, the Archbishop, as a
religious leader, can just take
solace in the fact that his lands
are going to be awarded to those
who need and can utilize them
to the fullest.
 G.R. No. 122363
April 29, 2003
•Victor Valencia
•Vs.
•Court of Appeals
 facts
• Victor Valencia, a government
retiree, owned two parcels of land,
which he leased out to Glicerio
Henson for (10) years. Henson
constituted Crescenciano Frias
and Marciano Frias to work the
property during his lease.
• Valencia has then leased the
same land to Fr. Andres Flores
for five years after the
expiration of the first lease
contract. Fr. Flores also
designated several people as
workers, including Crescencio
and Marciano. The petitioner
acquired said parcels of land
through a homestead grant by
the government.
• After the expiration of the
contract between Valencia and
Flores, the petitioner
demanded the workers to
vacate the said land. However,
the workers refused and
continued cultivating the land.
• They applied for Certificates of
Land Transfer under the
Operation Land Transfer under
the Operation Land transfer
Program of PD 27, instead. The
Department of Agrarian
Reform granted the
applications and CLT’s were
issued to the respondents.
• Valencia then filed actions for
recovery of possession over the
subject land on the ground that
the tenants and the
government unjustly withheld
these lands from him. He also
contested the existence of the
tenancy relationship between
him and the tenant-
beneficiaries.
 issue
•Whether or not the subject
lands wrongfully taken from
the petitioner?
 ruling
• The court ruled in favor of the
petitioner. The subject lands were
unlawfully taken from Valencia
when the Department of
Agriculture issued Certificate of
Land Transfer to the respondents
(tenants).
• First, the lands in question
were acquired by the petitioner
through a homestead grant,
which is excluded from the
coverage of PD 27. Second, the
tenant-beneficiaries were not
really tenants of the land
owner.
• The lessee, Fr. Flores, was the
one who hired the workers to
cultivate the land. Such
designation of workers was
beyond the scope of authority of
a Civil Law Lesse and was made
without the consent of the
landowner. The security of
tenure guaranteed by the laws
may only be evoked by tenants
de jure, and not by those who
are not true and lawful tenants.
• The court also emphasized that
while it is true that in case of
reasonable doubt, the it has to
tilt the balance in favor of the
poor to whom the Constitution
fittingly extends its sympathy
and compassion. It is never
justified to give preference to
the poor simply because they are
poor or reject the rich simply
because they are rich.
• Justice must always be served
for the poor and the rich alike
according to the mandate of the
law.
 G.R. 183409
June 18, 2010
•CHAMBER OF REAL ESTATE
AND BUILDERS
ASSOCIATIONS, INC. (CREBA),
vs.
THE SECRETARY OF
AGRARIAN REFORM
 facts

• CREBA, a private non-stock, non-

profit corporation duly organized
and existing under the laws of
the Republic of the Philippines, is
the umbrella organization of
some 3,500 private corporations,
partnerships, single
proprietorships and individuals
directly or indirectly
• involved in land and housing
development, building and
infrastructure construction,
materials production and
supply, and services in the
various related Felds of
engineering, architecture,
community planning and
development financing.
• On October 29, 1997,
Respondent Secretary of
Agrarian Reform issued an
Administrative Order No. 07-
97,3 entitled "Omnibus Rules
and Procedures Governing
Conversion of Agricultural
Lands to Non-Agricultural Use.
• The Secretary of Agrarian
Reform further issued
Memorandum No. 88 on 15
April 2008, which temporarily
suspended the processing and
approval of all land use
conversion applications. By
reason thereof, petitioner
claims that there is an actual
slowdown of housing projects,
which in turn, aggravated
• the housing shortage,
unemployment and illegal
squatting problems to the
substantial prejudice not only
of the petitioner and its
members but more so of the
whole nation.
 issue
• Whether the DAR Secretary has
jurisdiction over lands that have
been reclassified as residential,
commercial, industrial, or for
other non-agricultural uses
 ruling

• Executive Order No. 129-A vested

upon the DAR the responsibility
of implementing the
CARP. Pursuant to the said
mandate and to ensure the
successful implementation of
the CARP,
• Section 5(c) of the said executive
order authorized the DAR to
establish and
promulgate operational
policies, rules and regulations and
priorities for agrarian reform
implementation. Section 4(k)
thereof authorized the DAR to
approve or disapprove the
conversion, restructuring or
readjustment of agricultural lands
into non-agricultural uses.
• Similarly, Section 5(l) of the same
executive order has given the
DAR the exclusive authority to
approve or disapprove conversion
of agricultural lands for
residential, commercial, industrial,
and other land uses as may be
provided for by law.
• Section 7 of the aforesaid
executive order clearly provides
that the authority and
responsibility for the exercise of
the mandate of the [DAR] and the
discharge of its powers and
functions shall be vested in the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
• It bears emphasis that said
Memorandum No. 88 was issued
upon the instruction of the
President in order to address the
unabated conversion of prime
agricultural lands for real estate
development because of
the worsening rice shortage in the
country at that time.
• Such measure was made in order
to ensure that there are enough
agricultural lands in which rice
cultivation and production may be
carried into. The issuance of said
Memorandum No. 88 was made
pursuant to the general welfare of
the public, thus, it cannot be
argued that it was made without
any basis.
• WHEREFORE, premises considered,
the instant Petition
for Certiorari is DISMISSED. Costs
against petitioner CREBA.
 G.R. No. 78214
DECEMBER 5, 1988
• YOLANDA CABALLES
• Vs.
• DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM, HON. HEHERSON T.
ALVAREZ and BIENVENIDO
ABAJON
 facts
• This is a petition for certiorari
seeking the annulment of an
Order issued by public respondent
Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR), through its then Secretary,
the Hon. Heherson Alvarez,
finding the existence of a tenancy
relationship between the herein
petitioner and the private
respondent.
• The landholding subject of the
controversy, which consists of
only sixty (60) square meters
was acquired by the spouses
Arturo and Yolanda Caballes
(petitioner), by virtue of a Deed
of Absolute Sale dated July 24,
1978 executed by Andrea
Alicaba Millenes. This
landholding is part of Lot No.
3109-C,
• which has a total area of about
500 square meters, situated at
Lawa-an, Talisay, Cebu. In 1975,
before the sale in favor of the
Caballes spouses, private
respondent Bienvenido Abajon
constructed his house on a
portion of the said landholding,
paying a monthly rental of
₱2.00 to the owner, Andrea
Millenes.
• The landowner likewise allowed
Abajon to plant on a portion of
the land, agreeing that the
produce thereof would be
shared by both on a fifty-fifty
basis. Abajon planted corn and
bananas on the landholding.
For four years, he paid the
₱2.00 rental for the lot
occupied by his house, and
delivered 50% of the produce to
the owner.
• As the property was sold, the
new owners asked Abajon to
vacate the premises, saying
they needed the property, but
Abajon refused. On April 1,
1982, Yolanda Caballes,
executed an Affidavit stating
that immediately after she
reprimanded Abajon for
harvesting bananas and
jackfruit from the property
without her knowledge, the
latter,
• with malicious and ill intent,
cut down the banana plants on
the property worth about
₱50.00. A criminal case for
malicious mischief was filed
against Abajon. (Obviously, all
the planting on the property,
including that of the banana
plants, had been done by
Abajon).
• Upon motion of the respondent
in open court, the trial court
ordered the referral of the case
to the Regional Office of the
Public Respondent for a
preliminary determination of
the relationship between the
parties. The Regional Director
of DAR held that there is the
existence of a tenancy
relationship between the
• On appeal by the petitioner, the
Secretary of DAR, reversed the
decision of the Regional
Director. Upon motion for
reconsideration filed by the
private respondent, the New
DAR Secretary sets aside the
previous decision and finds the
existence of a tenancy
relationship between the
parties.
 issue
•Whether or not there is an
existence of a tenancy
relationship between the
parties.
 ruling
• There is none. The Higher Court
laid down the essential requisites
of a tenancy relationship. All
requisites must concur in order
to create a tenancy relationship
between the parties. The absence
of one does not make an
occupant of a parcel of land, or a
cultivator thereof, or a planter
thereon,
• a de jure tenant. The fact of
sharing alone is not sufficient
to establish a tenancy
relationship. This does not
automatically make the tiller-
sharer a tenant thereof
especially when the area tilled
is only 60 square meters and
located in an urban area and in
the heart of an industrial or
commercial zone.
• Tenancy status arises only if an
occupant of a parcel of land
has been given its possession
for the primary purpose of
agricultural production. The
circumstances of this case
indicate that the private
respondent's status is more of
a caretaker who was allowed by
the owner out of benevolence
• or compassion to live in the
premises and to have a garden
of some sort rather than a
tenant. Agricultural production
as the primary purpose being
absent in the arrangement is a
clear proof that the private
respondent was never a tenant.
 G.R. No. 128557
december 29, 1999
•Land Bank of the Philippines
•Vs.
•Court of Appeals and Jose
Pascual
 facts
• An action for mandamus was filed
byJose Pascual after the refusal of
Land Bank of the Philippines to
pay private respondent persuant
to the final decision rendered by
the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (Parad). LBP was
ordered to pay Php 1.9M plus
• Interest as just compensation
to Jose Pascual. The
computation was based on the
increased value of the
Government Support Price,
which was 300 per cavan of
palay and Php 250 per cavan of
corn. The petitioner refused to
pay the respondent alleging the
lack of jurisdiction of the Court
of Appeals and that it acted
• Its authority. It also asserted
that the writ of mandamus
could not be issued, as there
are other remedies available in
the ordinary course of law.
 issue
•Whether or not the Land Bank
of the Philippines bound to
pay the Php 1.9M plus 6%
interest per annum as just
compensation to Jose Pascual
 ruling
• EO228 provides that the valuation
of rice and corn lands covered by
PD 27 shall be based on the
average gross production
determined by the Barangay
Committee on Land Production in
accordance with the Department
• Memorandum Circular No. 26,
series of 1973 and related
issuance of the Department of
Agrarian Reform. The average
gross production shall be
multiplied by 2.5, the product
shall be multiplied by Php 35, the
government support price for one
cavan of 50 kilos of palay on Oct.
21, 1972, or Php 31, the
government support for one
• Corn on Oct. 21, 1972, and the
amount arrived at shall be the
value of the rice and corn of the
land, as the case may be, for the
purpose of determining its cost to
the farmer and compensation to
the landowner.

• The Court affirmed the decision

of the Court of Appeals in
granting the
• compensation of Php 1.9M but it
deleted the 6% interest per
annum, as it is no loner
applicable. Administrative Order
No. 13, which provides
compensation to landowners for
unearned interests is no longer
applicable since the PARAD
already increased the GSP from
Php 35 to Php 300 per cavan of
palay and from Php 31 to Php 250
per cavan of corn.
 Aninao
vs
Asturias Chemical Industries
Inc.
G.R. No. 160420, July 28, 2005

Social Legislation:
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program
Reporter: Johanna D. Abanilla, MBA
Aninao vs Asturias Chem. Ind., Inc., GR No.160420, 28 Jul
2005

FACTS:
In 1989 & 1990 EPs covering the
507ha which is part of the
807ha owned by Ceferino
Ascue, were issued to 323
agrarian reform beneficiaries.
507(pursuant
ha to OLT of PD27 & EO228)
total area

807ha
Aninao vs Asturias Chem. Ind., Inc., GR No.160420, 28 Jul
2005

FACTS cont…:
In 1995, the heirs of Ascue, with
the approval of the RTC
handling the settlement of
Ceferino’s estate, sold to
Asturias Chemical Ind., Inc. the
said 807ha.
507 ha
to ACII
807ha sold

including
the 507ha
Aninao vs Asturias Chem. Ind., Inc., GR No.160420, 28 Jul
2005

FACTS cont…:
In July 1997 Asturias and the
DENR entered into a MPSA
covering 2,336.8ha including
the disputed property
total area of 2,336.8ha
MPSA between ACII & DENR
Aninao vs Asturias Chem. Ind., Inc., GR No.160420, 28 Jul
2005

ISSUE :
Whether the disputed land
could be considered for
CARP coverage
507ha OLT coverage
which is part of 807ha
previously owned by Ascue,
now owned by ACII as part
of 2,336.8 ha of mining area
Aninao vs Asturias Chem. Ind., Inc., GR No.160420, 28 Jul
2005

RULING :
PD No. 27 applies to tenant-farmers
of private agricultural lands
primarily devoted to rice and corn
under a system of share-crop or
lease-tenancy, while RA 6657, also
known as the CARP law, covers
agricultural lands that covers all
public and private agricultural lands.
Aninao vs Asturias Chem. Ind., Inc., GR No.160420, 28 Jul
2005

RULING cont… :
In the case at bench, OLT
coverage of the disputed
landholdings was erroneous, it
being established that the land
covered are not primarily devoted
to rice and corn, and that the
tenancy relationship was not
been clearly established.
Aninao vs Asturias Chem. Ind., Inc., GR No.160420, 28 Jul
2005

RULING cont… :
The property in question “had
long ceased to be agricultural and
converted to mineral land (based
on the study made in 1965 of the
Bureau of Mines) even before it was
placed under OLT coverage” - for
lands classified as mineral are
exempt from CARP coverage.
Philippine Veterans Bank
vs.
CA and Sec. of DAR
G.R. No. 132767
• FACTS: Philippine Veterans Bank owned
four parcels of land in Tagum, Davao
which are covered by TCT Nos. T-38666,
T-38667, T-6236 and T-27591. The lands
were taken by the Department of
Agrarian Reform for its distribution to
landless farmers pursuant to the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(R.A. No. 6657). Dissatisfied with the
valuation of the land made by
respondents, petitioner filed a petition
for a determination of the just
compensation for its property.
• The petition was filed on January 26,
1994 with the RTC, Branch 2, of Tagum,
Davao, which on Feb. 23, 1995, dismissed
the petition on the ground that it was
filed beyond the 15-day reglamentary
period for filing appeals from the orders
of the DARAB. On appeal to the CA, the
decision was affirmed
• ISSUE: Whether or not the Court of
Appeals is correct in affirming the
decision of the RTC.
• HELD: Yes, the CA was correct in
affirming the RTC’s decision. The
petition for determination of just
compensation in RTC of Tagum was filed
beyond the 15-day period provided in
Rule XIII,11 of the Rules of Procedure of
DARAB, the trial court correctly
dismissed the case and the CA correctly
affirmed the order of dismissal.
 Concha, et al. v. Rubio, et al.
G.R. No. 162446: March 29, 2010

ROMANITA CONCHA, BENITA COSICO,

DOMINGO GARCIA, ROMEO DE CASTRO,
PEDRO CONCHA, CONSTANTINO
CONCHA, ROLANDO NAVARRO,
ROSALINDA DE TORRES, CANDIDA DE
TORRES, RODELO COSICO, TEODOLFO
CAPUNO, ANTONIO DE TORRES, MAXIMA
CONCHA, GABRIEL CONCHA, IRINEO
CONCHA, AND BRAULIO DE TORRES,
Petitioners,
v.
PAULINO RUBIO, SOFIA RUBIO, AMBROCIA
BARLETA, SEGUNDO CRISOSTOMO,
MILAGROS GAYAPA, LASARO CONCHA,
FACTS:
• This case involves a Petition for
Review on certiorari, under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, seeking
to set aside the Amended
Decision of the Court of Appeals
(CA), in CA-G.R. SP No. 73303.
• The controversy involves the
determination of who between
petitioners and respondents are
qualified to become beneficiaries
over a portion of land covered by
Transfer Certificate of Title Nos.
T-140494, T-140492 and T-
140491, registered in the name of
Lilia E. Gala, Luisita E. Gala and
Teresita E. Gala, respectively,
• with an aggregate area of 33.5006
hectares, more or less. The
subject landholding was placed
under the Compulsory Acquisition
Scheme of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
of the government. The Municipal
Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO)
of Tiaong, Quezon, named
petitioners as beneficiaries.
• Respondents filed a complaint for
declaration of their tenancy and
their identification as
beneficiaries and for
disqualification of the petitioners
to become beneficiaries over the
subject landholding. They alleged
that they are the tenants thereof
and have not relinquished their
rights over the same, as they
returned the monetary awards
• Meanwhile, the registered owners
of the subject land entered into a
joint project with 1st A.M. Realty
Development Corporation,
represented by Atty. Alejandro
Macasaet for its development on
the condition that the farmer-
beneficiary shall be paid
disturbance compensation
• and that the remaining 18.5006
hectares of the land shall be
covered by the CARP. The MARO
pursued the coverage of the
remaining 18.5006 has. The
petitioners herein were identified
as qualified farmer-beneficiaries
where three (3) Certificates of
Land Ownership Awards (CLOA)
were issued in their favor.
• Respondents, on the other hand,
were paid of their disturbance
compensation. They now,
however, question the validity and
legality of the institution of the
petitioners as beneficiaries over
the subject landholding. They
filed a case for annulment of
CLOAs.
The PARAD dismissed the
complaint for lack of merit. On
appeal, the DARAB set aside the
PARAD decision. The DARAB
ruled that in order for a voluntary
surrender by an agricultural
tenant of his landholding to be
valid, the same must be done due
to circumstances more
• advantageous to him and his
family − a consideration, which,
the DARAB found, was bereft of
any evidence as shown by the
records of the case. Upon denial
of their motion for
reconsideration, petitioners
appealed to the CA but the same
failed. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE:
• Whether or not DARAB has
jurisdiction to resolve the issue of
identifying and selecting the
qualified farmer- beneficiaries of a
land covered by CARL
HELD:
• No.
Identification and selection of
CARP beneficiaries are matters
involving strictly the
administrative implementation
of the CARP, a matter
exclusively cognizable by the
Secretary of the Department of
Agrarian Reform
• Suffice it to say that under Section
15 of R.A. No. 6657, the
identification of beneficiaries is a
matter involving strictly the
administrative implementation of
the CARP, a matter which is
exclusively vested in the Secretary
of Agrarian Reform, through its
authorized offices. Section 15
reads:
• SECTION 15. Registration of
Beneficiaries. The DAR in
coordination with the Barangay
Agrarian Reform Committee
(BARC) as organized in this Act,
shall register all agricultural
lessees, tenants and farm workers
who are qualified to be
beneficiaries of the CARP.
• The administrative function of the
DAR is manifest in Administrative
Order No. 06-00, which provides
for the Rules of Procedure for
Agrarian Law Implementation
Cases. Under said Rules of
Procedure, the DAR Secretary has
exclusive jurisdiction over
identification, qualification or
disqualification of potential
farmer-beneficiaries.
• Based on the foregoing, the
conclusion is certain that the
DARAB had no jurisdiction to
identify who between the parties
should be recognized as the
beneficiaries of the land in
dispute, as it was a purely
administrative function of the
DAR. The PARAD was, thus,
correct when it declared that it
had no jurisdiction to resolve the
dispute.
• The finding of the MARO
declaring petitioners as
beneficiaries of the land in
dispute must, therefore, be
accorded respect. It should also
be equally binding on the
DARAB for the simple reason
that the latter has no appellate
jurisdiction over the former: The
DARAB cannot review, much less
reverse, the administrative
• Instead, the DARAB would do well
to defer to DARs expertise when it
comes to the identification and
selection of beneficiaries, as it did
in Lercana where this Court noted
with approval that, in the
dispositive portion of its decision,
left to the
• concerned DAR Offices the
determination of who were or
should be agrarian reform
beneficiaries. In fact, this course
of action available to the DARAB
is now embodied in Rule II of its
2003 Rules of Procedure, thus:
• Section 5. Referral to Office of the
Secretary (OSEC). − In the event
that a case filed before the
Adjudicator shall necessitate the
determination of a prejudicial
issue involving an agrarian law
implementation case, the
Adjudicator shall suspend the
case and, for purposes of
expediency, refer the same to the
Office of the Secretary or his
authorized representative in the
• In the case at bar, the DARAB has
overstepped its legal boundaries
in taking cognizance of the
controversy between petitioners
and respondents in deciding who
should be declared the farmer-
beneficiaries over the land in
dispute.
 The petition is hereby granted. The
February 27, 2004 Amended
Decision of the Court of Appeals in
CA-G.R. SP No. 73303 is hereby
REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
September 9, 2003 Decision of the
Court of Appeals is REINSTATED.