AGRARIAN MIDTERMS REVIEWERATTY. CAPANAS

1. Riccia DAR PROGRAMS: Land Tenure Improvement Agrarian Justice Delivery Program Beneficiaries Development LAND TENURE PROGRAM Seeks to secure tenural status of the farmers in the land they till. Operationalized either through LAD and Leasehold Opeartions LAD ( Land Acquisition and Distribution) redistribution of Govt and private agricultural lands to landless farmers Leasehold Operations- alternative non-land transfer scheme. It covers all tenanted agricultural lands such those in the retained areas, not yet acquired for distribution under CARP. (75-25 sharing)Agrarian Justice Delivery Delivery of agrarian justice has two features: the agrarian legal assistance and adjudication of cases. Agrarian legal assistance is comprised of resolution of agrarian law implementation (ALI) cases, ARB representation before judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, and mediation and conciliation. On the other hand, Adjudication of cases involves the resolution of cases by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) and any of its salas. Under RA 6657, the DAR is vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and to extend free legal assistance to farmer-beneficiaries affected by agrarian cases. There are three types of cases under this program namely: judicial or court cases, quasi-judicial, and cases related to agrarian law implementation (ALI). The first two types involve representation of farmers by DAR lawyers before the regular courts and DAR Adjudication Board, respectively. The third type involves the administrative rendering of decision on exemption, conversion and retention.Program Beneficiaries Development PBD is the support services component of CARP. It aims to capacitate ARBs and provide them access to the necessary support services to make their lands more productive, enable them to venture in income generating livelihood projects and actively participate in community governance. Agrarian reform does not rely on land distribution alone, but also on the delivery of support services, including farm-to-market roads, bridges, irrigation, post harvest facilities, rural electrification, potable water supply, school buildings, multi-purpose buildings; extension services, credit assistance, and trainings.

L A D

RA 6657CHAPTER IXSupport Services

Section 35.Creation of Support Services Office. There is hereby created the Office of Support Services under the DAR to be headed by an Undersecretary.The Office shall provide general support and coordinative services in the implementation of the program particularly in carrying out the provisions of the following services to farmer-beneficiaries and affected landowners:1) Irrigation facilities, especially second crop or dry season irrigation facilities;2) Infrastructure development and public works projects in areas and settlements that come under agrarian reform, and for this purpose, the preparation of the physical development plan of such settlements providing suitable barangay sites, potable water and power resources, irrigation systems and other facilities for a sound agricultural development plan;3) Government subsidies for the use of irrigation facilities;4) Price support and guarantee for all agricultural produce;5) Extending to small landowners, farmers' organizations the necessary credit, like concessional and collateral-free loans, for agro-industrialization based on social collaterals like the guarantees of farmers' organization:6) Promoting, developing and extending financial assistance to small-and medium-scale industries in agrarian reform areas;7) Assigning sufficient numbers of agricultural extension workers to farmers' organizations;8) Undertake research, development and dissemination of information on agrarian reform and low-cost and ecologically sound farm inputs and technologies to minimize reliance on expensive and imported agricultural inputs;9) Development of cooperative management skills through intensive training;10) Assistance in the identification of ready markets for agricultural produce and training in other various prospects of marketing; andtai11) Administration operation management and funding of support services, programs and projects including pilot projects and models related to agrarian reform as developed by the DAR.Section 36.Funding for Support Services. In order to cover the expenses and cost of support services, at least twenty-five percent (25%) of all appropriations for agrarian reform shall be immediately set aside and made available for this purpose.n addition, the DAR shall be authorized to package proposals and receive grants, aid and other forms of financial assistance from any source.Section 37.Support Services to the Beneficiaries. The PARC shall ensure that support services to farmers-beneficiaries are provided, such as:(a) Land surveys and titling;(b) Liberalized terms on credit facilities and production loans;(c) Extension services by way of planting, cropping, production and post-harvest technology transfer, as well as marketing and management assistance and support to cooperatives and farmers' organizations;(d) Infrastructure such as access trails, mini-dams, public utilities, marketing and storage facilities; and(e) Research, production and use of organic fertilizers and other local substances necessary in farming and cultivation.The PARC shall formulate policies to ensure that support services to farmer-beneficiaries shall be provided at all stages of land reform.The Bagong Kilusang Kabuhayan sa Kaunlaran (BKKK) Secretariat shall be transferred and attached to the LBP, for its supervision including all its applicable and existing funds, personnel, properties, equipment and records.Misuse or diversion of the financial and support services herein provided shall result in sanctions against the beneficiary guilty thereof, including the forfeiture of the land transferred to him or lesser sanctions as may be provided by the PARC, without prejudice to criminal prosecution.Section 38.Support Services to Landowners. The PARC with the assistance of such other government agencies and instrumentalities as it may direct, shall provide landowners affected by the CARP and prior agrarian reform programs with the following services:(a) Investment information financial and counseling assistance;(b) Facilities, programs and schemes for the conversion or exchange of bonds issued for payment of the lands acquired with stocks and bonds issued by the National Government, the Central Bank and other government institutions and instrumentalities;(c) Marketing of LBP bonds, as well as promoting the marketability of said bonds in traditional and non-traditional financial markets and stock exchanges; and(d) Other services designed to utilize productively the proceeds of the sale of such lands for rural industrialization.A landowner who invests in rural-based industries shall be entitled to the incentives granted to a registered enterprise engaged in a pioneer or preferred area of investment as provided for in the Omnibus Investment Code of 1987, or to such other incentives as the PARC, the LBP, or other government financial institutions may provide.The LBP shall redeem a landowner's LBP bonds at face value, provided that the proceeds thereof shall be invested in a BOI-registered company or in any agri-business or agro-industrial enterprise in the region where the landowner has previously made investments, to the extent of thirty percent (30%) of the face value of said LBP bonds, subject to guidelines that shall be issued by the LBP.Section 39.Land Consolidation. The DAR shall carry out land consolidation projects to promote equal distribution of landholdings, to provide the needed infrastructures in agriculture, and to conserve soil fertility and prevent erosion.

RA 9700Sec. 16. Section 38 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:cralaw"SEC. 38. Support Services for Landowners. - The PARC, with the assistance of such other government agencies and instrumentalities as it may direct, shall provide landowners affected by the CARP and prior agrarian reform programs with the following services:cralaw"(a) Investment information, financial and counseling assistance, particularly investment information on government-owned and/or -controlled corporations and disposable assets of the government in pursuit of national industrialization and economic independence:cralaw"(b) Facilities, programs and schemes for the conversion or exchange of bonds issued for payment of the lands acquired with stocks and bonds issued by the National Government, the BSP and other government institutions and instrumentalities;cralaw"(c) Marketing of agrarian reform bonds, as well as promoting the marketability of said bonds in traditional and non-traditional financial markets and stock exchanges: and/orcralaw"(d) Other services designed t o utilize productively the proceeds of the sale of such lands for rural industrialization.cralaw"A landowner who invests in rural-based industries shall be entitled to the incentives granted to a registered enterprise engaged in a pioneer or preferred area of investment as provided for in the Omnibus Investment Code of 1987,or to such other incentives as the PARC, the LBP, or other government financial institutions shall provide.cralaw"The LBP shall redeem a landowner's agrarian reform bonds at face value as an incentive: Provided, That at least fifty percent (50%) of the proceeds thereof shall be invested in a Board of Investments (BOI)-registered company or in any agri-business or agro-industrial enterprise in the region where the CARP-covered landholding is located. An additional incentive of two percent (2%) in cash shall be paid to a landowner who maintains his/her enterprise as a going concern for five (5) years or keeps his/her investments in a BOI- registered firm for the same period: Provided, further, That the rights of the agrarian reform beneficiaries are not, in any way, prejudiced or impaired thereby.cralaw"The DAR, the LBP and the Department of Trade and Industry shall jointly formulate the program to carry out these provisions under the supervision of the PARC: Provided, That in no case shall the landowners' sex, economic, religious, social, cultural and political attributes exclude them from accessing these support services."cral

2. By Richard: (guys, di ko kita unsa jud ang direct meaning sa Agrarian Justice.. so I took it as Social Justice in the light of Agrarian Reform)MEANING OF SOCIAL LEGISLATIONLaws that seek to promote the common good, generally by protecting and assisting the weaker members of society.* Social Justice is neither communism nor despotism, nor atomism, nor anarchy, but the humanization of the laws and the equalization of social and economic forces by the state so that justice in its National and objectively secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by government of measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the component elements of society, through the maintenance of proper economic and social equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community, constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, and extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all government on time-honored principle of salus populi est suprema lex.The constitutional provisions on agrarian reform(5) Specific provision on agrarian and natural resources reform. Article XIII:Sec. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.Sec. 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers organizations to participate in the planning organization, and management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services.Sec. 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law.Sec. 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen,especially of local communities; to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.Sec. 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, employment creation, and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in enterprises of their choice.Agrarian Justice Delivery- Delivery of agrarian justice has two features: the agrarian legal assistance and adjudication of cases. Agrarian legal assistance is comprised of resolution of agrarian law implementation (ALI) cases, ARB representation before judicial and quasi-judicial bodies, and mediation and conciliation. On the other hand, Adjudication of cases involves the resolution of cases by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) and any of its salas.- Under RA 6657, the DAR is vested with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and to extend free legal assistance to farmer-beneficiaries affected by agrarian cases.- There are three types of cases under this program namely: judicial or court cases, quasi-judicial, and cases related to agrarian law implementation (ALI). The first two types involve representation of farmers by DAR lawyers before the regular courts and DAR Adjudication Board, respectively. The third type involves the administrative rendering of decision on exemption, conversion and retention.Redemption under RA 3844What is RA 3844?It abolished Agricultural Share Tenancy and established Agricultural Leasehold Relation (Sec. 4 and Sec. 5 of RA 3844)What are the rights of the lessor?(with respect to redemption ran i ha) the lessor can (not necessary owner) sell the land, mortgage, etc.What are the rights of the lessee?Sec. 12 of Republic Act No. 3844 or the Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, otherwise known as the Code of Agrarian Reform of the Philippines, provides:Sec. 12.Lessee's right of redemption. In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration: Provided, That where there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised within one hundred eighty days from notice in writing which shall be served by the vendee on all lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian Reform upon the registration of the sale, and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption. The redemptionprice shall be the reasonable price of the land at the time of the sale. (emphasis supplied)Po vs. DampalOwners spouses Florencio and Ester Causin owned a land that is tenanted by Omero Dampal. Mortgaged their lot to Rural Bank of Tagoloan, Inc.For failure to pay the obligation, the bank foreclosed the mortgage and sold the lots at public auction on July 8, 1992 to petitioner Susan G. Po (Susan) who was the highest bidder. Dampal (as an agri lessee was not notified in writing )Dampal filed a complaint against Susan and Lilia before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Region X, for Legal Redemption with Preliminary Mandatory InjunctionThe admitted lack of written notice on Dampal and the DAR thus tolled the running of the prescriptive period. Petitioners' contention that Dampal must be considered to have had constructive knowledge thereof fails in light of the express requirement for notice to be in writing.Jurisdiction of CARP BeneficiariesSection 9 of RA 9700 provides:Section 9. Section 24 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended to read as follows:"SEC. 24. Award to Beneficiaries. - The rights and responsibilities of the beneficiaries shall commence from their receipt of a duly registered emancipation patent or certificate of land ownership award and their actual physical possession of the awarded land. Such award shall be completed in not more than one hundred eighty (180) days from the date of registration of the title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines:Provided, That the emancipation patents, the certificates of land ownership award, and other titles issued under any agrarian reform program shall be indefeasible and imprescriptible after one (1) year from its registration with the Office of the Registry of Deeds, subject to the conditions, limitations and qualifications of this Act, the property registration decree, and other pertinent laws. The emancipation patents or the certificates of land ownership award being titles brought under the operation of the torrens system, are conferred with the same indefeasibility and security afforded to all titles under the said system, as provided for by Presidential Decree No. 1529, as amended by Republic Act No. 6732."It is the ministerial duty of the Registry of Deeds to register the title of the land in the name of the Republic of the Philippines, after the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) has certified that the necessary deposit in the name of the landowner constituting full payment in cash or in bond with due notice to the landowner and theregistration of the certificate of land ownership award issued to the beneficiaries, and to cancel previous titles pertaining thereto."Identified and qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries, based on Section 22 of Republic Act No. 6657, as, amended, shall have usufructuary rights over the awarded land as soon as the DAR takes possession of such land, and such right shall not be diminished even pending the awarding of the emancipation patent or the certificate of land ownership award."All cases involving the cancellation of registered emancipation patents, certificates of land ownership award, and other titles issued under any agrarian reform program are within the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the Secretary of the DAR."__________________________________________________________________________________________________________3. By: FaithGrounds for Ejectment and Ejectment based on nonpayment of rentals, proof, burden:RA 3844 Section 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions - Notwithstanding any agreement as to the period or future surrender, of the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that:(1) The agricultural lessor-owner or a member of his immediate family will personally cultivate the landholding or will convert the landholding, if suitably located, into residential, factory, hospital or school site or other useful non-agricultural purposes: Provided; That the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to disturbance compensation equivalent to five years rental on his landholding in addition to his rights under Sections twenty-five and thirty-four, except when the land owned and leased by the agricultural lessor, is not more than five hectares, in which case instead of disturbance compensation the lessee may be entitled to an advanced notice of at least one agricultural year before ejectment proceedings are filed against him: Provided, further, That should the landholder not cultivate the land himself for three years or fail to substantially carry out such conversion within one year after the dispossession of the tenant, it shall be presumed that he acted in bad faith and the tenant shall have the right to demand possession of the land and recover damages for any loss incurred by him because of said dispossessions.(2) The agricultural lessee failed to substantially comply with any of the terms and conditions of the contract or any of the provisions of this Code unless his failure is caused by fortuitous event or force majeure;(3) The agricultural lessee planted crops or used the landholding for a purpose other than what had been previously agreed upon;(4) The agricultural lessee failed to adopt proven farm practices as determined under paragraph 3 of Section twenty-nine;(5) The land or other substantial permanent improvement thereon is substantially damaged or destroyed or has unreasonably deteriorated through the fault or negligence of the agricultural lessee;(6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it falls due: Provided, That if the non-payment of the rental shall be due to crop failure to the extent of seventy-five per centum as a result of a fortuitous event, the non-payment shall not be a ground for dispossession, although the obligation to pay the rental due that particular crop is not thereby extinguished; or(7) The lessee employed a sub-lessee on his landholding in violation of the terms of paragraph 2 of Section twenty-seven.Section 37. Burden of Proof - The burden of proof to show the existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee shall rest upon the agricultural lessor.R.A. 3844 (Sec. 36 (6)) states does not pay the lease rental. It should not be meant as does not pay in full the lease rental to justify dispossession.To hold such view would sanction quasi-judicial legislation frowned upon by our courts (LORENZO, ET AL., VS. PNB [DAVAO BRANCH] ET AL., VOL. 51 NO. 11, O.G. 5658, NO. 9555-R, MAY 11, 1955).Agricultural activity:-sec.3 (b). Means the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish including the harvesting of such farm products, and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by person whether natural or juridical. RA 7881 (effective May 1995)- amended Sec.3(b) and removed the raising of livestock, poultry or fishQualifications to become beneficiaries:-A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude, and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________4. ShaneyProhibited PeriodSection 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years: provided, however, that the children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of the availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the land is situated. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) as herein provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice thereof by the BARC.If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights to the land may be transferred or conveyed, with prior approval of the DAR, to any heir of the beneficiary or to any other beneficiary who, as a condition for such transfer or conveyance, shall cultivate the land himself. Failing compliance herewith, the land shall be transferred to the LBP which shall give due notice of the availability of the land in the manner specified in the immediately preceding paragraph.In the event of such transfer to the LBP, the latter shall compensate the beneficiary in one lump sum for the amounts the latter has already paid, together with the value of improvements he has made on the land.Section 116. Except in favor of the Government or any of its branches, units or institutions, or legally constituted banking corporations, lands acquired under the free patent or homestead provisions shall not be subject to encumbrance or alienation from the date of the approval of the application and for a term of five years from and after the date of issuance of the patent or grant, nor shall they become liable to the satisfaction of any debt contracted prior to the expiration of said period; but the improvements or crops on the land may be mortgaged or pledged to qualified persons, associations, or corporations. (As amended by section 23 of Act No. 3517).Transferring lands CARPSection 20. Voluntary Land Transfer. Landowners of agricultural lands subject to acquisition under this Act may enter into a voluntary arrangement for direct transfer of their lands to qualified beneficiaries subject to the following guidelines:(a) All notices for voluntary land transfer must be submitted to the DAR within the first year of the implementation of the CARP. Negotiations between the landowners and qualified beneficiaries covering any voluntary land transfer which remain unresolved after one (1) year shall not be recognized and such land shall instead be acquired by the government and transferred pursuant to this Act.(b) The terms and conditions of such transfer shall not be less favorable to the transferee than those of the government's standing offer to purchase from the landowner and to resell to the beneficiaries, if such offers have been made and are fully known to both parties.(c) The voluntary agreement shall include sanctions for non-compliance by either party and shall be duly recorded and its implementation monitored by the DAR.----------------------------------------MODES OF ACQUIRING PRIVATE LANDS1.) OPERATION LAND TRANSFER (OLT)- is a mechanism established for the implementation of PD 27. It is a mode by which ownership of tenanted rice and corn lands is transferred to tenant beneficiaries. But for the lands to come under OLT, there must be a showing that they are tenanted lands.2.) VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL (VOS)- is a scheme whereby the landowners voluntarily offer their agricultural lands for coverage regardless of phasing. It does not, however, mean that their landholdings voluntarily offered for sale are automatically accepted by the DAR. A VOS may be rejected if the landholding is not suitable for agriculture, or has a slope of more than 18% and is undeveloped.3.) VOLUNTARY LAND TRANSFER/DIRECT PAYMENT SCHEME (VLT/DPS)- is a mode of acquisition whereby the landowner and the beneficiary enter into a voluntary arrangement for the direct transfer of the lands to the latter. Not all private agricultural lands may be the subject for of voluntary transfer. For instance, lands mortgaged with banking and/or financial institution cannot be subject to this scheme.4.) COMPULSORY ACQUISITION (CA)- is a mode of acquisition whereby the State expropriates the land in accordance with the procedure outlined in Section 16 of RA No. 6657.5.) VOLUNTARY STOCK DISTRIBUTION (VSD) in the case of corporate farms- is an alternative arrangement for the physical distribution of lands wherein corporate owners voluntarily divest a portion of their capital stock, equity or participation in favor of theirworkers or other qualified beneficiaries. Stock ownership is based is based on the capital stocks of the corporation and is equivalent to the agricultural land actually devoted to agricultural activities valued in relation to the total assets of the corporation.Jurisdiction to cancel CLOA (Certificate of Land Ownership Award)..The DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of CLOAs which were registered with the LRA. However, for the DARAB to have jurisdiction in such cases, they must relate to an agrarian dispute between landowner and tenants to whom CLOAs have been issued by the DAR Secretary. The cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of the CLOAs by the DAR in the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations to parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees are within the jurisdiction of the DAR and not of the DARAB (BAGONGAHASA vs ROMUALDEZ(only found this case in google; 2011 case)Jurisdiction to cancel LeaseholdDARAB has jurisdiction to cancel leasehold contract.__________________________________________________________________________________________________________5. By toots: Sec. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions (from the coverage of the agrarian reform law) lands Actually, Directly and Exclusively used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves (exempt); private lands ADE used for prawn farms and fishponds (exempt) lands ADE used and found to be necessary for national defense, school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations, seeds and seedlings research, church sites and convents, mosque sites, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and farms and all lands with 18% slope and over (exempt)

Article 3, Section 9. Phil Constitution Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.(agra law has complied with this requirement)PROVING SHARED HARVEST Reynaldo Bejasa testified that as consideration for the possession of the land, he agreed to deliver the landowner's share (1/5 of the harvest) to Malabanan.Only Reynaldo Bejasa's word was presented to prove this. Even this is cast into suspicion. At one time Reynaldo categorically stated that 25% of the harvest went to him, that 25% was for Malabanan and 50% went to the landowner, Candelaria.Later on he stated that the landowner's share was merely one fifth.InChico v.Court of Appeals,we faulted private respondents for failing to prove sharing of harvests since "no receipt, or any other evidence was presented."We added that "Self serving statements . . . are inadequate; proof must be adduced."

( so testimonies are not enough! There has to be a receipt or any other evidence!!!)_________________________________________________________________________________________________________6. JURJURSREQUISITES ON SUBJECT MATTER BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND1. The parties are the landowner and the tenant2. The subject is an agricultural land3. There is consent from the landowner4. The purpose is agricultural production5. There is personal cultivation of the tenant6. There is sharing of harvest by the partiesall these must concur to establish the judicial relationship of tenancyIsidro vs. CAFACTS:This is petition for review on certiorari of the decision ** of the respondent CA dated Feb. 27, 1992 in CA-G.R. SP No. 26671 ordering petitioner to vacate the land in question and surrender possession thereof to the private respondent; and its 21 May 1992 resolution denying petitioners motion for reconsideration for lack of meritPrivate respondent Natividad Gutierrez is the owner of a parcel of land with an area of 4.5 hectares located in Barrio Sta. Cruz, Gapan, Nueva Ecija. In 1985, Anecita Garcia, sister of private respondent and also the overseer of the latter allowed petitioner Remigio Isidro to occupy a swampy portion of the abovementioned land, consisting of 1 hectare, in the condition that petitioner would vacate the land upon demand. Petitioner occupied the land without paying any rental and converted the same into a fishpond.In 1990, private respondent through her overseer demanded from petitioner the return of the land, but the latter refused to vacate and return possession of said land, claiming that he had spent effort and invested capital in converting the same into a fishpond.A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed by private respondent against petitioner before the Municipal Trial Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija.ISSUE:Whether or not the subject is a fishpond and under the law and jurisprudence fishponds are classified as agricultural land that being an agricultural land the same is governed by our tenancy laws where Rule 70 of the Rules of Court cannot be simply applied and that under the Rules of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, the determination of whether the person working on a fishpond is a tenant or not is clearly within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB.HELD:A case involving an agricultural land does not automatically make such case an agrarian dispute upon which the DARAB has jurisdiction. The mere fact that the land is agricultural does not ipso facto make the possessor an agricultural lessee or tenant. The law provides for conditions or requisites before he can qualify as one and the land being agricultural is only one of them. The law states that an agrarian dispute must be a controversy relating to a tenurial arrangement over lands devoted to agriculture. And as previously mentioned, such arrangement may be leasehold, tenancy or stewardship.Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal relationship. The intent of the parties, the understanding when the farmer is installed, and their written agreements, provided these are complied with and are not contrary to law, are even more important.The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are: (1) The parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) The subject is an agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) The purpose is agricultural production; (5) There is personal cultivation of the tenant; (6) There is sharing of harvest by the parties. All these 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 cultivator thereof, or a planter thereon, a de jure tenant. Unless a person establishes his status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of the government under existing tenancy laws.Whether or not private respondent knew of the conversion by petitioner of the idle, swampy land into a fishpond is immaterial in this case. The fact remains that the existence of all the requisites of a tenancy relationship was not proven by the petitioner. And in the absence of a tenancy relationship, the complaint for unlawful detainer is properly within the jurisdiction of the MTC, as provided in Sec. 33o of BP 129.* Case involving agri land does not automatically make such case agrarian* Six requisites not present* No contract to cultivate* Petitioner failed to substantiate claim that he was paying rent for use of landSuplico vs. CAFACTS:Sometime in 1979, Armada started tilling an area of the land with Enrique Suplico. Armada undertook to till the land while Suplico agreed to provide the farm implements and work animals. Suplico was to receive from Armada 62 cavans from the palay harvest per crop yield by way of rental for the use not only of the land but also of the work animals and a hand tractor. Private respondent reside with his family in a farmhouse on the land.When, years later, Suplico threatened to eject Armada from the property, Armada initiated and action for damages and injunction against Suplico in the Court of Agrarian Relations (CAR) in Bacolod City.The trial court rendered its decision declaring private respondent a bona fide agricultural lessee.ISSUE:WON private respondent Armada should be held a tenant farmer entitled to security or a mere hired farm laborer.RULING:The tenancy did exist between the parties:1. Private respondent was in actual possession of the land, and there resided his family, in the farmhouse just like what a farm tenant normally would.2. Private respondent and his wife were personally doing the farm work. Theoccasional and temporary hiring of persons outside of the immediate household, so long as the tenant himself had control in the framework, was not essentially opposed to the status of tenancy.3. The management of the farms was left entirely to private respondent who defrayed the cultivation expenses.4. Private respondent shared the harvest of the land, depositing or delivering to petitioner Enrique Sulpicio the agreed 62 cavans of palay per crop yield.EFFECT OF CONVEYANCE WITHIN THE PROHIBITED PERIOD I think ang answer jud ani kay void, d ba guys?* (wala ni sa gihatag ni sir.. ako nlng gi.search..ahihi naming!) Where it appears that the real property covered by the mortgage is covered by a homestead patent issued defendants on September 6, 1960, and that before the expiration of the five-year period from the issuance of the patent, or on August 7, 1962, defendants executed the mortgage in question in favor of the plaintiff to secure the payment of certain monetary obligations, the transactions shall become null and void (PNB v. Espinosa, 66 Phil. 716; Santos v. Roman Catholic Church of Midsayap, L-6088, February 25, 1954).Homestead Grantees* a mode of acquiring alienable and disposable lands of public domain for agricultural purposes conditioned upon actual cultivation and residence* filed at CENRO where land being applied is located* who are qualified - citizens of Philippines; over 18 years old; not owner of more than 12 hectares of land (Art. XII, Sec. 3, 1987 Consti)* The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and protection of the poor. The law gives a needy citizen a piece of land where he may build a modest house for himself and family and plant what is necessary for subsistence and for the satisfaction of lifes other needs.* Pursuant to such benevolent intention the State prohibits the sale or encumbrance of the homestead (CA 141, Section 116) within five years after the grant of the patent. After that five-year period the law impliedly permits alienation of the homestead, but in line with the primordial purpose to favor with the homesteader and his family the statute provides that such alienation or conveyance (Section 117) shall be subject to the right of repurchase by the homesteader, his widow or heirsAlita vs. CA* private respondents predecessors-in-interest have acquired 2 parcels of land in Zamboanga del Sur thru homestead patent* petitioners/ tenants refuse to vacate relying on PD27RULING:* PD decreed the emancipation of tenants from bondage of soil and transferring to them ownership of land they till.* However, PD27 cannot be involved to defeat the very purpose of CA 141 (Public Land Act)* Phil. Constitution respects the superiority of homesteaders rights and CARL also.Paris vs. Alfeche* Indisputably, homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs can now own and retain the original homesteads, only for as long as they continue to cultivate them. That parcels of land are conveyed by homestead patents will not automatically exempt them from the operation of land reform.CAN DAR CHOOSE BENEFICIARIES WHO ARE NOT TENANTS?* matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of the CARP and other agrarian laws and regulations, shall be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the Secretary of the DAR* The administrative function of the DAR is manifest in Administrative Order No. 06-00,26 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. Section 2 of the said Rules specifically provides, inter alia, that:o SECTION 2. Cases Covered. - These Rules shall govern cases falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARSecretary which shall include the following:X x x (b) Identification, qualification or disqualification of potential farmer-beneficiaries; x x x* That landholdings of landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and below shall not be covered for acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries. (RA 9700, Sec. 3)* Sec. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions(a) lands ADE used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves (exempt);(b) private lands ADE used for prawn farms and fishponds (exempt)(c) lands ADE used and found to be necessary for national defense, school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations, seeds and seedlings research, church sites and convents, mosque sites, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and farms and all lands with 18% slope and over (exempt)7. By: Kuya RalphRevolutionary kind of expropriation=CONFED vs DAR=Why is the program considered as revolutionary kind of expro because it affects all private agricultural lands in whatever kind wherever found and is intended not only to a particular community but the entire Filipino nation.

Correct amount of compensation - how much LBP can depositDAR makes an offer. There is an amount to the offer. Once the landowner rejects or does not reply to the offer, then summary administrative proceeding will follow. The question is which amount should be deposited by the DAR for purposes for provisional determination of just compensation? Is it the offer of DAR or the amount determined by DARAB after the summary proceeding?If we wait for the result of the summary proceeding of DARAB, it takes time. DAR will not acquire the land in this case, and DAR cannot give the land to the beneficiariesThus, the answer is: The amount to be deposited is the amount offered by DAR. So DAR does not have to wait for the DARAB determination. The offered amount will be deposited into the bank.

CENTRAL MINDANAO v. DARAB The subject lands are exempted because they are actually, directly & exclusively used and found necessary for school site and campus, including experimental farm stations for educational purposes and for establishing seed and seeding research The construction of DARAB in Section 10 restricting the land area of CMU to its present needs overlooked the significant factor it growth of a university in years to come. By the nature of CMU, which is a school established to promote agriculture & industry, the need for vast tract of agriculture land for future programs of expansion is obvious. While portion of CMU land was leased by Phil. Packing Corp.(now Del Monte), the agreement was prior to CARL & was directly connected to the purpose & objectives of CMU as educational institution As to determination of when and what lands are found to be necessary for use of CMU, school is in best position to resolve & answer the question. DARAB & CA have no right to substitute unless it is manifest that CMU has no real need for land.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________8. By: EulaFactors to consider by Special Agrarian CourtSec. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. In determining just compensation:* cost of acquisition of the land;* current value of like properties;* its nature, actual use and income;* sworn valuation by the owner;* tax declarations;* assessment made by government assessorsAdditional factors to determine valuation:* The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the Government to the property* non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land**Section 17 of RA No. 6657 is made to apply only if the amount of just compensation of lands acquired through PD No. 27 remains unresolved despite the passage of RA No. 6657. It is only in such a case, and to such extent only, that this provision on the determination of just compensation in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 is made to apply retrospectively.whether the manner of fixing just compensation violates judicial prerogativeWhile the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial function vested in the RTC acting as a Special Agrarian Court, the judge cannot abuse his discretion by not taking into full consideration the factors specifically identified by law and implementing rules. Special Agrarian Courts are not at liberty to disregard the formula laid down in DAR A.O. No. 5, series of 1998, because unless an administrative order is declared invalid, courts have no option but to apply it. The courts cannot ignore, without violating the agrarian law, the formula provided by the DAR for the determination of just compensation.Sec 16(d). in case of the rejection or disregard by the owner of the offer of the government to buy his land:The DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the justcompensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.Although the proceedings are described as summary, the landowner and other interested parties are nevertheless allowed an opportunity to submit evidence on the real value of the property. But more importantly, the determination of the just compensation by the DAR is not by any means final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party, for Section 16(f) clearly provides:Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.The determination made by the DAR is only preliminary unless accepted by all parties concerned. Otherwise, the courts of justice will still have the right to review with finality the said determination in the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function.Po vs. DampalFACTS:Two farm lots were mortgaged by the sps Causin to the Rural Bank of Tagoloan. For failure to pay the obligation, the bank foreclosed the mortgage and sold the lots at public auction to petitioner Po who was the highest bidder.The spouses Causin and their tenant-herein respondent Dampal filed a complaint against the bank for Annulment of the Real Estate Mortgage and SaleWhile the civil case was pending Dampal filed a complaint against Po before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) for Legal Redemption with Preliminary Mandatory InjunctionThe Regional Adjudicator of DARAB Region X disallowed the redemption prayed for on the ground of prescription, albeit he declared that Dampal is entitled to security of tenure as a tenant.Although Dampal was not given notice in writing of the public auction sale, he was deemed to have knowledge thereof because of the civil case for annulment.Dampal admitted Pos acquisition of title to the property as early as 1993 but that it was only in 1997 that he filed the action for redemption before the DARAB.ISSUE:WON Dampals inaction estopped him from asserting his right as a tenant.HELD:The DARAB held that absence of written notice to the tenant of the sale, as well as to the DAR, is indispensable, particularly in view of Sec. 12 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, which mandates that the 180-day period must be reckoned from the notice in writing upon registration of the sale.Sec. 12 of Republic Act No. 3844 or the Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, otherwise known as the Code of Agrarian Reforms of the Philippines, provides:Sec. 12. Lessees right of redemption. In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration: Provided, That where there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised within one hundred eighty days from notice in writing which shall be served by the vendee on all lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian Reform upon the registration of the sale, and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption. The redemption price shall be the reasonable price of the land at the time of the sale.The admitted lack of written notice on Dampal and the DAR thus tolled the running of the prescriptive period. Petitioners contention that Dampal must be considered to have had constructive knowledge thereof fails in light of the express requirement for notice to be in writing.________________________________________________________________________________________________________9. By: KC (Sui)ALMUETE VS. ANDRES (AGRARIAN DISPUTE ISSUE SOLELY ON OWNERSHIP)FACTS: The subject of this controversy is a parcel of agricultural land identified as Lot 8449 Pls-967, located at San Vicente, Angadanan, Isabela, measuring approximately 72,587 square meters.Way back on March 25, 1957, this parcel was awarded by the then National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) to petitioner Rodrigo Almuete.Since then, Rodrigo Almuete exercised exclusive possession of the property, cultivating it and planting thereon narra, fruit trees, rice, corn and legumes.For some twenty-two (22) years, Rodrigo Almuete and his family farmed the subject property peacefully and exclusively.unknown to Rodrigo Almuete, on August 17, 1979, an Agrarian Reform Technologist by the name of Leticia Gragasin filed a field investigation and inspection report stating, among others, that the whereabouts of the original awardee of the subject property, Rodrigo Almuete, was unknown and that he had waived all his rights as a NARRA settler due to his poor health beyond his control and financial hardship.Gragasin also stated therein that the actual occupant of the land is Marcelo Andres since April 1967 to date. She recommended to the Director of the Ministry of Agrarian Reform (MAR) in Tuguegarao, Cagayan that the award in favor of Rodrigo Almuete be cancelled and that the land be awarded to respondent Marcelo Andres.Consequently, Marcelo Andres was allowed to file his homestead application.To further support his application, Marcelo Andres represented to the MAR (now DAR) officials that sometime in 1965, Rodrigo Almuete sold the subject property to one Victor Masiglat, who gave the former a radiophono set as consideration therefor.On the strength of the MAR Regional Directors recommendation and Marcelo Andres representations, the latter was granted and issued a homestead patent.In the meantime, unaware that the NARRA award in his favor had been cancelled and that a homestead patent had been issued to Marcelo Andres, Rodrigo Almuete and his family, particularly his daughter Ana Almuete, continued to cultivate and farm the subject property.In 1982, Rodrigo Almuete built a house in Barangay Fortune, Alicia, Isabela, where he resided while working as a driver for a rice mill.In 1988, the DAR Regional Director recommended the transfer of ownership over the subject property to Marcelo Andres.Shortly thereafter, Marcelo Andres, accompanied by ten (10) other persons armed with bolos and other bladed implements, entered the subject property, claiming exclusive right of ownership and possession.They felled the narra trees, converting the same to lumber, and destroyed the mongos planted by the Almuetes.Marcelo Andres gained control, and took possession, of approximately half of the subject property.Rodrigo Almuete wasted no time in complaining to the DAR authorities of Marcelo Andres encroachment into and occupation of the subject property.Consequently, Rodrigo Almuete and his daughter, Ana Almuete, filed an action for reconveyance and recovery of possession against Marcelo Andresjudgment is hereby rendered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendant Marcelo AndresISSUES: WON CA did not consider and give weight to the contention of petitioners that this case is not as Agrarian Dispute, hence, it does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, but to the Regional Trial Court;

who between petitioner Rodrigo Almuete and respondent Marcelo Andres has a better right to the subject property considering that both of them are awardees of the same property.

HELD: It was thus a controversy relating to ownership of the farmland, which is beyond the ambit of the phrase agrarian dispute. No juridical tie of landowner and tenant was alleged between petitioners and respondent, let alone that which would so characterize the relationship as an agrarian dispute.Section 1.Primary, Original and Appellate Jurisdiction.--- The Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board shall have primary jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations.Agrarian dispute is defined under Section 3(d) of Republic Act No. 6657, as:(d)Agrarian Disputerefers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee.From the foregoing, it is clear that the jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited to cases involving a tenancy relationship between the parties.The following elements are indispensable to establish a tenancy relationship:(1)The parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;(2)The subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land;(3)There is consent between the parties to the relationship;(4)The purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production;(5)There is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and(6)The harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee.The Court of Appeals, therefore, gravely erred when it granted the petition for certiorari and held that the trial court had no jurisdiction over the subject matter of the action between petitioners and respondent.The action filed by petitioners was cognizable by the regular courts.Respondents contention that the action below was an ejectment suit is untenable.Basic is the rule that in actions for ejectment, the only issue is possession.This is not true as regards the case below, which principally involved the question of ownership, or more accurately, the validity of the homestead patent awarded to petitioner vis--vis that awarded to respondent.HEIRS OF DELESTE VS. LBP (Sec. 16 whether the court can cancel the CLOA)FACTS:The spouses Gregorio Nanaman (Gregorio) and Hilaria Tabuclin (Hilaria) were the owners of a parcel of agricultural landSaid spouses were childless, but Gregorio had a son named Virgilio Nanaman (Virgilio) by another woman. Virgilio had been raised by the couple since he was two years old. Gregorio also had two daughters, Esperanza and Caridad, by still another womanWhen Gregorio died in 1945, Hilaria and Virgilio administered the subject propertyHilaria and Virgilio sold the subject property to Dr. Jose Deleste (Deleste)On May 15, 1954, Hilaria died. Gregorio's brother, Juan Nanaman, was appointed as special administrator of the estate of the deceased spouses. Subsequently, Edilberto Noel (Noel) was appointed as the regular administrator of the joint estate.On April 30, 1963, Noel, as the administrator of the intestate estate of the deceased spouses, filed before the Court of First Instance, Branch II, Lanao del Norte an action against Deleste for the reversion of title over the subject property,said case went up to this Court inNoel v. CA, where We rendered a Decisionon January 11, 1995, affirming the ruling of the CA that the subject property was the conjugal property of the late spouses Gregorio and Hilaria and that the latter could only sell her one-half (1/2) share of the subject property to Deleste. As a result, Deleste, who died in 1992, and the intestate estate of Gregorio were held to be the co-owners of the subject property, each with a one-half (1/2) interest in it.Notably, while Civil Case No. 698 was still pending before the CFI, particularly on October 21, 1972, Presidential Decree No. (PD) 27 was issued. This law mandates that tenanted rice and corn lands be brought under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program and awarded to farmer-beneficiaries. Thus, the subject property was placed under the said programHowever, only the heirs of Gregorio were identified by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) as the landowners. Concomitantly, the notices and processes relative to the coverage were sent to these heirs.In 1975, the City of Iligan passed City Ordinance No. 1313, known as the "Zoning Regulation of Iligan City," reclassifying the subject property as commercial/residential.DAR issued Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs) in favor of private respondents who were tenants and actual cultivators of the subject propertythe subject property was surveyed. Thereafter, Emancipation Patents (EPs) and Original Certificates of Title (OCTs) were issuedin favor of respondents. the City of Iligan filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4 in Iligan City for the expropriation. Granted. Considering that the real owner of the expropriated portion could not be determined, as the subject property had not yet been partitioned and distributed to any of the heirs of Gregorio and Deleste, the just compensation for the expropriated portion of the subject property in the amount of PhP 27,343,000 was deposited with the Development Bank of the Philippines in Iligan City, in trust for the RTC in Iligan City.the heirs of Deleste, petitioners herein, filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) a petition seeking to nullify private respondents' EPsthe Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) rendered a Decision declaring that the EPs were null and void in view of the pending issues of ownership, the subsequent reclassification of the subject property into a residential/commercial land, and the violation of petitioners' constitutional right to due process of law.ISSUE: [WHETHER] THE CERTIFICATES OF TITLE ARE VALID GIVEN THAT THEY WERE DIRECTLY ISSUED TO THE FARMER-BENEFICIARIES IN GROSS VIOLATION OF SECTION 16(E) OF R.A. 6657HELD:- However, the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural uses shall not operate to divest tenant[-]farmers of their rights over lands covered by Presidential Decree (PD) No. 27, which have been vested prior to 15 June 1988.- That an ordinance converting agricultural lands into residential or light industrial should be givenprospectiveapplication only, and should not change the nature of existing agricultural lands in the area or the legal relationships existing over such land.- In the case at bar, the CLTs were issued in 1984. Therefore, for all intents and purposes, it was only in 1984 that private respondents, as farmer-beneficiaries, were recognized to have an inchoate right over the subject property prior to compliance with the prescribed requirements. Considering that the local zoning ordinance was enacted in 1975, and subsequently approved by the HSRC in 1978, private respondents still had no vested rights to speak of during this period, as it was only in 1984 that private respondents were issued the CLTs and were "deemed owners."

-The same holds true even if EPs and OCTs were issued in 2001, since reclassification had taken place twenty-six (26) years prior to their issuance. Undeniably, no vested rights accrued prior to reclassification and its approval. Consequently, the subject property, particularly Lot No. 1407, is outside the coverage of the agrarian reform program.- It is well-settled that the DAR, through its adjudication arm, i.e., the DARAB and its regional and provincial adjudication boards, exercises quasi-judicial functions and jurisdiction on all matters pertaining to an agrarian dispute or controversy and the implementation of agrarian reform laws. Pertinently, it is provided in the DARAB Revised Rules of Procedure that the DARAB has primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and related agrarian reform laws.Such jurisdiction shall extend to cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents which are registered with the Land Registration Authority.- For sure, the jurisdiction of the DARAB cannot be deemed to disappear the moment a certificate of title is issued, for, such certificates are not modes of transfer of property but merely evidence of such transfer, and there can be no valid transfer of title should the CLOA, on which it was grounded, be void. The same holds true in the case of a certificate of title issued by virtue of a void emancipation patent.

From the foregoing, it is therefore undeniable that it is the DARAB and not the regular courts which has jurisdiction herein, this notwithstanding the issuance of Torrens titles in the names of the petitioners. For, it is a fact that the petitioners' Torrens titles emanated from the emancipation patents previously issued to them by virtue of being the farmer-beneficiaries identified by the DAR under the OLT of the government. The DAR ruling that the said emancipation patents were erroneously issued for failing to consider the valid retention rights of respondents had already attained finality. Considering that the action filed by respondents with the DARAB was precisely to annul the emancipation patents issued to the petitioners, the case squarely, therefore, falls within the jurisdiction of the DARAB.

QUESTION: If the land is covered by PD 27 but payment of just compensation was done after CARP was approved which law will govern?ANSWER: RA No. 6657 applies to rice and corn lands covered by PD No. 27.Considering the passage of RA 6657 before the completion of the application of the agrarian reform process to the subject lands, the same should now be completed under the said law, with PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect.We cannot see why Sec. 18 of RA 6657 should not apply to rice and corn lands under PD 27.Section 75 of RA 6657 clearly states that the provisions of PD 27 and EO 228 shall only have a suppletory effect. Section 7 of the Act also provides Sec. 7.Priorities. TheDAR, in coordination with the PARC shall plan and program the acquisition and distribution of all agricultural lands through a period of ten (10) years from the effectivity of this Act. Lands shall be acquired and distributed as follows:Phase One:Rice and Corn lands under P.D. 27;all idle or abandoned lands; all private lands voluntarily offered by the owners for agrarian reform; x x x and all other lands owned by the government devoted to or suitable for agriculture, which shall be acquired and distributed immediately upon the effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to be completed within a period of not more than four (4) years.This eloquently demonstrates that RA 6657 includesPD 27lands amongthe propertieswhichtheDARshall acquire and distribute to the landless.And to facilitate the acquisition and distribution thereof, Secs. 16, 17, and 18 of the Act should be adhered to.there is nothing to prevent Section 17 of RA No. 6657 from being applied to determine the just compensation for lands acquired under PD No. 27.

The application of RA No. 6657 due to the inequity faced by landowners continued inLubrica v. Land Bank of the Philippines.[62]The landowners were also deprived of their properties in 1972 but had yet to receive their just compensation even after the passage of RA No. 6657.Since the landholdings were already subdivided and distributed to the farmer-beneficiaries, the Court, speaking through Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, deemed it unreasonable to compute just compensation using the values at the time of taking in 1972 as dictated by PD No. 27, and not at the time of payment pursuant to RA No. 6657.Accordingly, just compensation should be computed in accordance with RA No. 6657 in order to give full effect to the principle that the recompense due to the landowner should be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from the owner by the expropriator.The measure is not the takers gain but the owners loss.The word just is used to intensify the meaning of the word compensation to convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall bereal, substantial, full, and ample___________________________________________________________________________________________________________By: ANJpayment of interest of just compensation-award of interest until full payment of just compensation is to ensure prompt payment-interest on the just compensation is imposed only in case of delay in the payment thereof which must be sufficiently established-interest will be 12% (forbearance)-imposition of interest shall be computed from the time of the institution of the proceedings and the taking of property (Value of the property as of the time of the taking) -- (LBP vs Rivera)whether LBP is a party in a case before the special agrarian courtin the case of LANDBANK VS CA the parties are DAR, landowner and LBP(ANJ: so I assume na LBP should be a party in a case) RTC acting as a special agrarian courtLBP v. DumlaoFacts:> Respondents are owners of agri lands covered under PD 27; Determination of just compensation remained pending with DAR, so they filed complaint with RTC for determination.SC:* if just compensation was not settled prior to the passage of RA No. 6657, it should be computed in accordance with said law, although property was acquired under PD No. 27;* the determination made by the trial court, which relied solely on the formula prescribed by PD No. 27 and EO No. 228, is grossly erroneous. The amount of P6,912.50 per hectare, which is based on the DAR valuation of the properties "at the time of their taking in the 1970s", does not come close to a full and fair equivalent of the property taken from respondents;* CA's act of setting just compensation in the amount of P109,000.00 would have been a valid exercise of this judicial function, had it followed the mandatory formula prescribed by RA No. 6657. However, the appellate court merely chose the lower of two (2) values specified by the commissioner as basis for determining just compensation, namely: (a) P109,000.00 per hectare as the market value of first class unirrigated rice land in the Municipality of Villaverde; and (b) P60.00 per square meter as the zonal value of the land in other barangays in Villaverde. This is likewise erroneous because it does not adhere to the formula provided by RA No. 6657.* It cannot be overemphasized that the just compensation to be given to the owner cannot be assumed and must be determined with certainty.* Section 17 was converted into a formula by the DAR through AO No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended by AO No. 11, Series of 1994:Basic formula (Voluntary Offer to Sell) or [Compulsory Acquisition] regardless of the date of offer or coverage of the claim:LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)Where:LV = Land ValueCNI = Capitalized Net IncomeCS = Comparable SalesMV = Market Value per Tax DeclarationThe above formula shall be used if all the three factors are present, relevant and applicable.Note:1. PD 27: uses average crop harvest as a consideration;RA 6657: factors for consideration in determining just compensation.2. RA 6657 for lands covered by PD 27 and just compensation has not been determined at the time of passage of RA 6657 applies because PD 27 and EO 228 have only suppletory effect.Take into account the nature of land (i.e., irrigated), market value, assessed value at the time of the taking, location (i.e., along highway) and the volume and value of its produce, like:* (a) prevailing market value of in the area and adjacent areas;* (b) presence and availability of an irrigation system to augment and increase agricultural production;* (c) available comparable sales in the area;* (d) average harvests per hectare.> The date of taking of the subject land for purposes of computing just compensation should be reckoned from the issuance dates of the emancipation patents.* Why? EP constitutes the conclusive authority for the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title in the name of the grantee. It is from the issuance of an emancipation patent that the grantee can acquire the vested right of ownership in the landholding, subject to the payment of just compensation to the landowner.> However, their issuance dates are not shown. As such, the trial court should determine the date of issuance of these emancipation patents in order to ascertain the date of taking and proceed to compute the just compensation due to respondents.* Petitioners argument that respondents should not be paid yet pending determination by DAR is specious.* To wait for the DAR valuation despite its unreasonable neglect and delay in processing is to violate the elementary rule that payment of just compensation must be within a reasonable period from the taking of property;* Citing Cosculluela v. CA, just compensation means not only the correct determination of the amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also the payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be considered "just" for the property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss________________________________________________________________________________________________________Essay by Jecca:WAYS IN DISTRIBUTING LANDSRepublic vs. LopezOPERATION LAND TRANSFER (OLT)- is a mechanism established for the implementation of PD 27. It is a mode by which ownership of tenanted rice and corn lands is transferred to tenant beneficiaries. But for the lands to come under OLT, there must be a showing that they are tenanted lands.VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL (VOS)- is a scheme whereby the landowners voluntarily offer their agricultural lands for coverage regardless of phasing. It does not, however, mean that their landholdings voluntarily offered for sale are automatically accepted by the DAR. A VOS may be rejected if the landholding is not suitable for agriculture, or has a slope of more than 18% and is undeveloped.SEC. 19. Incentives for Voluntary Offers for Sale. - Landowners other than banks and other financial institutions who voluntarily offer their lands for sale shall be entitled to an additional five percent (5%) cash payment.VOLUNTARY LAND TRANSFER/DIRECT PAYMENT SCHEME (VLT/DPS)- is a mode of acquisition whereby the landowner and the beneficiary enter into a voluntary arrangement for the direct transfer of the lands to the latter. Not all private agricultural lands may be the subject for of voluntary transfer. For instance, lands mortgaged with banking and/or financial institution cannot be subject to this scheme.SEC. 20. Voluntary Land Transfer. - Landowners of agricultural lands subject to acquisition under this Act may enter into a voluntary arrangement for direct transfer of their lands to qualified beneficiaries subject to the following guidelines:(a) All notices for voluntary land transfer must be submitted to the DAR within the first year of the implementation of the CARP. Negotiations between the landowners and qualified beneficiaries covering any voluntary land transfer which remain unresolved after one (1) year shall not be recognized and such land shall instead be acquired by the government and transferred pursuant to this Act.(b) The terms and conditions of such transfer shall not be less favorable to the transferee than those of the government's standing offer to purchase from the landowner and to resell to the beneficiaries, if such offers have been made and are fully known to both parties.(c) The voluntary agreement shall include sanctions for non-compliance by either party and shall be duly recorded and its implementation monitored by the DAR.COMPULSORY ACQUISITION (CA)- is a mode of acquisition whereby the State expropriates the land in accordance with the procedure outlined in Section 16 of RA No. 6657.Procedure for compulsory acquisition(a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof.(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the Government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation of the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to summit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.VOLUNTARY STOCK DISTRIBUTION (VSD) in the case of corporate farms- is an alternative arrangement for the physical distribution of lands wherein corporate owners voluntarily divest a portion of their capital stock, equity or participation in favor of their workers or other qualified beneficiaries. Stock ownership is based is based on the capital stocks of the corporation and is equivalentto the agricultural land actually devoted to agricultural activities valued in relation to the total assets of the corporation.NONLAND TRANSFER SCHEME(1) Leasehold Operations (LO)- lands within the land owners retained areas or lands not yet due for distribution are placed under leasehold to ensure farmers security over the land they till and pre-empt their displacement while waiting for the eventual distribution of the land;(2) Production Profit Sharing (PPS)- This scheme is an interim measure while the lands owned or operated by agricultural entities await coverage under the CARP. There entities are companies mostly involved in the commercial production of rubber, banana, and pineapple;(3) Stock Distribution Option (SDO). - Under this arrangement, the farmers are entitled to dividends and other financial benefits and are also assured of at least a representatives at the Board of Directors, management or executive committee to protect the rights and interest of shareholders; and(4) Commercial Farm Deferment (SFD). This scheme provides corporate landowners of newly-established commercial plantations enough time to recover their investment before such agricultural lands are covered by CARP. The deferment period was up to 1998. Pending final land transfer, however, these corporations shall implement a production and profit-sharing scheme in their farms.The monitoring of non-land transfer activities by the field offices of the DAR has not been given much priority, as there has been greater pressure for them to deliver their land acquisition and distribution (LAD) targets.Republic vs LopezFacts: Republic wants land of petitioner for purposes of CARP; petitioner opposed.Issue: WON petitioners lands are exempted from Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law.Ruling: Yes. Lands actually, directly and exclusively being used for livestock business are exempted from the coverage of CARL. Petitioners lands have met this requirement