7/28/2019 Agri Cases 1 7 3 2

1/11

1.GAVINOCORPUZvs.SpousesGERONIMOandHILARIAGROSPE

Facts:

Petitioner Gavino Corpuz was a farmer-beneficiary under the Operation Land

Transfer(OLT)ProgramoftheDepartmentofAgrarianReform(DAR).Pursuantto

PresidentialDecree(PD)No.27,hewasissuedaCertificateofLandTransfer(CLT)overtwoparcelsofagriculturalland(LotNos.3017and012)withatotalareaof3.3hectares situated in Salungat, Sto. Domingo,NuevaEcija. The lotswere formerly

ownedbyacertainFlorentinoChiocoandregisteredunderTitleNo.126638.

To pay for his wifes hospitalization, petitioner mortgaged the subject land on

January20,1982,infavorofVirginiadeLeon.Whenthecontractperiodexpired,he

againmortgaged it toRespondentHilariaGrospe,wifeofGeronimoGrospe, for a

periodoffouryears(December5,1986toDecember5,1990)toguaranteealoanof

P32,500. The parties executed a contract denominated as "Kasunduan Sa

Pagpapahiram Ng Lupang Sakahan," which allowed the respondents to use or

cultivatethelandduringthedurationofthemortgage.

Before the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) inCabanatuanCity(RegionIII),petitionerinstitutedagainsttherespondentsanaction

for recoveryofpossession. InhisComplaint,heallegedthattheyhadentered the

disputedlandbyforceandintimidationonJanuary10and11,1991,anddestroyed

thepalaythathehadplantedonthe land.Respondents, intheirAnswer, claimed

thatthe"Kasunduan"betweenthemandpetitionerallowedtheformertotakeoverthepossessionandcultivationofthepropertyuntilthelatterpaidhisloan.Instead

of paying his loan, petitioner allegedly executed on June 29, 1989, a "Waiver ofRights"[7]overthelandholdinginfavorofrespondentsinconsiderationofP54,394.

Petitionerdeniedwaivinghisrightsandinterestoverthelandholdingandalleged

thathisandhischildrenssignaturesappearingontheWaiverwereforgeries.

Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) Ernesto P. Tabara ruled that

petitionerabandonedandsurrenderedthelandholdingtotheSamahangNayonof

Malaya, Sto.Domingo,NuevaEcija, whichhad passed ResolutionNos. 16 and 27

recommendingthereallocationofthesaidlotstotherespondentspouses,whowere

the "most qualified farmer[s]-beneficiaries." The appellate court also ruled that

petitionerhadabandonedthelandholdingandforfeitedhisrightasabeneficiary.It

rejectedhiscontentionthatalldeedsrelinquishingpossessionofthelandholdingby

abeneficiarywereunenforceable.

Issue:Whetherornotthepetitionerabandonedorvoluntarilysurrenderedhisrightsasa

beneficiaryunderPD27?

Held:

Yes.The sale, transferorconveyanceof land reform rights are, asa rule,void inordertopreventacircumventionofagrarianreformlaws.However,inthepresent

case, the voluntary surrender orwaiver of theserights infavorof the Samahang

7/28/2019 Agri Cases 1 7 3 2

2/11

Nayonisvalidbecausesuchactionisdeemedalegallypermissibleconveyancein

favorofthegovernment.Afterthesurrenderorwaiverofsaidlandreformrights,the Department of Agrarian Reform, which took control of the property, validly

awardedittoprivaterespondents.

7/28/2019 Agri Cases 1 7 3 2

3/11

2.FRANCISCOESTOLASvs.ADOLFOMABALOT

Facts:

SubjectagriculturallandwasawardedtorespondentbyvirtueofPD27in

1973andaCLTwasissuedinhisfavor.Inneedofmoneyformedical

expenses,respondentpassedonthepropertytopetitionerforP5,800.00andP200.00worthofrice.Accordingtorespondent,thatwasaverbalmortgage.Accordingtopetitioner,asalehadtakenplaceandatransfer

certificateoftitlewasissuedinpetitioner'sname.Unabletoredeemthe

propertyrespondentfiledacomplaintforreconveyancewiththeDAR

officewhichfoundhisactofsurrenderingthelandinfavorofpetitioneras

constitutinganabandonmentthereof.TheDARCentralOffice,however,

reversedtheassailedorderanddirectedthepetitionertoreturntheland

torespondent.TheCAalsoheldthatthetransferofthelandtopetitioner

wasvoidandthattherewasnoabandonmentbecauserespondenttriedto

redeemthepropertybutpetitioneraskedforahighpurchaserice.

Issue:Whetherornotthetransferofthelandtothepetitionerwasvoid

Held:

Yes.LandawardedunderPD27cannotbetransferredexcepttothegrantee'sheirs

byhereditarysuccession,orbacktothegovernmentbyotherlegalmeans;thelawisclearandleavesnoroomforinterpretation;agrarianlawsmustbeliberally

interpretedinfavorofthegrantees;thepropertywasnotabandonedasrespondentcontinuestoclaimdominionovertheland;andthatevenifrespondentdidindeed

abandonsubjectproperty,anytransfermayonlybemadeinfavorofthe

government.

7/28/2019 Agri Cases 1 7 3 2

4/11

3.CHAVEZvs.PUBLICESTATESAUTHORITY

Facts:

President Ferdinand E. Marcos issued PD No. 1084 creating PEA. PD No. 1084

tasked PEA "to reclaim land, including foreshore and submerged areas," and "to

develop,improve,acquire,leaseandsellanyandallkindsoflands."ThenPresidentMarcos issued Presidential Decree No. 1085 transferring to PEA the "landsreclaimedintheforeshoreandoffshoreoftheManilaBay"undertheManila-Cavite

CoastalRoadandReclamationProject(MCCRRP).Thereafter,PresidentCorazonC.

AquinoissuedSpecialPatentNo.3517,grantingandtransferringtoPEA"theparcels

oflandsoreclaimedundertheManila-CaviteCoastalRoadandReclamationProject

(MCCRRP)containing a totalareaof1,915,894 squaremeters."Subsequently, the

RegisterofDeedsof theMunicipalityofParaaqueissuedTransferCertificatesof

Title, in the name of PEA, covering the three reclaimed islands known as the

"Freedom Islands" located at the southern portion of the Manila-Cavite Coastal

Road,Paraaque City.PEA and AMARIentered into the JointVentureAgreement

(JVA)throughnegotiationwithoutpublicbidding.PresidentFidelV.Ramos,throughthenExecutiveSecretaryRubenTorres,approvedtheJVA.TheSenateCommitteesreportedtheresultsoftheirinvestigation:

(1)thereclaimedlandsPEAseekstotransfertoAMARIunderthe

JVAarelandsofthepublicdomainwhichthegovernmenthasnot

classifiedasalienablelandsandthereforePEAcannotalienatetheselands;

(2)thecertificatesoftitlecoveringtheFreedomIslandsarethusvoid,and

(3)theJVAitselfisillegal.

PetitionerFrankI.Chavezasataxpayer,filedaPetitionforMandamuswithPrayer

fortheIssuanceofaWritofPreliminaryInjunctionandTemporaryRestraining

Order.Petitionercontendsthegovernmentstandstolosebillionsofpesosinthe

salebyPEAofthereclaimedlandstoAMARI.PetitionerpraysthatPEApublicly

disclosethetermsofanyrenegotiationoftheJVA,invokingSection28,ArticleII,and

Section7,ArticleIII,ofthe1987Constitutionontherightofthepeopleto

informationonmattersofpublicconcern.

Issue:

Whetherornotthestipulationsintheamendedjointventureagreementforthe

transfertoAMARIofcertainlands,reclaimedandstilltobereclaimedisvalid

Held:

No.ThemerephysicalactofreclamationbyPEAofforeshoreorsubmergedareas

doesnotmakethereclaimedlandsalienableordisposablelandsofthepublicdomain,muchlesspatrimoniallandsofPEA.Likewise,themeretransferbythe

NationalGovernmentoflandsofthepublicdomaintoPEAdoesnotmakethelands

7/28/2019 Agri Cases 1 7 3 2

5/11

alienableordisposablelandsofthepublicdomain,muchlesspatrimoniallandsof

PEA.ThereisnoexpressauthorityundereitherPDNo.1085orEONo.525forPEAtosellitsreclaimedlands.PEA'scharter,however,expresslytasksPEA"todevelop,

improve,acquire,administer,dealin,subdivide,dispose,leaseandsellanyandall

kindsoflands...owned,managed,controlledand/oroperatedbythegovernment."

Thereis,therefore,legislativeauthoritygrantedtoPEAtosellitslands,whetherpatrimonialoralienablelandsofthepublicdomain.PEAmayselltoprivatepartiesitspatrimonialpropertiesinaccordancewiththePEAcharterfreefrom

constitutionallimitations.Theconstitutionalbanonprivatecorporationsfrom

acquiringalienablelandsofthepublicdomaindoesnotapplytothesaleofPEA's

patrimoniallands.

Moreover,thegovernmentisrequiredtosellvaluablegovernmentpropertythrough

publicbidding.InthecaseatbartheoriginalJVAdatedApril25,1995coverednot

onlytheFreedomIslandsandtheadditional250hectaresstilltobereclaimed,it

alsograntedanoptiontoAMARItoreclaimanother350hectares.TheoriginalJVA,a

negotiatedcontract,enlargedthereclamationareato750hectares.ThefailureofpublicbiddingonDecember10,1991,involvingonly407.84hectares,isnotavalidjustificationforanegotiatedsaleof750hectares,almostdoubletheareapublicly

auctioned.Thegrantoflegislativeauthoritytosellpubliclandsdoesnot

automaticallyconvertalienablelandsofthepublicdomainintoprivateor

patrimoniallands.Thealienablelandsofthepublicdomainmustbetransferredto

qualifiedprivateparties,ortogovernmententitiesnottaskedtodisposeofpubliclands,beforetheselandscanbecomeprivateorpatrimoniallands.Toallowvast

areasofreclaimedlandsofthepublicdomaintobetransferredtoPEAasprivatelandswillsanctionagrossviolationoftheconstitutionalbanonprivate

corporationsfromacquiringanykindofalienablelandofthepublicdomain.The

157.84hectaresofreclaimedlandscomprisingtheFreedomIslands,nowcoveredbycertificatesoftitleinthenameofPEA,arealienablelandsofthepublicdomain.

PEAmayleasetheselandstoprivatecorporationsbutmaynotsellortransfer

ownershipoftheselandstoprivatecorporations.

7/28/2019 Agri Cases 1 7 3 2

6/11

4.LUZFARMSvs.THEHONORABLESECRETARYOFDAR

Facts:

LuzFarms,petitionerinthiscase,isacorporationengagedinthelivestockand

poultrybusinessandtogetherwithothersinthesamebusinessallegedlystandsto

beadverselyaffectedbytheenforcementofSection3(b),Section11,Section13,Section16(d)and17andSection32ofR.A.No.6657otherwiseknownasComprehensiveAgrarianReformLawandoftheGuidelinesandProcedures

ImplementingProductionandProfitSharingunderR.A.No.6657promulgated

onJanuary2,1989andtheRulesandRegulationsImplementingSection11

thereofaspromulgatedbytheDARonJanuary9,1989

Hence,thispetitionprayingthataforesaidlaws,guidelinesandrulesbedeclared

unconstitutional.Meanwhile,itisalsoprayedthatawritofpreliminaryinjunction

orrestrainingorderbeissuedenjoiningpublicrespondentsfromenforcingthe

same,insofarastheyaremadetoapplytoLuzFarmsandotherlivestockand

poultryraisers.LuzFarmsquestionsthefollowingprovisionsofR.A.6657,insofaras

theyaremadetoapplytoit:

(a)Section3(b)whichincludesthe"raisingoflivestock(andpoultry)"inthe

definitionof"Agricultural,AgriculturalEnterpriseorAgriculturalActivity."

(b)Section11whichdefines"commercialfarms"as"privateagriculturallandsdevotedtocommercial,livestock,poultryandswineraising..."

(c)Section13whichcallsuponpetitionertoexecuteaproduction-sharingplan.(d)Section16(d)and17whichvestontheDepartmentofAgrarianReformthe

authoritytosummarilydeterminethejustcompensationtobepaidforlands

coveredbytheComprehensiveAgrarianReformLaw.(e)Section32whichspellsouttheproduction-sharingplanmentionedinSection

13

Theconstitutionalprovisionunderconsiderationreadsasfollows:

ARTICLEXIII

xxx

AGRARIANANDNATURALRESOURCESREFORM

Section4.TheStateshall,bylaw,undertakeanagrarianreformprogramfounded

ontherightoffarmersandregularfarmworkers,whoarelandless,toowndirectly

orcollectivelythelandstheytillor,inthecaseofotherfarmworkers,toreceivea

justshareofthefruitsthereof.Tothisend,theStateshallencourageandundertakethejustdistributionofallagriculturallands,subjecttosuchpriorities

andreasonableretentionlimitsastheCongressmayprescribe,takingintoaccountecological,developmental,orequityconsiderations,andsubjecttothepaymentof

justcompensation.Indeterminingretentionlimits,theStateshallrespectthe

rightsofsmalllandowners.TheStateshallfurtherprovideincentivesforvoluntaryland-sharing.xxx"

7/28/2019 Agri Cases 1 7 3 2

7/11

It,however,arguedthatCongressinenactingthesaidlawhastranscendedthe

mandateoftheConstitution,inincludinglanddevotedtotheraisingoflivestock,poultryandswineinitscoverage.Livestockorpoultryraisingisnotsimilarto

croportreefarming.Landisnottheprimaryresourceinthisundertakingand

representsnomorethanfivepercent(5%)ofthetotalinvestmentofcommercial

livestockandpoultryraisers.Indeed,therearemanyownersofresidentiallandsalloverthecountrywhouse

availablespaceintheirresidenceforcommerciallivestockandraisingpurposes,

under"contract-growingarrangements,"wherebyprocessingcorporationsand

othercommerciallivestockandpoultryraisersLandssupportthebuildingsand

otheramenitiesattendanttotheraisingofanimalsandbirds.Theuseoflandis

incidentaltobutnottheprincipalfactororconsiderationinproductivityinthis

industry.

Ontheotherhand,thepublicrespondentarguedthatlivestockandpoultry

raisingisembracedintheterm"agriculture"andtheinclusionofsuchenterpriseunderSection3(b)ofR.A.6657isproper.HecitedthatWebster'sInternationalDictionary,SecondEdition(1954),definesthefollowingwords:

"Agriculturetheartorscienceofcultivatingthegroundandraisingand

harvestingcrops,often,includingalso,feeding,breedingandmanagementof

livestock,tillage,husbandry,farming.Itincludesfarming,horticulture,forestry,

dairying,sugarmaking...Livestockdomesticanimalsusedorraisedonafarm,especiallyforprofit.Farmaplotortractoflanddevotedtotheraisingof

domesticorotheranimals."

ISSUE:

WhetherornotSections3(b),11,13and32ofR.A.No.6657insofarasthesaidlawincludestheraisingoflivestock,poultryandswineinitscoverageaswellasthe

ImplementingRulesandGuidelinespromulgatedinaccordancetherewithis

constitutional?

HELD:

No.ThetranscriptsofthedeliberationsoftheConstitutionalCommissionof1986

onthemeaningoftheword"agricultural,"clearlyshowthatitwasneverthe

intentionoftheframersoftheConstitutiontoincludelivestockandpoultryindustry

inthecoverageoftheconstitutionally-mandatedagrarianreformprogramofthe

Government.

TheCommitteeadoptedthedefinitionof"agriculturalland"asdefinedunderSection166ofR.A.3844,aslauddevotedtoanygrowth,includingbutnotlimitedto

croplands,saltbeds,fishponds,idleandabandonedland

TheintentionoftheCommitteeistolimittheapplicationoftheword"agriculture."

7/28/2019 Agri Cases 1 7 3 2

8/11

ItisevidentfromtheforegoingdiscussionthatSectionIIofR.A.6657which

includes"privateagriculturallandsdevotedtocommerciallivestock,poultryandswineraising"inthedefinitionof"commercialfarms"isinvalid,totheextentthat

theaforecitedagro-industrialactivitiesaremadetobecoveredbytheagrarian

reformprogramoftheState.Thereissimplynoreasontoincludelivestockand

poultrylandsinthecoverageofagrarianreform.Hence,thereismeritinLuzFarms'argumentthattherequirementinSections13

and32ofR.A.6657directing"corporatefarms"whichincludelivestockandpoultry

raiserstoexecuteandimplement"production-sharingplans"(pendingfinal

redistributionoftheirlandholdings)wherebytheyarecalledupontodistribute

fromthreepercent(3%)oftheirgrosssalesandtenpercent(10%)oftheirnet

profitstotheirworkersasadditionalcompensationisunreasonableforbeing

confiscatory,andthereforeviolativeofdueprocess

7/28/2019 Agri Cases 1 7 3 2

9/11

6.PHILIPPINENATURALRAILWAYSvs.DELVALLE

Facts:

PhilippineNationalRailways(PNR)ownedthreestripsoflandalongtheManila-

legazpiroute,partofitsrailroadrightofway.Someportionsofthelandwere

occupiedbypeople,promptingdisputes.PNRadoptedtemporaryrulesforthepossessionofthelandthroughrentals.PNRawardedtheuseofthelandafterabiddingtoPantaleonBingabingforaperiodofthreeyearscreatingacivillawlease

expresslystipulatingBingabingto"occupyandustheproperty.temporarilyfor

agriculture."BingabingfailedtotakepossessionofthesaidpieceoflandasPampilo

Doltzhadoccupiedthelandandclaimsthatheisatenantofthepreviousawardees

andBingabingtoo.Inresponsetothis,PNRandBingabingfiledsuitagainstDoltzfor

recoveryofthepossessionoftheland,toremovethehouseofDoltzandpayfor

compensationtoBingabing.

Doltzdefensesstatethatheisinteraliatenantonthepropertyfor20yearsplaced

bydeceasedlessorPabloGomba,andsuccessorDemetriodeVera.HealsoclaimedthathehadgivenBingabing1/3ofthecropharvestprofitsandbyeffectbecomeatenantofBingabing.Uponthecourt'srequest,DoltzandBingabingagreedto

temporarilyliquidatetheharvestonasharingratioof70-30inDoltz'favour.While

thecasewaspending,DoltzregisteredwiththeCourtofAgrarianRelations(CAR)a

petitionagainstBingabingforsecurityoftenure,theadoptionofasharingratioof

70-30ofthecrops,andreliquidationofpastharvests.PNRintervenedinthecase.Petitionershereintheremaintainedthepositionthatthepremisesincontroversy

arenotanagriculturallandwithinthecontemplationoftheAgriculturalTenancyAct(RepublicAct1199)ortheAgriculturalLandReformCode(RepublicAct3844);

thatnotenancyrelationshipexistedbetweentheparties;thatCAR,therefore,lacked

jurisdictionoverthecase;andthatthereisapendingcasebetweenthesamepartiesinanothercourtinvolvingthesamesubjectmatterandthesamecauseofaction.

CARdecidedinfavorofDoltzandthatthesharingratiobemaintained.

Issues:

(1)IsthelandindisputeagriculturallandwithintheAgriculturalTenancyactand

the

AgriculturalLandreformcode?

(2)IsDoltzconsideredatenant?

Held:

(1)No.Section3oftheAgriculturalTenancyAct,"agriculturaltenancyisthephysicalpossessionbyapersonoflanddevotedtoagriculturebelongingto,or

legallypossessedby,anotherforthepurposeofproductionthroughthelaboroftheformerandofthemembersofhisimmediatefarmhousehold,inconsiderationof

whichtheformeragreestosharetheharvestwiththelatter,ortopayaprice

certainorascertainable,eitherinproduceorinmoney,orinbothSection166(1)oftheAgriculturalLandReformCode,"agriculturalland"means

7/28/2019 Agri Cases 1 7 3 2

10/11

landdevotedtoanygrowthincludingbutnotlimitedtocroplands,saltbeds,

fishponds,idlelandandabandonedlandasdefinedinparagraphs18and19ofthissection.Thelandhereincontroversydoesnotfitintotheconceptofagricultural

land.PNRcannotdevoteittoagriculturebecausebyitsowncharter,RepublicAct

4156,PNRcannotengageinagriculture.Agriculturalactivitiesmayhamperthe

operation,securityandsafetyofthePNR.(2)ThecontractofleaseexecutedbyPNRinfavourofBingabingwasmerely

temporaryandmayberevocableatanytimethePNRneedstheleasedlandforits

ownuse.Also,thecontractrulesstipulatethatanyformofsubleaseofthelandis

prohibitedandthatpreviousawardeesdeVera,Gombaorpresentleaseholder

Bingabingcannotcreateone,sincePNRdidnotconsenttothecreationofsuch.

7/28/2019 Agri Cases 1 7 3 2

11/11

7.KRIVENKOvs.REGISTEROFDEEDS

Facts:

Petitionermaforeigner,boughtresidentiallotfromtheMagdalenaEstate, Inc. inDecember 1941, but the registration wasinterrupted due to war (Second World War). In

May 1945, he tried to accomplish theregistration of the aforementioned residential lotbut then he was denied by the Registryof Deedsof Manila because he was not a Filipino

citizen. The constitutional provision in question is Section 1 of article XIII of theConstitution (1935) which provides; Natural resources, with the exception of public

agricultural land, shall not be alienated. And with respect to public agricultural lands,theiralienation is limited to Filipino citizens. Krivenko contends that the land he bought is

not covered by the said constitutional provision because it was a private residential landand not a public agricultural land.

Issue:

Whether or not an alien may acquire residential lang

Held:No. Section 5 of Article XIII of the Constitution (1935) provides; save in cases

of hereditary succession, no private agricultural land shall be transferred orassigned except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold

lands of the public domain in the Philippines. Ir is rue in statutory construction t h a t aword o r phrase repeated in a stature will bear t h e same meaning throughout the statute,

unless a different intention appears. The only difference between agricultural landunder Section 1 and agricultural land under section 5, is that the former is public and

the latter is private. But such difference refers to the ownership and not the class ofland. The lands are the same in both sections and for the conservation of national

patrimony, what is important Is the nature o r class of the property regardless whether itisowned by the State or by its citizens.