Agrarian Cases2

8/12/2019 Agrarian Cases2

1/6

Land Bank of the Philippines VS. HONEYCOMB FARM CORPORATION

FACTS:

A petition for review on certiorari was filed by the petitioner assailing the CAs amended

decision. The respondent, Honeycomb Farms Corporation was the registered owner of a parcelof land under TCT-2550 with an area of 29.0966 hectares situated in Masbate. HFC voluntarily

offered its land to the DAR for conveyance under RA 6657. Pursuant to the rules and regulations

governing the CARL, the government through DAR and LBP determined an acquirable and

compensable area of 27. 5871 hectares and excluded 1.5095 hectares for being hilly and

underdeveloped. LBP fixed the value of the land in the amount of P165, 739.44. HFC rejected

the valuation made by the LBP and filed a petition with the DARAB for summary

administrative determination of just compensation and claiming the just compensation for the

land should be P25, 000.00 per hectare considering the location and productivity.

ISSUE:

Whether or not SAC has jurisdiction in the determination of just compensation.

RULING:

Yes, SAC has the jurisdiction to determine just compensation as provided in Sec. 17 of

RA 6657DARAB does not exercise concurrent with the SAC in just compensation cases. The

determination of just compensation is judicial in nature. Under Sections 50 of RA 6657 provides

that the DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian

reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture

and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Section 57 of RA 6657 provides the

special jurisdiction, the Special Agrarian Court shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction

over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners and the prosecution

of all criminal offense under this act. The Special Agrarian Court shall decide all appropriate

cases under their special jurisdiction within thirty (30) days from submission of the case for

decision.

The SC finds that a remand of the said case is necessary in order for the SAC to

determine just compensation in accordance with Section 17 of RA 6657 and applicable DAR

regulations. Wherefore, premises considered, the petition was granted.


2/6

Land Bank of the Philippines VS SPOUSES ROSA AND PEDRO COSTO

FACTS:

A petition for review on certiorari was filed seeking to reverse and set aside the decision

of the Court of Appeals and the resolution denying the petitioners motion for reconsideration.

Respondent spouses Rosa and Pedro Costo are the registered owners of a parcel of land

located at Catamlangan. Pilar, Sorsogon. After the passage of RA6657, respondents voluntarily

offered the said property to the Department of Agrarian Reform under the Comprehensive

Agrarian Reform Program and its implementing rules. Portion of the total area of the land

qualified for the acquisition under the program by the DAR. Land Bank of the Philippines

computed and valued which the valuation was rejected by the respondents. The respondentsought the determination of just compensation with the PARAD. The PARAD rendered decision

in favor of the respondent. In relation to Sec 57 of RA 6657, petitioner filed a petition for

determination of just compensation with the RTC, sitting as SAC. SAC rendered decision

finding the valuation made by the PARAD as the more realistic appraisal of the subject property.

CA affirmed the decision of the SAC in favor of the respondents

ISSUE:

Whether or Not the compensation fixed by SAC not in accordance with the of RA 6657

as translated into a basic formula in DAR Administrative Order

RULING:

No.The determination of just compensation was in accordance with Sec. 17 of RA 6657.

In determining just compensation, the RTC is required to consider the following factors:

1. The acquisition cost of the land2. The current value of the properties

3. Its nature, actual case, and income

4. The sworn valuation by the owner

5. The tax declarations

6. The assessment made by government assessors

7. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farm

workers, and by the government to the property

8. The non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing

institution on the said land, if any

The court has consistently ruled that the ascertainment of just compensation by the RTC

as SAC on the basis of the landholdings nature, location, market value, assessors value, and the


3/6

volume and value of the produce is valid and accords with Section 17 of RA6657. The court has

likewise ruled that in appraising just compensation the courts must consider, in addition, all the

facts regarding the condition of the landholding and its surroundings, as well as the

improvements and capabilities of the landholding.

Wherefore, petition was denied and decision of the CA was affirmed.


4/6

JULIAN S. LEBRUDO and REYNALDO L. LEBRUDO, Petitioners,vs.

REMEDIOS LOYOLA, Respondent.

The Facts

Respondent Remedios Loyola owns a parcel of land located in Barangay Milagrosa, Carmona,Cavite, awarded by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) under Republic Act No. 6657(RA 6657). This lot is covered by Certificate of Land Ownership (CLOA) issued in favor ofLoyola on 27 December 1990 and duly registered on 14 March 1991 under Transfer ofCertificate of Title.

On 27 June 1995, petitioner Julian S. Lebrudo, now deceased and represented by his son, petitioner Reynaldo L. Lebrudo, filed with the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform

Adjudicator (PARAD) of Trece Martires City, Cavite, an action

for the cancellation of theTCT/CLOA in the name of Loyola and the issuance of another for the one-half portion of the lotin Lebrudos favor.

PARAD dismissed the case without prejudice on the ground that the case was filed prematurely.On 11 March 1996, Lebrudo re-filed the same action.

Lebrudo alleged that he was approached by Loyola sometime in 1989 to redeem the lot, whichwas mortgaged by Loyolas mother, Cristina Hugo, to Trinidad Barreto. After Lebrudo redeemedthe lot for P250.00 and a cavan of palay , Loyola again sought Lebrudos help in obtaining title tothe lot in her name by shouldering all the expenses for the transfer of the title of the lot from her

mother, Cristina Hugo. In exchange, Loyola promised to give Lebrudo the one-half portion ofthe lot. Thereafter, TCT/CLOA No. 998 was issued in favor of Loyola. Loyola then allegedlyexecuted a Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 28 December 1989, waiving and transferring her rightsover the one-half portion of the lot in favor of Lebrudo. To reiterate her commitment, Loyolaallegedly executed two more Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 1 December 1992 and 3 December1992, committing herself to remove her house constructed on the corresponding one-half portionto be allotted to Lebrudo.

Thereafter, Lebrudo asked Loyola to comply with her promise. However, Loyola refused.Lebrudo sought the assistance of the Sangguniang Barangay of Milagrosa, Carmona, Cavite; thePhilippine National Police (PNP) of Carmona, Cavite; and the Department of Agrarian Reformto mediate. However, despite steps taken to amicably settle the issue, as evidenced bycertifications from the PNP and the barangay , there was no amicable settlement. Thus, Lebrudofiled an action against Loyola.

In her Answer, Loyola maintained that Lebrudo was the one who approached her and offered toredeem the lot and the release of the CLOA. Loyola denied promising one-half portion of the lotas payment for the transfer, titling and registration of the lot. Loyola explained that the lot washer only property and it was already being occupied by her children and their families. Loyolaalso denied the genuineness and due execution of the two Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 28December 1989 and 3 December 1992. The records do not show whether Loyola renounced theSinumpaang Salaysay dated 1 December 1992.

On13 February 2002, the PARAD of Trece Martires City, Cavite decided the case in Lebrudosfavor.

Loyola appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).OnAugust 2004, the DARAB reversed the decision o f the PARAD and ruled in Loyolas favor


5/6

Lebrudo filed a motion for reconsideration which the DARAB denied in a Resolution dated 12April 2005. Lebrudo then filed a petition for review with the CA.

On 17 August 2007, the CA affirmed the decision of the DARAB. Lebrudo filed a motion forreconsideration which the CA denied.

Issue:

The main issue is whether Lebrudo is entitled to the one-half portion of the lot covered by RA6657 on the basis of the waiver and transfer of rights embodied in the two Sinumpaang Salaysay dated 28 December 1989 and 3 December 1992 allegedly executed by Loyola in his favor.

Ruling:

The petition lacks merit.

A Certificate of Land Ownership or CLOA is a document evidencing ownership of the landgranted or awarded to the beneficiary by DAR, and contains the restrictions and conditions provided for in RA 6657 and other applicable laws. Section 27 of RA 6657, as amended by RA9700, which provides for the transferability of awarded lands, states:

SEC. 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. Lands acquired by beneficiaries under thisACT may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or tothe government, or to 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 torepurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice ofthe 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 AgrarianCoordinating Committee (PARCCOM), as herein provided, shall, in turn, be given due noticethereof by the BARC.

It is clear from the provision that lands awarded to beneficiaries under the ComprehensiveAgrarian Reform Program (CARP) may not be sold, transferred or conveyed for a period of 10years. The law enumerated four exceptions: (1) through hereditary succession; (2) to thegovernment; (3) to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP); or (4) to other qualified

beneficiaries. In short, during the prohibitory 10-year period, any sale, transfer or conveyance ofland reform rights is void, except as allowed by law, in order to prevent a circumvention ofagrarian reform laws.

Lebrudo asserts that he is a qualified farmer beneficiary who is entitled to the lot under theCARP. DAR Administrative Order No. 3, series of 1990, enumerated the qualifications of a

beneficiary: 1. Landless; 2. Filipino citizen; 3. Actual occupant/tiller who is at least 15 years ofage or head of the family at the time of filing application; and 4. Has the willingness, ability andaptitude to cultivate and make the land productive.

Lebrudo does not qualify as a beneficiary because of (1) and (3). First, Lebrudo is not landless.According to the records, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer Amelia Sangalang issued acertification dated 28 February 1996 attesting that Lebrudo was awarded by the DAR with ahomelot consisting of an area of 236 square meters situated at Japtinchay Estate, Bo. Milagrosa,Carmona, Cavite. Next, Lebrudo is not the actual occupant or tiller of the lot at the time of thefiling of the application. Loyola and her family were the actual occupants of the lot at the timeLoyola applied to be a beneficiary under the CARP.

Lebrudos assertion must fail. The law expressly prohibits any sale, transfer or conveyance byfarmer-beneficiaries of their land reform rights within 10 years from the grant by the DAR. Thelaw provides for four exceptions and Lebrudo does not fall under any of the exceptions. In

Maylem v. Ellano , we held that the waiver of rights and interests over landholdings awarded by


6/6

the government is invalid for being violative of agrarian reform laws. Clearly, the waiver andtransfer of rights to the lot as embodied in the Sinumpaang Salaysay executed by Loyola is voidfor falling under the 10-year prohibitory period specified in RA 6657.

Agrarian Cases2

Documents

Transcript of Agrarian Cases2