163912222 2007 lecture guide discussion of tenancy

8/13/2019 163912222 2007 Lecture Guide Discussion of Tenancy

1/29

LECTURE GUIDE

of

Assistant Secretary AUGUSTO P. QUIJANODepartment of Agrarian Reform

1. Discuss the requisites for the existence of tenancy relations:

a) The parties are the landholder and the tenant;

b) The subject is agricultural land;

c) There is consent by the landholder for the tenant to work on the land, given eitherorally or in writing, expressly or impliedly;

d) The purpose is agricultural roduction;

e) There is ersonal culti!ation or with the help of the immediate farm household;and

f) There is co"ensation in terms of payment of a #i$ed a"ount in "oney and/orroduce.%&a'alles !s. (A)* 1+, S&)A -/ 01,,2; Ga'riel !s. Pangilinan* , S&)A3 %14/5; Oarde !s. &A* -,3 S&)A -6* 0142; Qua !s. &A* 1, S&)A -6+0112.

-. gricultural leasehold tenancy distinguished from civil law lease!

a) "ubject #atter $ agricultural leasehold is limited to agricultural land; while a civillaw lease may refer to rural or ur'an roerty;

b) ttention and %ultivation $ leasehold tenant should ersonally attend to* andculti!ate the agricultural land; whereas the civil law lessee need not ersonallyculti!ate or work the thing leased;

c) &urpose $ 'n leasehold tenancy, the landholding is de!oted to agriculture;whereas in civil law lease, the purpose may be #or any other la7#ul ursuits;

d) (aw governing the relationship $ %ivil law lease is governed by the %i!il &ode*

whereas leasehold tenancy is governed by secial la7 %)A 6,// as a"ended'y )A +6,5. %Ga'riel !s. Pangilinan* , S&)A 3 %14/5

6. n overseer of a coconut plantation 7as not considered a tenant %8a"oras !s. Su* Jr.*1,/ S&)A -/, %135; &astillo !s. &A* -3 S&)A - %1-5.

/. The o7ner tilling his o7n agricultural land is not a tenant within the contemplation oflaw! %9aranda !s. 9aguio* 1, S&)A 14 %135.

. %ertification of tenancy/non$tenancy issued by D) are not conclusi!e evidence oftenancy relationship! %Oarde !s. &A et al.* -,3 S&)A -6 01425.

+. "uccessor$in$interest of the true and lawful landholder/owner 7ho ga!e the consent are'ound to recogni*e the tenancy established before they acquired the agricultural land%ndaya !s. &A* -1 S&)A 13 01-25.

4. The law is explicit in requiring the tenant and his immediate family to work on the land%9oni#acio !s. (ion; 144 S&)A -/5* and the lessee cannot hire many persons tohelp him cultivate the land %(e Jesus !s. IA&* 14 S&)A 5.


2/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 2

,. 34e agree with the trial court that 4e cannot have a case where a landlord is di!ested ofhis landholding and somebody else is installed to became a new landlord!5 %Oarde* etal.* !s. &A* et al.* 4,3 S&)A -6 01425.

. Tenancy relation was se!ered when the tenant and/or his immediate farm household

ceased from ersonally 7or


3/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age <

the (ocsin case, the Bigh Tribunal ruled that "ere issuance o# a certi#icate o# landtrans#er does not !est o7nershi in the #ar"erCgrantee.

1. The consent o# the #ar"erD'ene#iciary is not needed in the determination of ?ustco"ensation pursuant to "ection 8: of ) 1o! 99C %Band 9an< o# the Philiines

!s. &A and Pascual %G.). No. 1-,4* (ece"'er -* 15.

-3. EJust &o"ensationF is defined as the #ull and #air eui!alent of the property takenfrom its owner by the expropriator! 't has been repeatedly stressed by this %ourt, thatthe "easure is not the ta


4/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age

! The %ourt of ppealsand "upreme %ourt maintain their aellate ?urisdiction over agrarian cases decidedby D)7! %>da. de Tangu' !s. &a* 11 S&)A ,, %135.

-+. D)7?s 0urisdiction over grarian Disputes was also resolved in %entral #indanao-niversity vs! D)7, 28C "%) :9!

-4. EAgrarian disuteF refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements,whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted toagriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers associations or representation ofpersons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms orconditions of such tenurial arrangements! 't includes any controversy relating tocompensation of lands acquired under ) 99C and other terms and conditions oftransfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarianreform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farmoperator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee5 %Isidro !s. &A*--, S&)A 36 %165.

-,. 'n the case of >da. de Areiola !s. &a"arines Sur )eg. Agricultural School* et al.*113 S&)A 14 %1+35, the "upreme %ourt explained the phrase E'y a third artyF in"ection 28 of ) 88== 6jectment; Giolation; 0urisdiction! $$$3all cases involving thedispossession of a tenant by the landholder or 'y a third arty $ $ $> The "upreme%ourt held that when no tenancy relationshi between the contending parties exist,the %ourt of grarian )elations has no jurisdiction5, 3The law governing agriculturaltenancy, ) 88== explains that tenancy relationship is a 3juridical tie5 which arisesbetween a landholder and a tenant once they agree expressly or impliedly to undertake jointly the cultivation of land belonging to the former, etc!5

1ecessarily, the law contemplated a legal relationship between landowner and

tenant! This does not exist where one is owner or possessor and the other a squatter ordeforciant!5

-. "ection C of ) 99C provides that the "pecial grarian %ourt 6"%s> shall haveoriginal and exclusive jurisdiction over all etitions #or the deter"ination o# ?ustco"ensation and all cri"inal o##enses. The "upreme held that Eany e##ort totransfer the original and exclusive jurisdiction to the D) djudicators and to convertthe original jurisdiction of the )T%s into aellate ?urisdiction would be contrary toSection 4 o# )A ++4 and there#ore 7ould 'e !oid. %)eu'lic !s. &ourt o#Aeals* 4, S&)A -+6 %1+5.

63. 3't should be stressed that the motion in Aortich were denied on the ground that the

3win$win5 resolution is void and has no legal effect because the decision approving theconcession has already become final and executory! This is the ratio decidendi orreason o# the decision. The statement that (+-s have authority to convert orreclassify agricultural lands without D) approval is merely a dictum or expression ofthe individual views of the ponente or writer of the )esolution of ugust 8=, 8==! 'tdoes not embody the %ourt?s determination and is not binding %@ortich* et al.* !s.&orona* et al.* G.). No. 161/4 %August 1* 15.


5/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age C

61. gricultural lands expropriated by (+-s pursuant to the power of eminent domain neednot be subject of D) conversion clearance prior to change in use! %Pro!ince o#&a"arines Sur !s. &A* --- S&)A 146 %165

6-. )espondent D)s failure to observe due rocess in the acquisition of petitioner?s

landholding does not ipso facto give this %ourt the power to adjudicate over petitioners?application for conversion of its haciendas from agricultural to non$agricultural! %)o$as!s. &A* G.). No. 1-4,4+* %(ece"'er 1+* 15

66. The issue o# o7nershi cannot 'e settled 'y the (A)A9 since it is de#initelyoutside its ?urisdiction! 4hatever findings made by the D)7 regarding theownership of the land are not conclusi!e to settle the matter! The issue o# o7nershishall be resolved in a searate roceedings 'e#ore the aroriate trial courtbetween the claimants thereof! 60aime #orta, "r!, et al!, vs! 0aime .ccidental, et al!, +!)! 1o! 82 61ote the Dissenting .pinion of %hief 0ustice Davide0r!,>

6/. &!D! 1o! 2, which implemented the .peration (and Transfer 6.(T> program, coverstenanted rice or corn lands! The reuisites #or co!erage under the .(T program arethe following@ 68> the land must be de!oted to rice or corn cros@ and 62> there mustbe a syste" o# share cro or leaseDtenancy obtaining therein! 'f either of theserequisites is a'sent, the land is not co!ered under OBT! Bence, a landowner neednot aly #or retention where his ownership over the entire landholding is intact andundisturbed!

.n the other hand, the reuisites for the exercise by the landowner of his right o#retention are the following@ 68> the land must be de!oted to rice or corn cros; 62>there must be a system of share$crop or lease tenancy obtaining therein; and 6 the

si*e of the landholding "ust not e$ceed t7entyD#our %-/5 hectares or it could 'e"ore than t7entyD#our %-/5 hectares ro!ided that at least se!en %45 hectaresthereo# are co!ered lands and "ore than se!en %45 hectares o# it consist o# Eotheragricultural lands!5

'n the landmark case of Association of Small Landowners in the Phil., Inc. vs.Secretary of Agrarian Reform, we held that landowners 7ho ha!e not yet e$ercisedtheir retention rights under P.(. No. -4 are entitled to the ne7 retention rightsunder )!! 1o! 99C! 4e disregarded the August -4* 1, deadline imposed by D) dministrative .rder 1o! 8, series of 8=:C on landowners covered by .(T! Bowever, ifa landowner filed his application for retention after ugust 2, 8=:C but he hadpreviously filed the sworn statements required by BOI Nos. /1* / and -* he is still

entitled to the retention limit of se!en %45 hectares under &!D! 1o! 2! .therwise, he isonly entitled to retain #i!e %5 hectares under )!! 1o! 99C! 6udosia Dae* and/or BerBeirs presented by driano D! Dae*, vs! The Bon! %!! et! al!,

There are only two ways a person can be charged with indirect contempt, namely, 68>though a verified petition; and 62> by order or #or"al charge initiated by the court=OTU P)OP)IO!

6+. 4e hold that our decision, declaring a etition #or re!ie7 as the roer "ode o#aeal #ro" ?udg"ents o# Secial Agrarian &ourts is a rule o# rocedure 7hicha##ects su'stanti!e rights! 'f our ruling is given retroactive application, it will prejudice(7&?s right to appeal because pending appeals in the %ourt of ppeals will be


6/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 9

dismissed outright in mere technicality thereby sacrificing the substantial merits thereof!'t would be unjust to apply a new doctrine to a pending case involving a party whoalready invoked a contrary view and who acted in good faith thereon prior to theissuance of said doctrine! 6(and 7ank of the &hilippines vs! rlene de (eon, et al!, +!)!1o! 8!

/3. %ourt applied the provisions of )epublic ct 99C to rice and corn lands when it upheldthe constitutionality of the payment of just compensation for &residential Decree 2lands through the different modes stated in "ec! 8:! )!! 99C! 6(and 7ank of the&hilippines vs! %ourt of ppeals, over 68> all petitions for the deter"ination o# ?ust co"ensation tolandowner, and 62> rosecutions o# cri"inal o##enses under )eu'lic Act No. ++4.6&hilippine Geterans 7ank vs! %, !

/. The findings of fact of the %ourt of grarian )elations, supported by su'stantiale!idence, is well$nigh conclusive on an appellate tribunal! 6 De %have* vs! Jobel, CC"%) 29>!


7/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age

/+. The promulgation of &!D! 1o! 2 by &resident #arcos in the exercise of his powersunder martial law has already been sustained in +on*ales vs! strella and we find noreason to modify or reverse it on that issue! s for the power of &resident quino topromulgate &roc! 1o! 8

/,. The argument of some of the petitioners that &roc! 1o! 8

-. The recogni*ed rule, indeed, is that title to the property expropriated shall pass from theowner to the expropriator only uon #ull ay"ent o# the ?ust co"ensation!0urisprudence on this settled principle is consistent both here and in other democratic jurisdictions! 6'bid!>


8/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age :

6. %)& (aw 6)!! 99C> is more liberal than those granted by &!D! 1o! 2 as to retentionlimits! 6'bid!>

/. The rule is settled that the ?urisdiction o# a court is deter"ined 'y the statute in#orce at the ti"e o# the co""ence"ent o# an action! There can be no question that

at the time the complaints in %) %ases 1os! 9H$:H2$-&K: and :H9$:8H$-&K: werefiled, the )T% of &angasinan had no jurisdiction over them pursuant to Section 1- %a5and %'5 o# P.(. No. /+ which is vested the then &ourt o# Agrarian )elations withoriginal exclusive jurisdiction over cases involving rights granted and obligationsimposed by presidential issuances promulgated in relation to the agrarian reformprogram! Bowever, when 9atas Pa"'ansa 9lg. 1-, otherwise known as theJudiciary )eorganiation Act o# 1,3, took effect, the %ourts of grarian )elationswere integrated into the )egional Trial %ourts and the jurisdiction of the former wasvested in the latter courts! 't can thus be seen that at the time 7ranch 9 of the )T% of&angasinan dismissed the agrarian cases on 2= .ctober 8=:C, )egional Trial %ourtsalready had jurisdiction over agrarian disputes! The issue that logically crops up then iswhether 7atas &ambansa 7lg! 82= automatically conferred upon the aforesaid 7ranch9 jurisdiction over the subject agrarian cases considering that these cases were filedseven 6> years earlier at a time when only the %ourts of grarian )elations hadexclusive original jurisdiction over them! e rule that it did not* #or such a de#ect is#atal! 7esides, the grant o# ?urisdiction to the )egional Trial &ourts o!er agrariancases 7as not "eant to ha!e any retroacti!e e##ect. 9atas Pa"'ansa 9lg. 1-does not ro!ide #or such retroacti!ity! The trial court did not then err in dismissingthe cases! 6 Tiongson vs! %, 28 "%) 8=>!

. .n 22 0uly 8=:, the &resident of the )epublic of the &hilippines promulgated$ecuti!e Order %.O.5 No. -- providing for the mechanisms for the implementationof the %omprehensive grarian )eform &rogram instituted by &roclamation 1o! 8! x x xThe decisions of the D) may, in proper cases, be appealed to the )egional Trial%ourts but shall be immediately executory notwithstanding such appeal!I Thisro!ision not only reealed Section 1- %a5 and %'5 o# 9.P. 9lg. 1- ! The above$quoted Section 14 o# .O. No. -- was the governing law at the time the challengeddecision was promulgated! Then, too, "ection CH of )!! 1o! 99C, the %omprehensive grarian )eform (aw, substantially reiterates said "ection 8 while "ections C9 and Cprovide for the designation by this %ourt of at least one 68> branch of the )egional Trial

%ourt in each province to act as a special agrarian court which shall have exclusiveoriginal jurisdiction only over petitions for the determination of just compensation andthe prosecution of criminal offenses under said ct! 6Tiongson vs! %, 28 "%) 8=>!

+. The constitutionality of &!D! 1o! 2 from which (etter of 'nstructions 1o! and#emorandum %ircular 1o! 88, "eries of 8=: are derived, is now well settled!

#ore specifically, this %ourt also upheld the validity and constitutionality of Better o#Instructions No. /4/ which directed then "ecretary of grarian )eform %onradostrella to Iundertake to place under the (and Transfer &rogram of the governmentpursuant to &residential Decree 1o! 2, all tenanted rice/corn lands with areas of se!enhectares or less belonging to landowners who own other agricultural lands of more

than seven hectares in aggregate areas or lands used for residential, commercial,industrial or other urban purposes from which they derive adequate income to supportthemselves and their familiesI! 6Gin*ons$#agana vs! strella, 2H8 "%) C!

4. 't is settled that mandamus is not available to control discretion but not the discretionitsel# ! The writ may issue to co"el the e$ercise o# discretion 'ut not thediscretion itsel# ! *andam$s can require action only but not specific action wherethe act sought to be performed involves the exercise of discretion! 6"harp 'nternational#arketing vs! %, 2H8 "%) 2==>!


9/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age =

,. ctions for forfeiture of certificates of land transfer for failure to pay lease rentals formore than two 62> years fall within the original and e$clusi!e ?urisdiction o# the &ourto# Agrarian )elations! 6%urso vs! %, 82: "%) C9>!

. )eferral of preliminary determination of rights of tenant$farmer and the landowner to#inistry of grarian )eform, not necessary, 7here tenancy relationshi 'et7een thearties is ad"itted in the leadings! 6 %urso vs! %, 82: "%) C9>!

+3. &residential Decree 1o! :89 imposes the sanction of forfeiture where the Iagriculturallessee x x x deliberately re#uses andCor continues to re#use to ay the rentals ora"ortiation ay"ents 7hen they #all due #or a eriod o# t7o %-5 years!I&etitioners cannot be said to have deli+erately refused to pay the lease rentals! Theyacted in accordance with the =A) &ircular , which implements &!D! :89, and in goodfaith! Aorfeiture of their %ertificates of (and Transfer and of their farmholdings asdecreed by the %) and affirmed by the ppellate %ourt is thus unwarranted! 6%ursovs! %, 82: "%)a C9>!

+1. -nder "ection < of )!! 99C, persons guilty of committing prohibited acts of #orci'leentry or illegal detainer do not uali#y as 'ene#iciaries and "ay not a!ailthe"sel!es o# the rights and 'ene#its o# agrarian re#or"!

ny such person who knowingly and willfully violates the above provisions of the ctshall be punished with imprisonment or fine at the discretion of the %ourt! 6 %entral#indanao -niversity vs! D)7, 28C "%) :9>!

+-. The D)7 has no power to try, hear and adjudicate the case pending before itinvolving a portion of the %#-Ks titled school site, as the portion of the %#- land

reser!ation ordered segregated is actually, directly and exclusively used and found bythe school to be necessary for its purposes!

There is no doubt that the D)7 has jurisdiction to try and decide any agrariandispute in the implementation of the %)&!

n agrarian dispute is defined by the same law as any controversy relating to tenurialrights whether leasehold, tenancy stewardship or otherwise over lands devoted toagriculture! 6 %entral #indanao -niversity vs! D)7, 28C "%) :9>!

+6. Section -a# and -+# of Presidential )ecree No. /6 deemed repealed +y Section "1ec$tive 2rder No. !$ The above quoted provision should be deemed to haverepealed "ection 82 6a> and 6b> of &residential Decree 1o! =9 which invested the then

%ourts of grarian )elations with the original exclusive jurisdiction over cases andquestions involving rights granted and obligations imposed by presidential issuancespromulgated in relation to the agrarian reform program!

'n 8=:H, upon the passage of 7atas &ambansa 7lg! 82=, otherwise known as the0udiciary )eorgani*ation ct, the courts of agrarian relations were integrated into the)egional Trial %ourts and the jurisdiction of the former was vested in the latter courts!6uismundo vs! %, 2H8 "%) 9H=>!

+/. The Department of grarian )eform is vested with quasi$judicial powers to determineand adjudicate agrarian reform matters as well as exclusive original jurisdiction over allmatters involving implementation of agrarian reform except those falling under the

exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of griculture and the Department ofnvironment and 1atural )esources!

xecutive .rder 82=$, while in the process of reorgani*ing and strengthening theD), created the Department of grarian )eform djudication 7oard 6D)7> toassume the powers and functions with respect to the adjudication of agrarian reformcases! 6#achete vs! %, 2CH "%) 89>!


10/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 8H

+. "ection C9 of )!! 99C confers Isecial ?urisdictionI on ISecial Agrarian &ourts,Iwhich are )egional trial %ourts designated by this %ourt$at least one 68> branch withineach province$to act as such! These )egional Trial %ourts designated as "pecial grarian %ourts have, according to "ec! C of the same law, original and exclusive jurisdiction over@ 6a> all etitions #or the deter"ination o# ?ust co"ensation to

lando7ners, and 6b5 the rosecution o# all cri"inal o##enses under the Act!6#achete vs! %, 2CH "%) 89>!

++. The #ailure o# tenants to ay 'ac< rentals pursuant to a leasehold contract is an issuewhich is exclusively cognia'le by the D)7 and is clearly beyond the legalcompetence of the )egional Trial %ourts to resolve! 6'bid!>

+4. The doctrine o# ri"ary ?urisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto itselfauthority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially lodged with anadministrative body of special competence!

The resolution by the D) of the agrarian dispute is to the best advantage of theparties since it is in a better position to resolve agrarian disputes, being theadministrative agency presumably possessing the necessary expertise on the matter!6'bid!>

+,. The D) has original, exclusive jurisdiction over agrarian disputes* e$cet on theaspects of 6a> just compensation; and 6b> criminal jurisdiction over which regular courtshave jurisdiction! 6Gda! De Tangub vs! %, 8=8 "%) ::C>!

+. 4here there are no tenurial, leasehold, or any agrarian relations whatsoever betweenthe parties that could bring a controversy under the ambit of the agrarian reform laws,the Department of grarian )eform djudication 7oard has no ?urisdiction! 6Beirs of

the (ate Berman )ey "antos vs! %, !

41. The culti!ator is necessarily tasked with duties that a"ount to culti!ation!6%.%.# vs! %, 89 "%) C9:>!

4-. There are no suatters in Agricultural lands. Suatters are only #ound inU)9AN &O==UNITIS* not in )U)AB A)AS. 6.n &residential Decree 1o! 2$'llegal "quatting> 6&eople vs! chaves, =C "%) 99!

46. 't bears noting that the Decision, which prescribed for )ule /- as the correct mode ofappeal from the decisions of the "%, was promulgated by this %ourt only on 13Sete"'er -33-* while the )esolution of the motion for reconsideration of the said casegiving it a prospective application was promulgated on -3 =arch -336! )espondentappealed to the %ourt of ppeals on


11/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 88

instant case! The )esolution categorically stated that said ruling shall apply only to thosecases appealed a#ter -3 =arch -336 %@ernando Ga'atin* et al.* !s. B9P* G.). No.1/,--6* No!e"'er - -33/5

4/. The foregoing clearly shows that there would never be a judicial determination of just

compensation absent respondent (and 7ank?s participation! (ogically, it follows thatrespondent is an indisensa'le arty in an action for the determination of justcompensation in cases arising from agrarian reform program!

ssuming arguendo that respondent is not an indispensable party but only anecessary party as is being imposed upon us by the petitioners, we find the argument ofthe petitioners that only indispensable can appeal to be incorrect!

There is nothing in the )ules of %ourt that prohibit a party in an action before thelower court to make an appeal merely on the ground that he is not an indispensableparty! The )ules of %ourt does not distinguish whether the appellant is an indispensableparty or not! To avail of the remedy, the only requirement is that the persons appealingmust have a present interest in the subject matter of the litigation and must be aggrievedor prejudiced by the judgment! party, in turn, is deemed aggrieved or prejudiced whenhis interest, recogni*ed by law in the subject matter of the lawsuit, is injuriously affectedby the judgment, order or decree! The fact that a person is made a party to a casebefore the lower court, and eventually be made liable if the judgment be against him,necessarily entitles him to exercise his right to appeal! To prohibit such party to appealis nothing less than an outright violation of the rules on fair play!

4. The )ules of %ourt provides that parties in interest 7ithout 7ho" no #inal

deter"ination can be had of an action shall 'e ?oined either as plaintiffs ordefendants! 'n 9PI !. &ourt o# Aeal* /3- S&)A // this %ourt explained@! ! ! ! ! ! n indisensa'le arty is one whose interest will be affected by the court?saction in the litigation, and without whom no final determination of the case can behad! The party?s interest in the subject matter of the suit and in the relief sought areso inextricably intertwined with the other parties that his legal presence as a party tothe proceeding is an absolute necessity! 'n his absence there cannot be resolutionof the dispute of the parties before the court which is effective, complete, orequitable!

%onversely, a party is not indispensable to the suit if his interest in thecontroversy or subject matter is distinct and divisible from the interest of the other

parties and will not necessarily be prejudiced by a judgment which does complete justice to the parties in court! Be is not indispensable if his presence would merelypermit complete relief between him and those already parties to the action or willsimply avoid multiple litigation! 6'bid>

4+. 'n "harp 'nternational #arketing v! %ourt of ppeals, this %ourt even went on to saythat without the (and 7ank, there would be no amount to be established by thegovernment for the payment of just compensation, thus@

s may be gleaned very clearly from . 22=, the (7& is anessential part of the government sector with regard to the payment ofcompensation to the landowner! 't is, after all, the instrumentality that is

charged with the disbursement of public funds for purposes of agrarianreform! 't is therefore part, an indisensa'le cog* in the governmentmachinery that fixes and determines the amount compensable to thelandowner! 4ere (7& to be excluded from that intricate, if not sensitive,function of establishing the compensable amount, there would be noamount 3to be established by the government5 as required in "ection 9of . 22= 6emphasis! supplied>! 6'bid>


12/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 82

44. 4e must stress, at the outset, that the taking of private lands under the agrarianreform program partakes of the nature of an expropriation proceeding! 'n a numberof cases, we have stated that in computing the just compensation for expropriatingproceedings, it is the value of the land at the ti"e o# the ta


13/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 8<

,1. 'ndeed, a motion that does not contain the requisite notice o# hearing is nothing buta "ere scra o# aer ! The cler< o# court does not ha!e the duty to accet it*"uch less to 'ring it to the attention o# the residing ?udge. The trial courttherefore correctly considered the motion for reconsideration pro forma! Thus, it

cannot be faulted for denying (and 7ank?s motion for reconsideration and petition forrelief from judgment! 6'bid>

,-. t any rate, in the Philiines >eterans 9an< !. &ourt o# Aeals* 4e declarethat there is nothing contradictory between the D)?s primary jurisdiction todetermine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and exclusive original jurisdictionover all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, which includes jurisdiction of regional trial courts over all petitions for the determination of justcompensation! The first refers to ad"inistrati!e roceedings, while the secondrefers to ?udicial roceedings!

'n accordance with settled principles of administrative law, primary jurisdictionis vested in the D) to determine in a preliminary manner the just compensation forthe lands taken under the agrarian reform program, but such determination is subjectto challenged before the courts! The resolution of just compensation cases for thetaking of lands under agrarian reform is, after all, essentially a ?udicial #unction!

,6. (and 7ank?s contention that the property was acquired for purposes of agrarianreform on .ctober 28, 8=2, the ti"e o# the e##ecti!ity of &D 2, ergo justcompensation should be based on the value of the property as of that time and notat the time of possession in 8==


14/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 8

,4. Baving declared the )T%s to be without jurisdiction over the instant case, it followsthat the )T% of (a %arlota %ity 67ranch 9 was devoid of authority to issue theassailed 4rit of &reliminary 'njunction! That 4rit must perforce be stricken down asa nullity! "uch nullity is particularly true in the light of the express prohibitoryprovisions of the %)& and this %ourt?s dministrative %ircular 1os! 2=$2HH2 and

is when these are based onseculation* sur"ises or con?ectures or when these are not based on substantialevidence! %Sa"ahan ng =agsasa


15/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 8C

lando7ner ! retained area, as its name denotes, is land which is not supposed toleave the landowner?s dominion, thus sparing the government from theinconvenience of taking land only to return it to the landowner afterwards, whichwould be a pointless process!

1. .n the first assigned error, this %ourt has consistently held that the doctrine o#e$haustion o# ad"inistrati!e re"edies is a relative one and is flexible dependingon the eculiarity and uniueness o# the #actual and circu"stantial settings ofa case! mong others, it is disregarded where, as in this case, 6a> there arecircumstances indicating the urgency o# ?udicial inter!ention; and 6b> theadministrative action is atently illegal and a"ounts to lac< or e$cess o# ?urisdiction! 6(A) !s. AP In!est"ent and @inancing &ororation; G.). No.1//--* Aril 13* -3365.

-. 'n 1atalia )ealty vs! Department of grarian )eform, we held that the aggrievedlandowners were not supposed to wait until the D) acted on their letter$protests%a#ter it had sat on the" #or al"ost a year5 before resorting to judicial process!+iven the official indifference which, under the circumstances could have continuedforever, the landowners has to act to assert and protect their interests! Thus, theiretition #or certiorari 7as allo7ed e!en though the (A) had not yet resol!edtheir rotests! 'n the same vein, respondent here could not be expected to wait forpetitioner D) to resolve its protest before seeking judicial intervention! .bviously,petitioner might continue to alienate respondent?s lots during the pendency of itsprotest! Bence, the %ourt of ppeals did not err in concluding that on the basis of thecircumstances of this case, respondent need not e$haust all administrativeremedies before filing its petition for certiorari and prohibition! 6'bid>

6. 'n )oxas P %o!, 'nc! vs! %ourt of ppeals, we held@

E@or a !alid i"le"entation o# the &A) rogra"* t7o notices are

reuired: %15 the Notice o# &o!erage and letter o# in!itation toreli"inary con#erence sent to the lando7ner* the reresentati!e o# the9A)&* B9P* #ar"er 'ene#iciaries and other interested arties ursuant

to (A) A.O. No. 1-* series o# 1,; and %-5 the Notice o# Acuisitionsent to the lando7ner under Section 1+ o# ).A. No. ++4.

EThe i"ortance o# the #irst notice* i.e.* the Notice o# &o!erageand the letter o# in!itation to the con#erence* and its actual conductcannot 'e understated. They are stes designed to co"ly 7ith thereuire"ents o# ad"inistrati!e due rocess. The i"le"entation o# the

&A)B is an e$ercise o# the States olice o7er and the o7er o#e"inent do"ain. To the e$tent that the &A)B rescri'es retentionli"its to the lando7ners* there is an e$ercise o# olice o7er #or theregulation o# ri!ate roerty in accordance 7ith the &onstitution%Association o# S"all Bando7ners in the Philiines !s. Secretary o#Agrarian )e#or"* 14 S&)A 6/6* 646D64/ 01,2. 9ut 7here to carry outsuch regulations* the o7ners are deri!ed o# land they o7n in e$cesso# the "a$i"u" area allo7ed there is also a ta


16/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 89

/. 'n the instant case, petitioner does not dispute that respondent did not receive the1otice of cquisition and 1otice of %overage sent to the latter?s old address!&etitioner explained that its personnel could not effect personal service of thosenotices upon respondent because it changed its juridical name from pex 'nvestmentand Ainancing %orporation to "# 'nvestment %orporation! 4hile it is true, that

personal service could not be made, however, there is no showing that petitionercaused the service of the notices via registered mail as required by "ection 896a> of)!! 99C, .n this point, petitioner claimed that the notices were sent 3not only byregistered mail but also by personal delivery5 and that there was actual receipt byrespondent as shown by the signature appearing at the bottom left$hand corner ofpetitioner?s copies of the notices! 7ut petitioner could not identify the name ofrespondent?s representative who allegedly received the notices! 'n fact, petitioneradmitted that the signature thereon is illegible, 't is thus safe to conclude thatrespondent was not notified of the compulsory acquisition proceedings, %learly,respondent was deri!ed o# its right to rocedural due rocess! 't is elementarythat before a person can be deprived of his property, he should be informed of theclaim against him and the theory on which such claim is premised! 6'bid>

. "ection of )!! 1o! 99C provides that the %omprehensive grarian )eform (awshall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, Eall u'licand ri!ate agricultural lands.F "ection


17/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 8

ertaining to the alication* i"le"entation en#orce"ent o# interretation o#agrarian re#or" la7s. Bowever, the fifteen$day period provided therein isextendible, but such extension shall not extend the sixty$day period under Section /*)ule + of the )evised )ules of %ourt!

. &etitioner alleges that the %ourt of ppeals committed grave abuse of discretion indenying his motion for extension on the grounds that the petition 3which petitionerintended to file is not the proper remedy5! ! !

&etitioner?s contention is well$taken! The %ourt of ppeals was rather hastyin concluding that the petitioner was going to file a petition for certiorari solely on thebasis of petitioner?s allegation that he was going to file a petition for certiorari! Itshould ha!e reser!ed ?udg"ent on the "ater until it had actually recei!ed theetition esecially considering that etitioners "otion #or e$tension 7as #iled7ell 7ithin the regle"entary eriod #or #iling a etition #or re!ie7. 6'bid>Sure"e &ourt citing (e (ios !s. &A* -4/ S&)A -35

133. %ases should be determined on the "erits after all parties have been given fullopportunity to ventilate their causes and defenses, rather than on technicalities orrocedural i"er#ections! )ules of procedure are mere tools designed to expeditethe decision or resolution of cases and other matters pending in court! strict andrigid application of rules, resulting in technicalities that tend to frustrate rather thanpromote substantial justice, must be avoided! 'n fact, )ule 8, "ection 9 of the )ulesof %ourt states that the )ules shall be li'erally construed in order to promote theirobjective of ensuring the ?ust* seedy and ine$ensi!e disposition of every actionand proceeding! %Paulina (ia* et al.* !s. &arlos =esias* Jr.* G.). No. 1+6/*=arch 1* -33/5

131. The "ere issuance o# an e"anciation atent does not ut the o7nershi o#the agrarian re#or" 'ene#iciary 'eyond attac< and scrutiny. mancipationpatents may be cancelled for !iolations o# agrarian la7s* rules and regulations ,Section 1-%g5 o# P.(. /+ 6issued on 0une 8, 8=9> vested the then &ourt o#Agrarian )elations with jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation o#e"anciation atents issued under P.(. -++! xclusive jurisdiction over suchcases was later lodged with the D)7 under "ection 8 of )ule '' of the D)7)ules of &rocedure!

side from ordering the cancellation of emancipation patents, the D)7may order rei"'urse"ent o# lease rental as amorti*ation to agrarian reformbeneficiaries, #or#eiture o# a"ortiation, e?ect"ent o# 'ene#iciaries* reallocation

of the land to qualified beneficiaries, eretual disuali#ication to become agrarianreform beneficiaries, rei"'urse"ent o# a"ortiation ay"ent and !alue o#i"ro!e"ent, and other ancillary "atters related to the cancellation ofemancipation patents! 6Bi'erty AyoDAl'uro !s. Uldarico =ato'ato* G.). No.11,1* Aril 1* -335.

13-. Only uestions o# la7* however, can be raised in a etition #or re!ie7 oncertiorari under )ule / o# the )ules o# &ourt. Aindings of fact by the % are #inaland conclusi!e and cannot 'e re!ie7ed on appeal to the "upreme %ourt, more soif the factual findings of the appellate court coincide with those of the D)7, anadministrative body with e$ertise on "atters 7ithin its seci#ic and secialied ?urisdiction! This %ourt is not thus duty$bound to analy*e and weigh all over again

the evidence already considered in the proceedings below, subject to certainexceptions! 6'bid>

136. &etitioner furthermore argues that the amorti*ation payments she made to the (and7ank in the amount of &=,:2C!:H should not have been #or#eited in #a!or o#resondent. .n this score, the %ourt finds for petitioner! 4hile the D)7 has jurisdiction to .rder forfeiture of amorti*ations paid by an agrarian reform beneficiary,#or#eiture should 'e "ade in #a!or o# the go!ern"ent and not to the reallocateeo# the landholding. %I'id5


18/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 8:

13/. 'n #onsanto v! Jerna, %G.). No. 1/-31* 4 (ece"'er -3315 it was held that forD)7 to have jurisdiction over a case, there must exist a tenancy relationshibetween the parties! 'n order for a tenancy agreement to take hold over a dispute, itwould be essential to establish all its indispensable elements to it@ 68> the parties are

the lando7ner and the tenant or agricultural lessee; 62> subject matter of therelationship is an agricultural land; 6 there is consent between the parties to therelationship; 6> that the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agriculturalroduction 6C> there is ersonal culti!ation on the part of the tenant or agriculturallessee; and 69> the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant oragricultural lessee!

'n the case a bar, the element that the parties must be 3the landowner and thetenant or agricultural lessee5 on which all other requisites of the tenancy agreementdepends, is a'sent! Tenancy relationship is inconsistent with the assertion ofownership of both parties! &etitioners claim to be the owners of the entire (ot 1o!C8=:, by virtue of a %ertificate of "ale of Delinquent )eal &roperty, while privaterespondents assert ownership over (ots 1os! C8=:$, C8=:$, C8=:$7 and C8=:$Don the basis of an mancipation &atent and Transfer %ertificate of Title! 1either dothe records show any ?uridical tie or tenurial relationshi between the parties?predecessors$in$interest! The questioned lot it allegedly declared for taxationpurposes in the name of petitioners? father, Dalmacio r*aga who does not appear tohave any connection with the private respondents nor with their alleged predecessor$in$interest, %aridad Auentebella! %)odol#o Araga* et al.* !s. Sal!acion &oias* etal.* G.). No. 1-/3/* =arch -,* -3365.

13. 'n &hico !. &ourt o# Aeals, %6/, Phil. 64 1,5 also an action for recovery ofpossession, the %ourt was confronted with the same ?urisdictional issue. The

petitioner therein claimed o7nershi over the disputed property pursuant to a final judgment, while the respondents asserted right to ossession by virtue of analleged tenancy relationshi with one who has no ?uridical connection 7ith theetitioners! 'n holding that it is the trial court and not the D)7 which has jurisdiction over the case, the %ourt ruled that the a'sence o# a ?uridical tie betweenthe parties or their predecessor$in$interest negates the existence of the element oftenancy relationship!

13+. The 'asic rules is that ?urisdiction o!er the su'?ect "atter is deter"ined 'ythe allegations in the co"laint! 0urisdiction is not affected by the leas or thetheories set up by the defendant in an ans7er or a "otion to dis"iss! .therwise, jurisdiction would become deendent al"ost entirely uon the 7hi"s o# the

de#endant. Arom the averments of the complaint in the instant case, it is that thepetitioners? action does not involve an agrarian dispute, but one for reco!ery o#ossession, which is perfectly within the jurisdiction of the )egional Trail %ourts!6'bid>

134. "ection


19/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 8=

c> (ands actually* directly and e$clusi!ely used and #ound to 'enecessary for national defense, school sites and campuses, including experimentalfarm stations operated by public or private schools for educations purposes, shall beexempt from the coverage of this ct!

x x x x x x x x x

%learly, a reading of the paragraphs shows that, in order to be exempt fromthe coverage@ 8> the land must be Eactually* directly and e$clusi!ely used and#ound to 'e necessary;5 and 2> the urose is @for school sites and campuses,including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools foreducations purposes!5

The importance of the phrase 3actually, directly, and exclusively used andfound to be necessary5 cannot be understated, as what respondent D%" wouldwant us to do by not taking the words in their literal and technical definitions! Thewords of the law are clear and una"'iguous. Thus, the EPlain "eaning rulesF orverba legis in statutory construction is applicable in this case! here the 7ords o#a statute are clear* lain and #ree #ro" a"'iguity* it "ust 'e gi!en its literal"eaning and alied 7ithout atte"ted interretation! 6'bid> %Note: To 'ee$e"t #ro" the co!erage* it is the land er se* not the inco"e deri!edthere#ro"* that "ust 'e actually and e$clusi!ely used #or educationaluroses.5

13. 'n the case at bar, the 7)% certified that herein farmers were potential %)&beneficiaries of the subject properties! Aurther, on 1ovember 2


20/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 2H

E#iling inF the details! ll that is required is that the regulations be not incontradiction to but in conformity with the standards prescribed by the law! .ne suchadministrative regulations is (A) =e"orandu" &ircular NO* +. s emphasi*ed in(e &ha!e !. 8o'el e"anciation is the goal o# P.(. -4, i!e!, freedom from thebondage of the soil by transferring to the tenant$farmers the ownership of the land

they?re tilling! %)olando Sigre !s. &A and Bilia Gonales* 6,4 S&)A 15.

11-. "ince (A) =e"orandu" &ircular No. + essentially sought to accomplish thenoble purpose of &!D! 2, it is therefore !alid and has the #orce o# la7! Therationale for the %ircular was, in fact, explicitly recogni*ed by the appellate courtwhen it stated that EThe "ain urose o# the circular is to "a

11/. 7oth =e"orandu" &ircular No. + and P.(. ,1+ were issued pursuant to and in

implementation of &!D! 2 R these must not be read in isolation, but rather, inconjunction with each other! 6&rivate respondent, however Eslits hairs*F so tospeak, and contends that the &urso case is premised on the assumption that the%ircular implement &!D! :89, whereas it is expressed stated in the %ircular that itwas issued in implementation of &!D! 2! These must not be read in isolation, butrather, in conjunction with each other! -nder &!D! :89, rental ay"ents shall bemade to the landowner! A#ter the !alue o# the land has 'eendeter"inedCesta'lished* then the tenantD#ar"ers shall ay their a"ortiationsto the B9P* as provided in D) %ircular 1o! 9! %learly there is no inconsistencybetween them! Au contraire* &!D! :89 and D) %ircular 1o! 9 sule"ent eachother insofar as it sets the guidelines for the payments of lease rentals on theagricultural property! 6'bid>

11. That P.(. -4 does not su##er any constitutional in#ir"ity is a judicial fact that hasbeen repeatedly emphasi*ed by the "upreme %ourt! R Aurther, that &!D! 2 does notsuffer any constitutional infirmity is a judicial fact that has been repeatedlyemphasi*ed by this %ourt in a number of cases! s early as 8=, in the aforecitedcase of (e &ha!e !. 8o'el, &!D! 2 was assumed to be constitutional, andupheld as art and arcel o# the land o# the land, vi*@ 3There is no doubt then, asset forth expressly therein, that the goal is e"anciation! 4hat is more, the decreeis now art and arcel o# the la7 o# the land according to the re!ised&onstitution itself! jectment therefore of petitioners is simply out of the question!That would be to set at naught an express mandate of the %onstitution! Once it hasso


21/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 28

assigned to the judiciary of implementing and not thwarting fundamental policygoals!5 6'bid>

11+. minent Domain; 0ust compensation; the determination of just compensation under&!D! 1o! 2, like in section 896d> of )!! 99C or the %)& (aw, is not #inal or

conclusi!e R unless both the landowner and the tenant$farmer accet the valuationof the property by the 7arrio %ommittee on (and &roduction and the D), the partiesmay bring the dispute to court in order to determine the aroriate a"ount o#co"ensation, a task unmistakably within the rerogati!e o# the court. Thedetermination of just compensation under &!D! 1o! 2, like in section 89 6d> of )!!99C or the %)& (aw is not #inal or conclusi!e. This is evident from thesucceeding paragraph of "ection 2 of !.! 22:@ 3x x x 'n the event o# disute withthe landowner regarding the a"ount o# lease rental aid by the farmer beneficiary,the (eart"ent o# Agrarian )e#or" and the 9arangay &o""ittee on BandProduction concerned shall resolve the dispute 7ithin thirty %635 days from itssubmission pursuant to Department of grarian )eform =e"orandu" &ircular No.-+* series o# 146* and other pertinent issuances, 'n the event a party questions incourt the resolution of the dispute the landowner?s compensation shall still beprocessed for payment and the proceeds shall be held in trust by the Trust(eart"ent o# the Band 9an< in accordance with the provisions of "ection Chereof, pending the resolution of the dispute before the court!5 %learly therefrom,unless both the landowner and the tenant$farmer accet the valuation of the propertyby the 7arrio %ommittee on (and production and the D) the parties may bring thedispute to court in order to determine the aroriate a"ount o# co"ensation, atask unmistakably within the rerogati!e o# the court! %B9P !s. &A and BiliaGonales* 6,4 S&)A 15.

114. )epublic ct 1o! 99C; The %ourt need not belabor the fact that ).A. ++4 or the

&A)P Ba7 operates distinctly from P.(. -4 ).A. ++4 covers all u'lic andri!ate agricultural and including other lands of the public domain suitable foragriculture as provided for in Procla"ation No. 161 and $ecuti!e Order No. --;while, P.(. -4 covers rice and corn lands! .n this score, !.! 22=, whichprovides for the mechanism of the %omprehensive grarian )eform &rogram,specifically states@ 36&>residential Decree 1o! 2, as amended, shall continue tooperate with respect to rice and corn lands* covered thereunder! x x x5 't cannot begainsaid, therefore, that )!! 99C did not repeal or supersede, in any way,&!D!2!nd whatever provisions of &!D! 2 that are not inconsistent with )! 99Cshall be suletory to the latter, and all rights acquired by the tenant$farmer under&!D! 2 are retained even with the passage of )! 99C!

11,. e ha!e reeatedly stressed that social ?ustice M or any ?ustice #or that "atter M is #or the deser!ing* 7hether he 'e a "illionaire in his "ansion or a auer inhis ho!el. It is true that* in case o# reasona'le dou't* 7e are to tilt the 'alancein #a!or o# the oor to 7ho" the &onstitution #ittingly e$tends its sy"athyand co"assion. 9ut ne!er is it ?usti#ied to gi!e re#erence to the oor si"ly'ecause they are oor* or re?ect the rich si"ly 'ecause they are rich* #or ?ustice "ust al7ays 'e ser!ed #or the oor and the rich ali


22/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 22

co!ered 'y land re#or" under Presidential (ecree -4. M &etitioner?s contention iswithout legal basis! &residential Decree 6&D> 1o! 2, under which the mancipation&atents sought to be cancelled here were issued to respondents, Ealies to alltenanted ri!ate agricultural lands ri"arily de!oted to rice and corn under asyste" o# shareDcro or leaseDtenancy* 7hether classi#ied as landed estate or

not.F The law makes no e$cetions whatsoever in its coverage! 1owhere thereindoes it appear that lots obtained by homestead patents are exempt from itsoperation! The matter is made even clearer by (eart"ent =e"orandu" No. -*Series o# 14,* which states@ 3Tenanted private agricultural lands primarily devotedto rice and/or corn which have been acquired under the provisions of %ommonwealth ct 88, as amended, shall also be co!ered by .peration (and Transfer!5-nquestionably, petitioner?s parcels of land, though obtained by homestead patentsunder %ommonwealth ct 88, are covered by land reform under &D 2! %@lorenciaParis !s. (ionisio A. Al#eche* et al.* 6+/ S&)A 1135.

1-1. The right to retain an area o# se!en hectares is not a'solute M it is re"ised onthe condition that the lando7ner is culti!ating the area sought to 'e retained or7ill actually culti!ate it uon e##ecti!ity o# the la7. R %learly, the right to retain anarea of seven hectares is not absolute! 't is premised on the condition that thelandowner is culti!ating the area sought to be retained or 7ill actually culti!ate itupon effectivity of the law! 'n the case at bar, neither of the conditions for retention ispresent! s admitted by petitioner herself, the subject parcels are fully tenanted;thus, she is clearly not cultivating them, nor will she personally retain any ortiono# her landholdings! 6'bid>

1--. Lo"estead grantees or their direct co"ulsory heirs can o7n and retain theoriginal ho"esteads* only #or as long as they continue to culti!ate the". R'ndisputably, homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs can own and retain

the original homesteads only for Eas long as they continue to culti!ateF them! Thatparcels of land are covered by homestead patents will not auto"atically e$e"tthem from the operation of land reform! 't is the fact of continued culti!ation by theoriginal grantees or their direct co"ulsory heirs that shall e$e"t their landsfrom land reform coverage! 6'bid>

1-6. Although* under the la7* tenant #ar"ers are already dee"ed o7ners o# the landthey till* they are still reuired to ay the cost o# the land* including interest*7ithin #i#teen years 'e#ore the title is trans#erred to the". Thus, the court heldin ssociation of "mall (andowners in the &hilippines v! "ecretary of grarian)eform@ 3't is true that &D 2 expressly ordered the emancipation of tenant$farmersas of .ctober 28, 8=2 and declared that he shall 'e dee"ed the o7ner of a portion

of land consisting of a #a"ilyDsied farm except that no title to the land owned by himwas to be actually issued to him unless and until he had become a #ullD#ledged"e"'er of a duly recogni*ed #ar"ers cooerati!e! 't was understood, however,that #ull ay"ent o# the ?ust co"ensation also had to be made first, conformablyto the constitutional requirement!5 6'bid>

1-/. $ecuti!e Order --,; !idently* the la7 recognies that the lands e$act !alue*or the ?ust co"ensation to 'e gi!en the lando7ner cannot ?ust 'e assu"ed Mit "ust 'e deter"ined 7ith certainly 'e#ore the land titles are trans#erredalthough $ecuti!e Order --,* ro!ides that the total lease rentals aid #or the

lands #ro" Octo'er -1* 14- shall 'e considered as ad!ance ay"ent* it doesnot sanction the assu"tion that such rentals are auto"atically consideredas eui!alent to ?ust co"ensation #or the land. R &residential Decree 2 andsubsequently xecutive .rder 6.> 22:, which recogni*ed the rights acquired bytenant$farmers under &D 2, provides in detail the computation to be used in arrivingat the exact total cost of the parcels of land! vidently, therefore, the law recogni*esthat their e$act !alue, or the ?ust co"ensation to be given to the landowner,cannot ?ust 'e assu"ed; it must 'e deter"ined with certainly before the land titledare transferred! lthough . 22: provides that the total lease rentals paid for thelands from .ctober 28, 8=2 shall be considered as advance payment, it does notsanction the assumption that such rentals are automatically considered as equivalent


23/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 2<

to just compensation for the land! The provision significantly designates the leaserentals as ad!ance not #ull ay"ent! The determination of the exact value of thelands cannot simply be brushed aside, as it is #unda"ent to the determination ofwhether full payment has been made! 6'bid>

1-. )espondent correctly cited the case of 3a+atin v. Land 4an5 of the Phili%%ines,where the %ourt held that 3in computing the just compensation for expropriationproceedings, it is the value of the land at the time of the taking Nor .ctober 28, 8=2O,the effectivity date of &!D! 1o! 2O, not at the time of the rendition of judgment, whichshould be taken into consideration!5 -nder &!D! 1o! 2 and !.! 1o! 22:, thefollowing formula is used to compute the land value for %alay:

(G 6land value S 2!C x +& x +"& x 68!H9>n

't should also be pointed out, however, that in the more recent case of Land4an5 of the Phili%%ines vs. Natividad , The %ourt categorically ruled@ 3 the sei*ure ofthe landholding did not take place on the date of effectivity of &!D! 1o! 2 but wouldtake effect on the payment of just compensation!5 -nder "ection 8 of )!! 1o!99C, the following factors are considered in determining just compensation, to wit@

"ec, 8! )etermination of ($st om%ensation. R 'ndetermining just compensation, the cost o# acuisition o# the land*the current !alue o# li


24/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 2

't would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensationbased on the guideline proved by &D 2 and . 22: considering theD)?s failure to determine the just compensation for a considerablelength of time! That just compensation should be determined inaccordance with ) 99C, and not &D 2 or . 22:, is especially

imperative considering that just compensation should be the full and fairequivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator, theequivalent being real, substantial, full and ample!

'n this case, the trial court arrived at the just compensation dueprivate respondents for their property, taking into account its nature asirrigated land, location along the highway, market value, assessor?svalue and the volume and value of its produce! This %ourt is convincedthat the trial court correctly determined the amount of just compensationdue private respondents in accordance with, and guided, by ) 99Cand existing jurisprudence! 6mphasis supplied>!

s previously noted, the property was expropriated under the .peration (andTransfer scheme of &!D! 1o! 2 way back in 8=2! #ore than , )ule '' ofthe D)7 )ules of &rocedures, the D)7 has jurisdiction over cases involvingthe issuance, correction and cancellation of %(.s which were registered with the()! Bowever, for the D)7 to have jurisdiction in such case, they must relateto an agrarian disute between landowner and tenants to whom %(.s havebeen issued by the D) "ecretary! The cases involving the issuance, correctionand cancellation of the %(.s by the D) in the ad"inistrati!e implementationof agrarian laws, rules and regulations to parties who are not agricultural tenantsor lessees are within the jurisdiction of the D) and not of the D)7! %Leirs o#Julian dela &ru* et. al.* !s. Leirs o# Al'erto &ru* reresented 'y 9enedicto>. &ru.* G.). 1+-,3; No!e"'er --* -335

1-4. "ection of )!! 1o! 99C defines an Eagrarian disuteF as 3any controversyrelating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy stewardship orotherwise, over lands devoted to agricultural, including disputes concerningfarmworkers? associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,maintaining, changing , or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurialarrangements! 't includes any controversy relating to compensation of landsacquired under this ct and other terms and condition of transfer of ownership fromlandowners to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries,whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operation andbeneficiaries, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee!5

'n *orta, Sr. v. 2ccidental -3.R. 8/", 0 ($ne , 809 SRA 6"# , this%ourt held that there must be a tenancy relationship between the parties for theD)7 to have jurisdiction over a case! 't is essential to establish all itsindispensable elements, to wit@ 68> that the parties are the landowner and thetenant or agricultural lessee; 62> that the subject matter of the relationship is anagricultural land; 6 that there is consent between the parties to the relationship 6>that the purposes of the relationship is to bring about agricultural production; 6C>that there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and


25/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 2C

69> that the harvest is shared between the landowner and the tenant or agriculturallessee! 6ibid>

128. Certificates of Title issue pursuant to Emancipation Patents are asindefeasible as TCTs issued in registration proceedings. +a7es v.

Intermediate A%%ellate o$rt - 3.R. No. 69, 6 *arch , / SRA "/8,"/'"!0# provides that certificates of title issued in administrative proceedings are asindefeasible as certificates of title issued in judicial proceedings@

't must be emphasi*ed that a certificate of title issued under anadministrative proceedings pursuant to a homestead patent, as in theinstant case,, is as inde#easi'le as a certi#icate o# title issuedunder a ?udicial registration proceeding, provided the land coveredby the said certificate is a disposable public land within thecontemplation of the &ublic (aw!

There is no specific provision in the &ublic (and law 6%!!1o! 88, as amended> or the (and )egistration ct 6ct =9>, now&!D! 8C2=, fixing the one 68> year period within which the public landpatent is open to review on the ground of actual fraud as in "ection


26/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 29

fter complying with the procedure, therefore, in "ection 8HC of &residentialDecree 1o! 8C2=, otherwise known as the &roperty )egistration Decree 6where theD) is required to issue the corresponding certificate of title after granting an & totenant$farmers who have complied with &residential Decree 1o! 2 6&residential

Decree 1o! 8C2=, "ection 8HC>, the T%T is issued to petitioners pursuant to their&s acquire the same protection accorded to other T%Ts! 3The certificate of titlebecomes indefeasible and incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from thedate of the issuance of the order for the issuance of the patent, x x x! landscovered by such title may no longer be the subject matter of a cadastralproceeding, nor can it be decree to another person 6mando D! quino, (1D)+'"T)T'.1 1D )(TD &).%D'1+", %hapter E'' 3(and &atent5, p!8


27/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 2

considered estoppted from questioning petitioner?s legal standing since petitionerappeared before the .& after the latter decided in respondents? favor! 4hen thepetitioner appealed the case to the %, respondents duly questioned the petitioner?scapacity to sue! %Sa"ahang =agsasa


28/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 2:

8C &hil! 9C 62HH8> %Nicanor T. Santos (e!t. &or. !s. Lon. Sec.* (A)* et al.*G.). No. 1+/; @e'ruary -,* -33+5

16/. 's it settled that mandamus is employed to compel the performance, when refused,of a ministerial duly, this being its main objective! 't does not lie to require anyone

to fulfill a discretionary duty! 't is essential to the issuance of a writ of mandamusthat petitioner should have a clear legal right to the thing demanded and it must beimperative duty of the respondent to perform the act required! 't never issues indoubtful cases! 4hile it may not be necessary that the duty be absolutely pressed,it must nevertheless be clear! The writ will not issue to compel an official to doanything which is not his duty to do or which is his duty not to do, or give to theapplicant anything to which he is not entitled by law! The writ neither conferspowers nor imposes duties! 't is simply a command to exercise a power alreadypossessed and to perform a duty already imposed! 6rlinda %! &efianco v! #a! (uisa%! #oral, ! 6'bid>!

16! &etitioner?s filing of an answer has thereby cured whatever jurisdictional defect itnow raises! s we have said time and again, =the active %artici%ation of a %arty in acase %ending against him +efore a co$rt or a >$asi ?$dicial +ody, is tantamo$nt toa recognition of that co$rt@s or +ody@s ?$risdiction and a willingness to a+ide +y theresol$tion of the case and will +ar said %arty from later on im%$gning the co$rt@s or+ody@s ?$risdiction5! 6lcantara vs! %ommission on the "ettlement of (andNproblems, entura* as reiterated in &orus !s. Ss. Grose. %666 S&)A /-*/6+ 0-3332

3x x x s such Nthe farmer$beneficiariesO gained the rightsto possess, cultivate and enjoy the landholding for himself!Those rights over the particular property were granted by thegovernment to him and no other! To ensure his continuedpossession and enjoyment of the property, he could not, underthe law, make any valid form of transfer except to thegovernment or by hereditary succession to his successors!56'bid>

164! The court finds that the December 22, 8== .rder of xecution issued by the D))egional Director suffers from ?urisdiction and rocedural defects as it directedthe relocation of petitioners without first conducting a hearing or survey to determinethe portion of the subject property excluded from the %)&!

writ of execution should conform to the dispositive portion of the decision tobe executed, and the execution is void if it is excess of and beyond the original judgment or award, for it is a settled general principle that a writ of execution mustconform strictly with every essential particular of the judgment promulgated! 6x$7ataan "ecurity gency, 'nc! v! 1()%, ! 't may not vary theterms of the judgment it seeks to enforce! 1or may it go beyond the terms of the judgment sought to be executed 61a*areno v! %ourt of ppeals, et al!, ! 4here the writ of execution is not in harmony with and exceeds the judgment which gives it life, the writ has pro tanto no validity 67uan v! %ourt of ppeals, 2


29/29

(ecture +uide "% -+-"T. &! -'01.&age 2=

)egional Director is the head of a D) )egional .ffice which, under the dministrative %ode of 8=:, is responsible for 3supporting the field units andsupervising program implementation of the Department within the region!5 Thefunction of the D) )egional .ffice includes 3NimplementingO laws, policies, plans,rules and regulations of the Department in the regional area!5 similar function is

delegated to the D) )egional .ffices under xecutive .rder 1o! 82=$! Thus, thefunctions of the D) )egional Director are purely ad"inistrati!e, that it , to put intooperation agrarian laws and fill out the details necessary for their implementation,and not adjudicatory!

.n the other hand, when a dispute arises between parties affected by theoperation of agrarian laws, the controversy should be settled in a adversarialproceeding before the D)7, the quasi$judicial arm of the D) 6"ection CH, )!!1o! 99C; uasi$0udicial &owers of the D)! R the D) is hereby vested withprimary jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform,except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of gricultural6D> and the Department of nvironment and 1atural )esources 6D1)>! functionbecomes judicial or uasi ?udicial in nature when the exercise thereof involves thedetermination of rights and obligations of the parties! 6'bid>!

163912222 2007 lecture guide discussion of tenancy

Documents