agragrian law cases

8/13/2019 Agragrian Law Cases

1/3

SUMALO HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION OF HERMOSA, BATAAN,

Petitioner,

vs.

JAMES T. LITTON, EMMA L. LAPERAL, GLORIA L. DEL RIO, GEORGE

T. LITTON, JR., GRACE L. GALLEGO and the HEIRS OF EDWARD T.

LITTON, Respondents.

G.R. No. 1!"!1 A#$#%t &1, '""!

Fa(t%)

On August 16, 1989, respondents filed with the Department of Agrarian

Reform voluntary offer to sell their property loated in !rgy. "umalo, #ermosa,

!ataan, onsisting of onsisting of three ontiguous parels of land, with an aggregate

area of $1%.6189 hetares and overed &y 'ransfer (ertifiate of 'itle )'('* +os.

81%-, 81%6, 81%. On August $6, 1991, the DAR Region /// Offie issued a+otie of A0uisition, informing the respondents that the DAR will only a0uire

$.% hetares of the property. 'hereafter, on 2uly 6, 199%, the Provinial Agrarian

Reform Offier )PARO* informed the respondents that DAR would a0uire -.%89

hetares at P1.1 per s0uare meter or a total purhase prie of P-$9,1.68.

Respondents then withdrew the 3O" and applied for the onversion of the

property from agriultural to industrial, ommerial and residential uses. 'heir &asis

was RA $$ otherwise 4nown as The Bases Conversion and Development Act of

1992,providing for the reation of a "peial 5onomi and ree Port 7one in an area

onsisting of Olongapo (ity, "u&i in 7am&ales and parts of the muniipalities of

orong and #ermosa in the Provine of !ataan, and the delaration &y the

"angguniang !ayan of #ermosa and the "angguniang Panlalawigan of !ataan that the

#ermosa Agro/ndustrial 5state, a property ontiguous to the land of the respondents,

is an industrial area. :i4e wise, the Department of Agriulture has determined the

property not eonomially suita&le for agriultural prodution and there was no

tenurial relationship &etween the owners and the oupants of the property.

On ay 1, 1996, DAR "eretary denied the appliation for the onversion of

the property as well as the motion for reonsideration. #ene, the respondents

appealed to the Offie of the President. During the pendeny of the ase, the

"angguniang Panlalawigan relassified the area from agriulture to industrial ;one.

On 2une 16, 199, a resolution was issued in favour of the respondents, setting

aside the resolution of the seretary of the Agrarian Reform. 'he petitioners then fileda motion for reonsideration and were granted, whih reversed the prior resolution

favoring the onversion. 'he respondents filed and appeal &y way of a petition for

review whih was granted and reversed and set aside the deision in favor of the

petitioners.

Petitioners< motion for reonsideration was denied.

I%%#e)

=hether or not the petitioners are real parties in this ase.

=hether or not the deision in the ortih v. (orona is applia&le in this ase.


2/3

He*d)

/n the ase of ortih v. (orona, the Offie of the President issued a resolution

approving the onversion of a land from agriultural to agroindustrial>institutional

area. /t was then opposed &y some alleged farmer &enefiiaries who ulminated in a

dramati and well pu&lii;ed hunger stri4e that aught nationwide attention. 'his ledto the rendering of the so alled ?=in=in@ Resolution whih divided the area

hetares for agroindustrial and 1 hetares for the 0ualified farmer &enefiiaries.

Aggrieved &y this ?=in=in@ Resolution, the petitioners filed a speial ivil ation

for ertiorari and prohi&ition. /t was then deided that the said resolution is void.

As regards the standing of the purported farmer&enefiiaries who sought to

intervene in the said ase the reogni;ed rule in this Burisdition is that a real party in

interest is a party who would &e &enefited or inBured &y the Budgment or is the party

entitled to the avails of the suit. /nterest within the meaning of the rule means material

interest, an interest in issue and to &e affeted &y the deree, as distinguished from

mere interest in the 0uestion involved, or a more inidental interest. Real Interest

means a present su&stantial interest, as distinguished from a mere eCpetany or afuture, ontingent, su&ordinate or onse0uential interest.

/n the instant ase, the petitioners laim that they have &een identified as

0ualified &enefiiaries of the respondents< property under the (ARP iting "e. $$ of

R.A. +o. 66-. 'hey laim that they are onsidered as ?other farm wor4ers@,

olletive or ooperative of the a&ove &enefiiaries@, and ?others diretly wor4ing on

the land@. 'hey also alleged that they have &een wor4ing on the :itton property for a

long time.

'he ourt ruled that this petition la4s merit. /n an oular inspetion made &y

DA Region ///, it was reported that the only nota&le developments on the property are

residential houses, roads and rereational failities. /t did not mention any agriultural

developments to support the ontention of the petitioners that they have &een wor4ing

on the land. oreover, the uniipal Agrarian Reform Offie of #ermosa, !ataan

stated that the su&Bet properties are untenanted. 'he ourt also onsidered the

findings in the first resolution whih stated that the petitioners are in reality, not

omposed of tenants of the :ittons &ut mere oupants of homelots without their

onsent, who use the property primarily for residential purposes and ommerial

ativities and who have &een su&Bet for eBetment suits &y the respondents.


3/3

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES,plaintiffappellee, vs. CIRILO P.

BA+LOSIS, ET AL.,defendantsappellants

G.R. No. L!1-1 Jan#a/ &1, 1-00

Fa(t%)

+elson "inlair, one of the lessees of #aienda :ian or :ian 5state in the

muniipality of :ian, !atangas, &ought parels of land from the said haienda.

#owever, a group of people are laiming to &e tenants and oupants of the said

parels of land. 'hey see4 the help of the Rural Progress Administration to onvine

"inlair to sell the land he &ought to them for their anestors were the ones who

leared and ultivated the land and they are having tenany issue. A letter was sent to

"inlair and in reply, he refused to sell the land and he re0uested the offie to give

him time to su&mit fats regarding the land. /t was later found out that "inlair already

sold the area to (irilo !a&ylosis and others. A ase for eCpropriation against

!a&ylosis and "inlair was filed. A motion to dismiss the ase was filed.

I%%#e)

=hether or not tenants an see4 the help of the government to file

eCpropriation ase to a0uire the land.

He*d)

'he (ourt ruled to dismiss the eCpropriation ase filed against !a&ylosis. 'he

ourt hold that under setion , Artile /// of the (onstitution, the Eovernment mayeCpropriate only landed estates with eCtensive areas, speially those em&raing the

whole or a large part of a town or ity that one a landed estate is &ro4en up and

divided into parels of reasona&le areas, either thru voluntary sales &y the owner or

owners of said landed estate, or thru eCpropriation, the resulting parels are no longer

su&Bet to further eCpropriation under setion , Artile /// of the (onstitution that

mere notie of the intention of the Eovernment to eCpropriate a parel of land does

not &ind either the land or the owner so as to prevent su&se0uent disposition of the

property suh as mortgaging or even selling it in whole or &y su&division that

tenany trou&le alone whether due to the fault of the tenants or of the landowners does

not Bustify eCpropriation that the (onstitution protets a landowner against

indisriminate and unwarranted eCpropriations that to Bustify eCpropriation, it must&e for the pu&li purpose and pu&li &enefit, and that Bust to ena&le the tenants of a

piee of land of reasona&le area to own portions of it, even if they and their anestors

had leared the land and ultivated it for their landlord for many years, is no valid

reason or Bustifiation under the (onstitution to deprive the owners or landlord of his

property &y means of eCpropriation.

agragrian law cases

Documents