Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Petitioner alleged that respondents usurped its rights over the property,
thereby destroying the ecosystem. Respondents filed a civil case with the RTC of
Laguna seeking an easement of a right of way to and from Barangay Casile.
Petitioner countered by seeking the ejectment of the respondents and filed
separate complaints for forcible entry against the respondents before the
Municipal Trial Court, Cabuyao, Laguna. After the filing of the ejectment cases,
respondents petitioned the DAR for the compulsory acquisition of the SRRDC
property under CARP.
On February 6, 1992, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals, a petition for
review of the DARAB decision. The CA promulgated a decision affirming the
Decision of the DARAB. Hence, this petition.
Issue:
Held:
First, under Republic Act No. 6657, there are two modes of acquisition of
private land, Compulsory and Voluntary.
Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the notice of acquisition, the
landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his
acceptance or rejection of the offer.
The DAR has made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land
acquisition to hasten the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP). Under Sec. 16 of the CARL, the first step in compulsory
acquisition is the identification of the land, the landowners and the farmer
beneficiaries. However, the law is silent on how the identification process shall
be made. To fill this gap, on July 26, 1989, the DAR issued Administrative Order
No. 12, series of 1989, which set the operating procedure in the identification of
such lands.
Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989 requires that the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) keep an updated master list of all agricultural
lands under the CARP in his area of responsibility containing all the required
information. The MARO prepares a Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF)
for each title covered by CARP. The MARO then sends the landowner a "Notice of
Coverage" and a "letter of invitation" to a "conference/meeting" over the land
covered by the CACF. He also sends invitations to the prospective farmerbeneficiaries, the representatives of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee
(BARC), the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and other interested parties to
discuss the inputs to the valuation of the property and solicit views, suggestions,
objections or agreements of the parties. At the meeting, the landowner is asked
to indicate his retention area.
For a valid implementation of the CARP Program, two notices are required: (1)
the notice of coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent to
the landowner, the representative of the BARC, LBP, farmer-beneficiaries and
other interested parties pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 12, series of 1989; and (2) the
notice of acquisition sent to the landowner under Section 16 of the CARL.
The importance of the first notice, that is, the notice of coverage and the
letter of invitation to a conference, and its actual conduct cannot be
understated. They are steps designed to comply with the requirements of
administrative due process. The implementation of the CARL is an exercise of
the State's police power and the power of eminent domain. To the extent that
the CARL prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of
police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the
Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, the owners are deprived of
lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also a taking
under the power of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not a mere
limitation on the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to
and physical possession of the excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the
owner in favor of the farmer-beneficiary.
In the case at bar, DAR has executed the taking of the property in question.
However, payment of just compensation was not in accordance with the
procedural requirement. The law required payment in cash or LBP bonds, not by
trust accounts as was done by DAR.
Watersheds may be defined as "an area drained by a river and its tributaries
and enclosed by a boundary or divide which separates it from adjacent
watersheds." Watersheds generally are outside the commerce of man, so why
was the Casile property titled in the name of SRRDC? The answer is simple. At
the time of the titling, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
had not declared the property as watershed area. The parcels of land in
Barangay Casile were declared as "PARK" by a Zoning Ordinance adopted by the
municipality of Cabuyao in 1979, as certified by the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board. On January 5, 1994, the Sangguniang Bayan of Cabuyao,
Laguna issued Resolution 26 voiding the Zoning classification of the lands at
Barangay Casile as Park and declaring that the land was now classified as
agricultural land.
In Natalia Realty, Inc. vs. Department of Agrarian Reform, we held that lands
classified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the CARL, may not be
compulsorily acquired for distribution to farmer beneficiaries.
However, more than the classification of the subject land as PARK is the fact
that subsequent studies and survey showed that the parcels of land in question
form a vital part of a watershed area.
The definition does not exactly depict the complexities of a watershed. The
most important product of a watershed is water which is one of the most
important human necessity. The protection of watersheds ensures an adequate
supply of water for future generations and the control of flashfloods that not only
damage property but cause loss of lives. Protection of watersheds is an
"intergenerational responsibility" that needs to be answered now.
Another factor that needs to be mentioned is the fact that during the DARAB
hearing, petitioner presented proof that the Casile property has slopes of 18%
and over, which exempted the land from the coverage of CARL. R.A. No. 6657,
Section 10, provides:
"Section 10.
Exemptions and Exclusions. Lands actually, directly and
exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves,
reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and
mangroves, national defense, school sites and campuses including
experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for
educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research and pilot production
centers, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, communal burial
grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by
the inmates, government and private research and quarantine centers, and all
lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already
developed shall be exempt from coverage of this Act."
Hence, during the hearing at DARAB, there was proof showing that the
disputed parcels of land may be excluded from the compulsory acquisition
coverage of CARP because of its very high slopes.
To resolve the issue as to the nature of the parcels of land involved in the
case at bar, the Court directs the DARAB to conduct a re-evaluation of the issue.
JURISDICTION; DAR HAS JURISDICTION OVER ALL CONTROVERSIES
INVOLVING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM
Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Roberto J. Cuenca
G.R. No. 154112 (September 23, 2004)
Facts:
MARO Noe Fortunado filed a motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground
that the court a quo has no jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of the
action, pursuant to R.A. 6657.
In an order dated 16 February 2000, the respondent Judge denied MARO Noe
Fortunado's motion to dismiss and issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction
directing Fortunado and all persons acting in his behalf to cease and desist from
implementing the Notice of Coverage, and the LBP from proceeding with the
determination of the value of the subject land.
Issue:
The Honorable Court of Appeals committed serious error by not taking into
cognizance that the issues raised in the complaint filed by the private
respondent, which seeks to exclude his land from the coverage of the CARP, is
an agrarian reform matter and within the jurisdiction of the DAR, not with the
trial court.
The Honorable Court of Appeals, with due respect, gravely abused its
discretion by sustaining the writ of injunction issued by the trial court, which is a
violation of Sections 55 and 68 of Republic Act No. 6657.
Held:
The Petition has merit. The issue involves the implementation of agrarian
reform, a matter over which the DAR has original and exclusive jurisdiction,
pursuant to Section 50 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No.
6657)
Having declared the RTCs to be without jurisdiction over the instant case, it
follows that the RTC of La Carlota City (Branch 63) was devoid of authority to
issue the assailed Writ of Preliminary Injunction. That Writ must perforce be
stricken down as a nullity. Such nullity is particularly true in the light of the
express prohibitory provisions of the CARP and this Court's Administrative
Circular Nos. 29-2002 and 38-2002. These Circulars enjoin all trial judges to
strictly observe Section 68 of RA 6657, which reads:
"Section 68.
Immunity of Government Agencies from Undue
Interference. No injunction, restraining order, prohibition or mandamus shall
be issued by the lower courts against the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in their
implementation of the program."
Facts:
Issue:
Whether or not the Special Agrarian Courts are considered appellate courts in
the determination of just compensation
Held:
No.
To implement the provisions of R.A. No. 6657, particularly Section 50 thereof,
Rule XIII, Section 11 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure provides:
"Land Valuation and Preliminary Determination and Payment of Just
Compensation. The decision of the adjudicator on land valuation and
preliminary determination and payment of just compensation shall not be
appealable to the Board but shall be brought directly to the Regional Trial
Courts designated as Special Agrarian Courts within fifteen (15) days from
receipt of the notice thereof. Any party shall be entitled to only one motion for
reconsideration."
The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts is not any less "original and
exclusive" because the question is first passed upon by the DAR, as the judicial
proceedings are not a continuation of the administrative determination. For that
matter, the law may provide that the decision of the DAR is final and
unappealable. Nevertheless, resort to the courts cannot be foreclosed on the
theory that courts are the guarantors of the legality of administrative action.
Accordingly, as the petition in the Regional Trial Court was filed beyond the
15-day period provided in Rule XIII, 11 of the Rules of Procedure of the DARAB,
the trial court correctly dismissed the case and the Court of Appeals correctly
affirmed the order of dismissal.
LAND VALUATION; FINALITY OF DARAB DECISION ON LAND VALUATION
Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Raymunda Martinez
G.R. No. 169008 (August 14, 2007)
Facts:
A petition for the fixing of just compensation was then filed by LBP's counsel
before the Special Agrarian Court (SAC) of the Regional Trial Court of Odiongan,
Romblon.
LBP, on March 12, 2004, moved to quash the said February 23, 2004 PARAD
resolution. On April 6, 2004, even as the motion to quash was yet unresolved,
LBP instituted a petition for certiorari before the CA. The CA, on September 28,
2004 dismissed the petition.
Issue:
Whether or not the PARAD, gravely abused its discretion when it issued a writ
of execution despite the pendency of LBP's petition for fixing of just
compensation with the SAC?
Held:
In this case, petitioner moved to quash the PARAD resolutions and at the
same time petitioned for their annulment via certiorari under Rule 65. In both
proceedings, the parties are identical and the reliefs prayed for are the same. In
the two actions, petitioner also has a singular stance: the PARAD resolutions
should not be executed in view of the pendency of the petition for fixing of just
compensation with the SAC. Thus a situation is created where the two fora could
come up with conflicting decisions. This is precisely the evil sought to be avoided
by the rule against forum-shopping.
such power, did not repeal Sec. 12, par (b), of PD 946. Petitioner now attempts to
reconcile the pertinent laws by saying that only the Secretary of Agrarian Reform
can determine the value of rice and corn lands under Operation Land Transfer of PD
27, while on the other hand, all other lands covered by RA 6657 (CARL) shall be
valued by the DARAB, hence, the DARAB of the DAR has no jurisdiction to determine
the value of the lands covered by OLT under PD 27.
To bolster its contention that Sec. 12, par. (b), of PD 946 was not repealed,
petitioner LBP cites Sec. 76 of RA 6657. 26 It argues that since Sec. 76 of RA 6657
only repealed the last two (2) paragraphs of Sec. 12 of PD 946, it is obvious that
Congress had no intention of repealing par. (b). Thus, it remains valid and effective.
As a matter of fact, even the Secretary of Agrarian Reform agreed that Sec. 12, par.
(b), of PD 946 still holds. Based on this assumption, the Secretary of the DAR has
opined that the valuation of rice and corn lands is under his exclusive jurisdiction
and has directed all DARAB officials to refrain from valuing lands covered by PD
27. 27 Petitioner maintains that the Secretary of the DAR should conduct his own
proceedings to determine the value of Parcels 2 and 3 and that his valuation of
Parcel 1 28 should be upheld.
We do not agree. In Machete v. Court of Appeals 29 this Court discussed the effects
on PD 946 of Sec. 17 of EO 229 and Sec. 50 of RA 6657 when it held
The above quoted provision (sec. 17) should be deemed to have
repealed Sec. 12 (a) and (b) of Presidential Decree No. 946 which
invested the then courts of agrarian relations with original exclusive
jurisdiction over cases and questions involving rights granted and
obligations imposed by presidential issuances promulgated in relation
to the agrarian reform program (emphasis supplied).
Thus, petitioner's contention that Sec. 12, par. (b), of PD 946 is still in effect cannot
be sustained. It seems that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform erred in issuing
Memorandum Circular No. I, Series of 1995, directing the DARAB to refrain from
hearing valuation cases involving PD 27 lands. For on the contrary, it is the DARAB
which has the authority to determine the initial valuation of lands involving agrarian
reform 30 although such valuation may only be considered preliminary as the final
determination of just compensation is vested in the courts. 31