NATALIA REALTY INC. vs.

DAR
Facts:
Natalia is the owner of 3 contiguous parcels of land with an area of 120.9793 hectares, 1.3205
hectares and 2.7080 hectares or a total of 125.0078 hectares, which are covered by TCT No.
31527. Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land as townsite areas
to absorb the population overspill in the metropolis which were designated as the Lungsod
Silangan Townsite. The Natalia properties are situated within the areas proclaimed as townsite
reservation. Since private landowners were allowed to develop their properties into low-cost
housing subdivisions with the reservation, petitioner EDIC as developer of Natalia applied for
and was granted preliminary approval and location clearances by the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission, which Natalia thereafter became Antipolo Hills Subdivision. On June 15
1988, Ra 6657 went to effect. Respondent issed a Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped
portions of Antipolo Hills Subdivision. Natalia and EDIC immediately registered its objection to
the notice of coverage and requested the cancellation of the Notice of Coverage.

Natalia and EDIC both argued that the properties ceased to be agricultural lands when they
were included in the areas reserved by Presidential Proclamation for the townsite reservation.
DAR then contended that the permits granted were not valid and binding since they did not
comply with t he implementing Standards, Rules and Regulations of PD 957 (The Subdivision
and Condominium Buyers Protective Decree), and that there was no valid conversion of the
properties.

Issue:
Whether or not lands not classified for agricultural use, as approved by the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board and its agencies prior to June 15, 1988 covered by RA 6657.

Ruling:
No, Sec. 4 of RA 6657 provides that CARL shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and
commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands. And agricultural lands is referred
to as land devoted to agricultural activity and not classified as mineral, forst, residential,
commercial or industrial land. Thus, the underdeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills
Subdivision cannot be considered as agricultural lands for this land was intended for residential
use. They ceased to be agricultural land by virtue of the Presidential Proclamation No. 1637.
 ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS IN THE PHIL. vs. SEC. OF DAR
Facts:
These are consolidated cases which involve common legal, including serious challenges to the
constitutionality of the several measures such as P.D. No. 27, E.O. No. 228, Presidential
Proclamation No. 131, E.O. No. 229, and R.A. No. 6657.

G.R. No. 79777

The petitioners are questioning P.D. No. 27 and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 on grounds inter alia of
separation of powers, due process, equal protection and the constitutional limitation that no
private property shall be taken for public use without just compensation. G.R. No. 79310

G.R. No. 79310

This petition seeks to prohibit the implementation of Proc. No. 131 and E.O. No. 229. They
contend that taking must be simultaneous with payment of just compensation as it is
traditionally understood, i.e., with money and in full, but no such payment is contemplated in
Section 5 of the E.O. No. 229.

G.R. No. 79744

The petitioner argues that E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 are violative of the constitutional provision
that no private property shall be taken without due process or just compensation.

G.R. No. 78742

Petitioners claim they cannot eject their tenants and so are unable to enjoy their right of
retention because the Department of Agrarian Reform has so far not issued the implementing
rules required under the above-quoted decree.

Issue: 
Whether agrarian reform is an exercise of police power or eminent domain

Ruling:
The cases before us present no knotty complication insofar as the question of compensable
taking is concerned. To the extent that the measures under challenge merely prescribe
retention limits for landowners, there is an exercise of the police power for the regulation of
private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, it
becomes necessary to deprive such owners of whatever lands they may own in excess of the
maximum area allowed, there is definitely a taking under the power of eminent domain for
which payment of just compensation is imperative. The taking contemplated is not a mere
limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and the
physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of
the farmer-beneficiary. This is definitely an exercise not of the police power but of the power of
eminent domain
 HACIENDA LUISITA INC. vs. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL
FACTS: 
Following the promulgation of the Courts Decision in the above-captioned case on July 5, 2011,
the petitioners present for resolution several issues concerning the said Decision. To recall, in
the 2011 Decision, the Court ordered, among others, that the lands subject of Hacienda Luisita
Incorporated's (HLI) stock distribution plan (SDP) be placed under compulsory coverage on
mandated land acquisition scheme of the CARP and declared that the original 6,296 qualified
farmworker beneficiaries (FWBs) shall have the option to remain as stockholders of HLI.

ISSUE:
Is Sec. 31 of RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 constitutional?

RULING:
As We have succinctly discussed in Our July 5, 2011 Decision, it took the Farmworkers Agrarian
Reform Movement (FARM) some eighteen (18) years from November 21, 1989 before it
challenged the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657. The question of constitutionality will not
be passed upon by the Court unless it is properly raised and presented in an appropriate case at
the first opportunity. FARM is, therefore, remiss in belatedly questioning the constitutionality of
Sec. 31 of RA 6657. The second requirement that the constitutional question should be raised
at the earliest possible opportunity is clearly wanting. The last but the most important requisite
that the constitutional issue must be the very lis mota of the case does not likewise obtain. The
lis mota aspect is not present, the constitutional issue tendered not being critical to the
resolution of the case. The unyielding rule has been to avoid, whenever plausible, an issue
assailing the constitutionality of a statute or governmental act. If some other grounds exist by
which judgment can be made without touching the constitutionality of a law, such recourse is
favored. Based on the foregoing disquisitions, We maintain that this Court is NOT compelled to
rule on the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657.

ESTRELLA vs. FRANCISCO

Facts:

Lope Cristobal (Cristobal) was the owner of a twenty-three thousand nine hundred and thirty-
three square meter (23,933 sqm.) parcel of agricultural Riceland. Estrella was the registered
agricultural tenant-lessee of the subject landholding. On September 22, 1997, Cristobal sold the
subject landholding to respondent Priscilla Francisco (Francisco) for five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00) without notifying Estrella. Upon discovering the sale, Estrella sent Cristobal
a demand letter dated March 31, 1998, for the return of the subject landholding. Estrella
alleged that the sale between Cristobal and Francisco was made secretly and in bad faith, in
violation of Republic Act No. (R.A.) 3844, the Agricultural Land Reform Code.

Issue:

W/N an agricultural tenant's right of redemption over the landholding cannot prescribe when
neither the lessor-seller nor the buyer has given him written notice of the sale.

Ruling:

The Agricultural Land Reform Code is a social legislation designed to promote economic and
social stability. It must be interpreted liberally to give full force and effect to its clear intent,
which is "to achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers" and to make them "more
independent, self-reliant and responsible citizens, and a source of genuine strength in our
democratic society."55 Nevertheless, while we endeavor to protect the rights of agricultural
lessees, we must be mindful not to do so at the expense of trampling upon the landowners'
rights which are likewise protected by law.

DAR vs. CA

Facts:
Private respondent Acil Corp. owned hectares of land in Davao del Norte, which the
government took pursuant to RA 6657. Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) initially valued the
lands for a total of P439,105.39. It appears, however, in the Statement of Agricultural
Landholdings which Acil Corp. had earlier filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR),
a lower “Fair Value Acceptable to Landowner” was stated. Based on this Statement, LBP valued
Acil Corp.’s lands at P390,557.84 (P15,311.79/hectare) as the total compensation to be paid for
the lands. Acil Corp. rejected the government’s offer, pointing out that nearby lands were
valued at the higher price of P24,717.40/hectare. The matter was brought before the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD). PARAD sustained the initial valuation made by the LBP.
Acil Corp. filed a Petition for Just Compensation in the RTC of Tagum, Davao del Norte, sitting as
a Special Agrarian Court, praying that DAR be ordered to pay P24,717.40/ hectare.

Issue:
WON in cases involving claims for just compensation under RA 6657 an appeal from the
decision of PARAD to the DARAB must first be made before a landowner can resort to the RTC

Ruling:
NO. It is true that §50 of RA 6657 grants the DAR primary jurisdiction to determine and
adjudicate “agrarian reform matters” and exclusive original jurisdiction over “all matters
involving the implementation of agrarian reform,” except those falling under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the DENR.
 REPUBLIC vs. SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRIBUSINESS CORP.
FACTS:

Subject of this petition are four (4) parcels of land with an aggregate area of 160.1161 hectares
registered in the name of Salvador N. Lopez AgriBusiness Corporation. On August 2, 1991,
Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Socorro C. Salga issued a Notice of Coverage to
petitioner with regards (sic) to the aforementioned landholdings which were subsequently
placed under Compulsory Acquisition pursuant to R.A. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law). On December 13, 1992 and March 1, 1993, the MARO conducted an onsite investigation
on the two parcels of land confirming the presence of the livestock as enumerated. The DAR
Regional Director, after inspecting the properties, issued an Order dated March 5, 1997 denying
the application for exemption of Lots 1454A and 1296 on the ground that it was not clearly
shown that the same were actually, directly and exclusively used for livestock raising since in its
application, petitioner itself admitted that it needs the lots for additional grazing area. The
application for exemption, however of the other two (2) parcels of land was approved.

Issue:
W/N the Lopez and Limot lands of SNLABC can be considered grazing lands for its livestock
business and are thus exempted from the coverage of the CARL under the Courts ruling in Luz
Farms v. DAR.

Ruling:
No. The Limot lands were found to be agricultural lands devoted to coconut trees and rubber
and are thus not subject to exemption from CARP coverage.

In the Report dated 06 April 1994, the team that conducted the inspection found that the entire
Limot lands were devoted to coconuts (41.5706 hectares) and rubber (8.000 hectares) and
recommended the denial of the application for exemption. Verily, the Limot lands were
actually, directly and exclusively used for agricultural activities, a fact that necessarily makes
them subject to the CARP. These findings of the inspection team were given credence by the
DAR Regional Director who denied the application, and were even subsequently affirmed by the
DAR Secretary and the Court of Appeals.

LUZ FARM vs. SEC. OF DAR

FACTS:

On June 10, 1988, RA 6657 was approved, which includes the raising of livestock, poultry and
swine in its coverage. Pursuant to RA 6657, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform promulgated the
Guidelines and Procedures Implementing Production and Profit Sharing as well as its Rules and
Regulations.

Luz Farms, petitioner in this case, is a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry business
and together with others in the same business allegedly stands to be adversely affected by the
enforcement of Section 3(b), Section 11, Section 13, Section 16(d) and 17 and Section 32 of R.A.
No. 6657 otherwise known as Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and of the Guidelines and
Procedures Implementing Production and Profit Sharing under R.A. No. 6657 promulgated on
January 2, 1989 and the Rules and Regulations Implementing Section 11 thereof as
promulgated by the DAR on January 9, 1989

ISSUE:

W/N the raising of livestock, poultry and swine is covered by the CARL?

RULING:

NO. Luz Farms contended that livestock or poultry raising is not similar to crop or tree farming.
Land is not the primary resource in this undertaking and represents no more than five percent
(5%) of the total investment of commercial livestock and poultry raisers. The use of land is
incidental to but not the principal factor or consideration in productivity in this industry.
Including backyard raisers, about 80% of those in commercial livestock and poultry production
occupy five hectares or less. The remaining 20% are mostly corporate farms.

The petition is impressed with merit.

The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning
of the word "agricultural," clearly show that it was never the intention of the framers of the
Constitution to include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the constitutionally-
mandated agrarian reform program of the Government.

DANAN vs. CA

Facts:

Sometime in 1976, a certain Rustico Coronel leased the subject property for a period of twelve
(12) years or until the crop year 1987 to 1988. Then, persons claiming to be farmers and
residents of Barangay Lourdes and Barangay San Rafael signed a joint resolution as members
of the Aniban ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura ("AMA") to enter and lease the subject
property from the Arrastia heirs. They entered the disputed land and planted various crops
thereon. This culminated in a violent confrontation on May 21, 1988 that led to the filing of
criminal charges against AMA members.
Issue:

Whether or not private petitioners are qualified beneficiaries under the CARP?

Ruling:

The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subject to qualification by

the legislature. It serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the
rights of the landowner and the tenant and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was
not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the landowner. A retained area, as its name
denotes, is land which is not supposed to anymore leave the landowner's dominion, thus
sparing the government from the inconvenience of taking land only to return it to the
landowner afterwards, which would be a pointless process. For as long as the area to be
retained is compact or contiguous and does not exceed the retention ceiling of five (5) hectares,
a landowner's choice of the area to be retained must prevail. Moreover, Administrative Order
No. 4, series of 1991, which supplies the details for the exercise of a landowner's retention
rights, likewise recognizes no limit to the prerogative of the landowner, although he is
persuaded to retain other lands instead to avoid dislocation of farmers. Therefore, there is no
legal and practical basis to order the commencement of the administrative proceedings for the
placement of respondent Arrastia's land under the CARP since her property's land area falls
below the retention limit of five (5) hectares.

DAEZ vs. CA

FACTS:
Eudosia Daez owns a 4.1685-hectare riceland in Meycauayan, Bulacan. The land is cultivated by
Macario Soriente, Rogelio Macatulad, Apolonio Mediana, and Manuel Umali under a share-
tenancy system. The Ministry of Agrarian reform have issued Certificates of Land Transfer (CLT)
to the cultivators on December 1980 under the Letter of Instruction (LOI) 4749.

However, in May 1981, the cultivators signed an affidavit (allegedly under duress), stating that
they are not tenants but are only hired laborers. With the affidavit at hand, Daez applied for an
exemption of the riceland due to non-tenancy.
Upon finding that the riceland is covered under LOI 4749, DAR Undersecretary Jose Medina
denied Daez’s application for exemption. DAR Secretary Benjamin Leong affirmed the denial.
Leong also upheld cultivators as tenants of the riceland and disregarded the affidavit upon
finding that the document was signed under duress.

Daez filed another application, this time for the retention of her riceland under R.A. 6657. DAR
Region III OIC Director Eugenio Bernardo allowed Daez to retain the riceland but denied to
approve the retention of her 8 children upon finding that none of them were actually tilling or
managing the land.
The decision was reversed by DAR Secretary Ernesto Garilao, but it was reversed again at the
Office of the President upon appeal. Sec. Bernardo’s decision was reinstated. The cultivators
appealed to the CA which reversed the decision and reinstated the decision of Sec. Garilao.

ISSUE: Whether or not Daez is entitled to retain the riceland.

RULING: Yes, Daez still has the right to retain the riceland. The issuance of patents or
certificates to the farmer-beneficiaries do not operate as a bar for the landowner to retain part
of his landholding. The CLTs issued to the beneficiaries were given without first according Daez
his right to choose an area for retention. The CLTs cannot operate to defeat the right of the
landowner (and his heirs) to retain part of the riceland.

HEIRS OF CADELINA vs. CADIZ

Facts:

Respondents filed complaints for reinstatement of possession as farmer tenants against

petitioners with the DARAB-Region 2, San Fermin, Cauayan, Isabela. Respondents alleged that
they were the farmers/tillers of portions of Lot No. 7050 (properties), since 1962 until around
the end of 1998 when they were deprived of their respective possessions, occupations and
tillage of the properties due to a CA Decision ordering the transfer of the properties from
Nicanor Ibuna, Sr. to Teodoro Cadeliña and his heirs, petitioners herein.

Petitioners moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that respondents cannot be
considered as tenants under land reform law because they were instituted Ibuna, whose rights
were previously declared by the court illegal and unlawful.

The DARAB ruled in favor of respondents and declared Ibuna as legal possessor of the
properties who had the right to institute respondents as tenants of the properties. The DARAB
said that while the title of the Ibuna was subsequently declared null and void by the CA in
another case, he is deemed as legal possessor of the subject land and as such, he has the right
to grant to the plaintiffs the cultivation of the land pursuant to Section 6 of RA 3844
(Agricultural Land Reform Code). The CA affirmed the DARAB’s ruling.

Issues:

Whether there is an agricultural tenancy relationship between petitioners and

respondents.
Ruling:

There is no agricultural tenancy relationship between petitioners and respondents.

Tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the true and lawful
landowner who is the owner, lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor of the land. It cannot be
created by the act of a supposed landowner, who has no right to the land subject of the
tenancy, much less by one who has been dispossessed of the same by final judgement.

In this case, Ibuna's institution of respondents as tenants did not give rise to a tenure
relationship because Ibuna is not the lawful landowner, either in the concept of an owner or a
legal possessor, of the properties. It is undisputed that prior to the filing of the complaint with
the DARAB, the transfers of the properties to Ibuna and his predecessor, Andres Castillo, were
declared void in separate and previous proceedings. Since the transfers were void, it vested no
rights whatsoever in favor of Ibuna, either of ownership and possession. It is also for this reason
that the DARAB erred in declaring Ibuna as a legal possessor who may furnish a landholding to
respondents. That which is inexistent cannot give life to anything at all.