*use at your own risk

Some questions/terms from Atty. Yap’s prev quizzes:

*Agrarian Reform – means redistribution of lands to farmers and regular farm workers who are
landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farm workers, to
receive a just share in the fruits thereof.

*Agrarian Law- Embraces all laws that govern and regulate the rights and relationship over
agricultural lands between landowners, tenants, lessees or agricultural workers.

*Lands devoted to raising of livestock, poultry, and swine are classified as industrial.

*Children of the landowner are entitled to 3 hectares each.

*TWO NOTICES TO THE LANDOWNER ARE REQUIRED FOR VALIDITY OF

IMPLEMENTATION
Notice of Coverage
Notice of Acquisition

*Types of Agribusiness Venture Agreements:

Joint Venture Agreement- a company is organized and co owned by an investor and AR
beneficiaries thru their cooperative and association

Lease Agreement- Whereby the reform beneficiaries thru their cooperative or association, enter
into a contract of lease with the landowner/investor

Contract Growing/Growership Arrangement- The beneficiaries or their cooperative produce

certain crops for an investor or agribusiness firm which buys the produce at pre-arranged terms

Management Contract- Beneficiaries or their association hire the services of a landowner to

manage and operate the farm in exchange for fixed wages or commission

Build-Operate-Transfer Scheme- Project proponent undertakes rhe financing and construction

of a given infrastructure facility and the operation and maintenance thereof for not more than
25yrs subject to extension

*Just Compensation- a full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the
expropriator

*Reckoning of Valuation
1. At the time it was taken from owner and appropriated by government
2. If government takes possession of land before the institution of expropriation proceedings: at
the time of taking of possession, not filing of complaint.

*Landowner cannot insist in cash payment only

*Schemes that are no longer operative:

voluntary land transfers and stock distribution are only up to June 30, 2009.

*The modes of acquisition after June 30, 2009:

Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA)

1
 *use at your own risk

*Qualified beneficiaries: Order of priority in distribution:

Agricultural lessees and share tenants
Regular farm workers
Seasonal farm workers
Other farm workers
Actual tillers or occupants of public lands
Collectives or cooperatives of above beneficiaries
Others directly working on the land

*Qualifications of an agrarian reform beneficiary

To qualify as an agrarian reform beneficiary, the farmer must be:
(a) Filipino Citizen
(b) Resident of the barangay or municipality where the landholding is located
(c) At least 15 years old at the time of identification, screening and selection; and
(d) Willing, able and equipped with aptitude to cultivate and make the land productive

*Who are disqualified to become agrarian reform beneficiaries?

(1) Those who DO NOT MEET the basic qualifications;
(2) Those who have WAIVED their right to become an agrarian reform beneficiary in exchange for
compensation, provided that the waiver has not been questioned in the proper government entity;
(3) Those who have NOT PAID an aggregate of 3 annual amortizations;
(4) Those who have FAILED to exercise right of redemption/repurchase within 3 years resulting in
the foreclosure of mortgage by the Land Bank of the Philippines of a previously awarded land;
(5) Those who REFUSED to pay 3 annual amortizations for land acquired through voluntary land
transfer or direct payment scheme, resulting in the repossession by the landowner;
(6) Those who have been DISMISSED for cause;
(7) Those who have OBTAINED substantially equivalent employment, i.e. any employment
or profession from which the applicant-farmer derives income equivalent to the income of a
regular farm worker at the time identification, screening, and selection of the beneficiary;
(8) Those who have RETIRED or voluntarily resigned from their employment;
(9) Those who have MISUSED the land or DIVERTED the financial support services extended by
the government;
(10) Those who have MISREPRESENTED material facts in their basic qualifications;
(11) Those who have SOLD, DISPOSED or ABANDONED the lands awarded to them by the
government;
(12) Those who have CONVERTED agricultural lands to non-agricultural use without prior
approval of the DAR;
(13) Those who have been finally ADJUDGED GUILTY of forcible entry or unlawful detainer over
the property; and
(14) Those who have VIOLATED agrarian reform laws and regulations

*The maximum agricultural land area that can be owned by or awarded to an agrarian reform
beneficiary is 3 hectares.

Grounds for Cancellation of Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA)

(a) Abandonment of land
(b) Neglect of misuse of land
(c) Failure to pay 3 annual amortizations
(d) Misuse or diversion of financial and support services
(e) Sale, transfer or conveyance of the right to use the land; and
(f) Illegal conversion of the land

2
 *use at your own risk

*GR: Sale or transfer of awarded lands prohibited. Agrarian reform beneficiaries cannot, within
a period of 10 years, sell or transfer ownership of land awarded to them.
EXP:
(a) Through hereditary succession
(b) To the Government
(c) To the Land Bank of the Philippines; or
(d) To other qualified beneficiaries

*GR: Corporate farms are to be distributed directly to the individual worker-beneficiaries.

EXP: If it is not economically feasible and sound to divide the land, then it shall be distributed
INDIRECTLY to the worker-beneficiaries through a workers’ cooperative or association.

*RURAL WOMEN- They are those engaged directly or indirectly in farming or fishing as their
source of livelihood, whether paid or unpaid, regular or seasonal, or in food preparation,
managing the household, caring for the children, and other similar activities.

*All qualified women members of the agricultural labor force are guaranteed and assured of the
following:
(a) Equal right to ownership of the land;
(b) Equal shares of the farm’s produce; and
(c) Representation in advisory or appropriate decision-making body

3
 *use at your own risk

Atty. Mariacos’ quizzes:

1. What is the right of retention? How is it different from exemption/exclusion?

Illustrate each (10%)

Suggested answer in a nutshell:

The right to retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right that balances the effects of
compulsory land acquisition by granting the landowner the right to choose the area to be
retained and by implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an
injustice against the landowner, subject to the qualifications by the legislature. Necessarily,
since the said right is granted to limit the effects of compulsory land acquisition against the
landowner, it is a prerequisite that the land falls under the coverage of the OLT Program of the
government. If the land is beyond the ambit of the OLT Program, the landowner need not – as
he should not – apply for retention since the appropriate remedy would be for him to apply for
exemption. (Daez vs. CA G. R. No. 133507)

The landowner shall have the right to retain not more than 5 hectares of his landholdings. The
retained area need not be personally cultivated by the landowner – cultivation can be done
indirectly through labor administration.

Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions.

a) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation,
fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves shall be exempt from the
coverage of this Act.

b) Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds shall be
exempt from the coverage of this Act: Provided, That said prawn farms and fishponds have not
been distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) issued to agrarian reform
beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.

In the case of Daez vs. CA G. R. No. 133507:

P.D. No. 27, which implemented the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program, covers tenanted
rice or corn lands. The requisites for coverage under the OLT program are the following: (1) the
land must be devoted to rice or corn crops; and (2) there must be a system of share-crop or
lease-tenancy obtaining therein. If either requisite is absent, a landowner may apply for
exemption. If either of these requisites is absent, the land is not covered under OLT. Hence, a
landowner need not apply for retention where his ownership over the entire landholding
is intact and undisturbed.

P.D. No. 27 grants each tenant of covered lands a five (5)-hectare lot, or in case the land is
irrigated, a three (3)-hectare lot constituting a family size farm. However, said law allows a
covered landowner to retain not more than seven (7) hectares of his land if his aggregate
landholding does not exceed twenty-four (24) hectares. Otherwise, his entire landholding is
covered without him being entitled to any retention right.
4
 *use at your own risk

Consequently, a landowner may keep his entire covered landholding if its aggregate size does
not exceed the retention limit of seven (7) hectares. In effect, his land will not be covered at all
by the OLT program although all requisites for coverage are present. LOI No. 474 clarified the
effective coverage of OLT to include tenanted rice or corn lands of seven (7) hectares or less, if
the landowner owns other agricultural lands of more than seven (7) hectares. The term "other
agricultural lands" refers to lands other than tenanted rice or corn lands from which the
landowner derives adequate income to support his family.
Thus, on one hand, exemption from coverage of OLT lies if: (1) the land is not devoted to rice
or corn crops even if it is tenanted; or (2) the land is untenanted even though it is devoted to rice
or corn crops.

On the other hand, the requisites for the exercise by the landowner of his right of retention
are the following: (1) the land must be devoted to rice or corn crops; (2) there must be a system
of share-crop or lease-tenancy obtaining therein; and (3) the size of the landholding must not
exceed twenty-four (24) hectares, or it could be more than twenty-four (24) hectares provided
that at least seven (7) hectares thereof are covered lands and more than seven (7) hectares of it
consist of "other agricultural lands".

Clearly, then, the requisites for the grant of an application for exemption from coverage of OLT
and those for the grant of an application for the exercise of a landowner's right of retention, are
different. Hence, it is incorrect to posit that an application for exemption and an application for
retention are one and the same thing. Being distinct remedies, finality of judgment in one does
not preclude the subsequent institution of the other.

2. Enumerate the coverage of the CARL as well as those exempted/excluded (20%)

SECTION 4. Scope.
General Rule: CARL covers the following lands:
a. All public and private agriculture lands; and
b. Other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture

Lands NOT covered by CARL:

a. Private lands with a total land area of 5 hectares and below
b. Lands actually, directly, and exclusively used for parks, wildlife, forest, reserves, reforestation,
fish sanctuaries, and breeding grounds, watersheds, and mangroves
c. Private lands actually, directly and exclusive used for prawn farms and fishponds
d. Lands actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to be necessary for:
i. National defense;
ii. School sites and campuses;
iii. Experimental farm stations operated for educational purposes;
iv. Seeds and seedling research and pilot production center

5
 *use at your own risk

v. Church sites and convents appurtenant thereto;

vi. Mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto;
vii. Communal burial grounds and cemeteries
viii. Penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates
ix. Research and quarantine centers; and
x. All lands with 18% slope and over, except those already developed

3. X is an owner of 50-hectare agricultural land. He has two (2) children. Within one year
from the effectivity of the CARL, his landholding was acquired for compulsory distribution
to qualified beneficiaries. Pursuant to Section 6 of the CARL, X retained a maximum of 5
hectares of his covered land and gave 3 hectares each to his children. Both his children
are of legal age and are actually tilling the land as regular farm workers of their father.

Subsequently, the two children applied as beneficiaries of their father’s land. Their
application was denied on the ground that they are not landless for they already own
three (3) hectares parcel of land. Is the denial correct? Explain and cite your legal basis.
(20%)

4. X and B (father and son) were each awarded with three (3) hectares parcel of
agricultural land as qualified beneficiaries. Within the ten-year prohibitory period, X sold
his 3-hectare parcel of land to B. Said sale is approved by the DAR. Is the sale valid?
Explain and cite your legal basis. (20%)

5. X and B (father and son) were each awarded with three (3) hectares parcel of
agricultural land as qualified beneficiaries. Within the ten-year prohibitory period, X sold
his 3-hectare parcel of land to the Land Bank of the Philippines. Within the 2-year
redemption period, B manifested his intention to redeem the land sold by his father. His
offer to redeem was refused by the LBP on the ground that b’s redemption of the land
will eventually increase his landholding to six (6) hectares. Is the LBP correct? Explain
and cite your legal basis. (20%)

6. X owns a 50-hectares agricultural land. On 1 January 1990, X received a Notice of

Coverage pursuant to the CARL. On even date, Mr. X formally filed his protest with the
DAR. Mr. X argued that his land is excluded from the coverage of the CARP. After five
years of litigation, the case was concluded in favor of DAR. Mr. X then notified DAR of
his intention to retain a portion of his covered land, but the same was denied on the
ground that his notice was filed beyond the sixty-day period. Is the DAR correct? State
your reasons. (10%) DAR vs Carriedo

6
 *use at your own risk

1. In 1986, Ms. Y acquired a parcel of agricultural land with an area of 50 hectares. A year
after, or on September 17, 1987, she married Mr. X. Just few days after her marriage
with Mr. X, Ms. Y registered her agricultural land with the Registry of Deeds (RD) under
her name, with a description that she is married to Mr. X. Just after Ms. Y registered her
land with the RD, she and Mr. X separated in fact. Mr. X lived in Cebu, while Ms. Y lived
in Baguio.

On June 15, 1988, the CARL took effect. On July 15, 1989, the DAR, through the MARO
of Cebu City where Ms. Y’s land is located, notified Mr. X of its intention to subject the
said land for compulsory distribution to qualified beneficiaries. Since Mr. X did not reply,
the DAR issued CLOAs to the qualified beneficiaries and subsequently, the same were
distributed to them and registered under their names.

When Ms. Y learned that her agricultural land was already distributed to qualified
beneficiaries, she filed an action with the DARAB to nullify the qualified beneficiaries’
individual titles. Said action was filed on July 16, 2009. She claimed that she was denied
due process since she did not receive a notice of coverage. On the other hand, the DAR
and the qualified beneficiaries argued that Ms. Y’s right of action has already prescribed,
that the DARAB has no jurisdiction over the case, and that the notice to her husband is
valid notice to her. If you are the adjudicator, how would you rule.

Heirs of Jugalbot vs Court of Appeals

2. Discuss the procedures/steps in the compulsory acquisition of agricultural lands

under R.A 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, as detailed in DAR
Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989.
Section 16. Procedure for Acquisition and Distribution of Private Lands.
This provision outlines the procedure to be followed in the compulsory acquisition of agricultural
lands:
1) Identification by DAR of the land, landowner (LO) and beneficiary
2) Notice by DAR to LO about the compulsory acquisition and price offer thru:
a) Personal notice or registered mail;
b) Posting of notice in conspicuous places in the barangay hall where land is
located
3) Reply by the LO about his acceptance or rejection of offer price:
a) Accepts- LBP will pay LO within 30days from execution and delivery of Deed
of transfer
b) Rejects- DAR will determine just compensation thru summary administrative
proceedings
c) LO disagrees with decision of DAR - may bring matter to court of justice for
final determination of just compensation
4) Taking of immediate possession of land by DAR:
a) If LO receives payment; or
b) If LO does not respond to Notice of acquisition
7
 *use at your own risk

5) Request by DAR to ROD to issue TCT to Republic of the Philippines

6) Distribution to beneficiaries

3. Discuss the procedure/steps to be undertaken before the issuance of an emancipation

patent to tenant farmers pursuant to P.D. No. 27.

4. Mr. X owns a 30-hectare agricultural land. He has ten (10) children, all of legal ages and
currently cultivating their father’s land. In addition to the Mr. X’s children, there are ten
(10) farmer-tenants who are also cultivating Mr. X’s land.

When the CARL took effect, the MARO served to Mr. X a notice of coverage, subjecting
the latter’s land for compulsory distribution to the 10 farmer-tenants. Upon receipt of said
notice, Mr. X immediately filed his verified opposition, claiming that his land is not
covered by the CARL. He argued that under Section 6 of CARL. his land is barely
enough for him and his children pursuant to their right of retention. Is Mr. X’s land
covered by the CARL? If so, will the ten farmer-tenants receive their respective share in
Mr. X’s land.

8
 *use at your own risk

1. B was approached by Ms. A to redeem an agricultural lot which was mortgaged by A’s
mother to C. B acceded to the request of A. Thereafter, A again sought for B’s help in
obtaining title to the lot in her name by shouldering all the expenses for the transfer of
the title of the lot from A’s mother. In exchange A promised to give B one-half of the
subject lot.

Sometime thereafter, the Dept of agriculture, pursuant to the CARL of 1988, awarded the
said parcel of land to A. Resultantly, a Certificate of Land Ownership (CLOA) in favor of
A has been issued and duly registered under TCT/CLOA No. 111

Complying with her earlier commitment, Ms. A executed a sworn statement dated 1 Nov.
1989. Waiving and transferring her rights over one half portion of the subject lot in favor
of Mr. B. Further, A executed three (3) more sworn statements indicating that she is
waiving and transferring her rights over the one-half portion of the lot in favor of B.
However, when B asked A to comply with his promise, A refused.

Thus, B filed an action for the cancellation of the TCT/CLOA in the name of A and the
issuance of another for the one-half portion in his favor. Will the action filed by B
prosper? Explain.

Lebrudo vs. Loyola

2. A sold a parcel of agriculture riceland to C without notifying B, a registered agricultural

tenant-lessee thereof. Upon discovering the sale, B sent a demand letter for the return of
the subject parcel of land to both A and C. Neither A nor C responded to B’s demands.
Thus, B filed a complaint against A and C for legal redemption, recovery, and
maintenance of peaceful possession. In support thereof, B alleged that the sale between
A and C was made secretly and in bad faith which is in violation of the Agricultural
Reform Code. Moreover, B insisted that as a registered tenant over the property, he did
not waive his rights to legally redeem the property sold, and that he is willing and able to
match the sale price. A did not file an answer while C denied all allegations and argued
that he is an innocent purchaser in good faith because he only bought the property after:
(1) A assured him that there would be no issue as to the transfer of tile, and (2) A
undertook to compensate B. Will the complaint of B prosper? Why?

Estrella vs Francisco

3. Mr. X is the owner of a 100-hectare agricultural land being tilled by twenty (20) tenants.
In 1987, the employment of the 20 tenants ceased. As such, they were asked to vacate
the property of Mr. X. Despite receipt of the demand to vacate, the 20 tenants refused.
Consequently, Mr. X filed an action for ejectment with the MTC.

While the case is pending, the CARL took effect. The property of X was then identified

9
 *use at your own risk

as a covered land for compulsory distribution, and the 20 tenants were identified as
potential beneficiaries. Because of this development, the 20 tenants moved to dismiss
the ejectment case on the ground that the MTC has no jurisdiction. They claimed that
that being potential beneficiaries, the dispute between them and Mr. X is an agrarian
dispute and thus within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. Rule on the motion of tenants.

4. Distinguish the process of determining just compensation under PD. No. 27 and under
Section 17 of the CARL.

In determining just compensation of agricultural lands acquired pursuant to the CARL

are the courts bound to consider and apply the factors stated in Section 17 of said law?
May the courts deviate from the strict observance thereof? If so, what is/are the
requirement/s or condition/s before the courts disregard the factors under Section 17?

Alfonso vs LBP

5. Mr. Y’s agricultural land was subjected for compulsory acquisition in accordance with the
CARL. The Land bank of the PH valued at P 5,000 per square. LBP’s valuation was
received by Mr. Y on Jan. 31, 1988. A year after, or on Feb. 14, 1989, Mr. Y signified his
acceptance of the LBP’s valuation. Consequently, the DAR commenced the preparation
of a deed of transfer of the subject land and the payment of the just compensation.

While the payment of just compensation is being processed, the DAR brought the matter
of valuation of the subjectland to the DARAB. The DARAB then conducted a summary
proceeding and valued the subject land at P7,500 per square. The LBP protested the
new valuation, as well as the proceedings conducted by the DARAB. According to the
LBP, the DARAB can no longer change the earlier evaluation of the subject land
considering that the landowner (Mr. Y) already accepted the P5,000/square valuation.
There being a perfected contract between Mr. Y and the government, the same must be
respected. Is the LBP correct?

LBP vs Heirs of Marcos

10