Topic 7: Land Acquisition and on the land, there is not enough land to

Distribution accommodate any or some of them, they

I. NOC/VOS- Chapter 4-5 DAR AO 7, 2011 may be granted ownership of other lands
available for distribution under this Act, at the
II. Selection of Beneficiaries option of the beneficiaries.
a. RA 6657
Section 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. — The Farmers already in place and those not
lands covered by the CARP shall be accommodated in the distribution of
distributed as much as possible to landless privately-owned lands will be given
residents of the same barangay, or in the preferential rights in the distribution of lands
absence thereof, landless residents of the from the public domain.
same municipality in the following order of
priority: Section 23. Distribution Limit. — No qualified
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants; beneficiary may own more than three (3)
(b) regular farmworkers; hectares of agricultural land.
(c) seasonal farmworkers;
(d) other farmworkers; Section 24. Award to Beneficiaries. — The
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands; rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above shall commence from the time the DAR
beneficiaries; and makes an award of the land to him, which
(g) others directly working on the land. award shall be completed within one hundred
eighty (180) days from the time the DAR
Provided, however, that the children of takes actual possession of the land.
landowners who are qualified under Section Ownership of the beneficiary shall be
6 of this Act shall be given preference in the evidenced by a Certificate of Land
distribution of the land of their parents: and Ownership Award, which shall contain the
provided, further, that actual tenant-tillers in restrictions and conditions provided for in this
the landholdings shall not be ejected or Act, and shall be recorded in the Register of
removed therefrom. Deeds concerned and annotated on the
Certificate of Title.
Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No.
27 who have culpably sold, disposed of, or Section 25. Award Ceilings for Beneficiaries.
abandoned their land are disqualified to — Beneficiaries shall be awarded an area
become beneficiaries under this Program. not exceeding three (3) hectares which may
A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be cover a contiguous tract of land or several
his willingness, aptitude, and ability to parcels of land cumulated up to the
cultivate and make the land as productive as prescribed award limits.
possible. The DAR shall adopt a system of
monitoring the record or performance of each For purposes of this Act, a landless
beneficiary, so that any beneficiary guilty of beneficiary is one who owns less than three
negligence or misuse of the land or any (3) hectares of agricultural land.
support extended to him shall forfeit his right
to continue as such beneficiary. The DAR The beneficiaries may opt for collective
shall submit periodic reports on the ownership, such as co-ownership or farmers
performance of the beneficiaries to the cooperative or some other form of collective
PARC. organization: provided, that the total area
that may be awarded shall not exceed the
If, due to the landowner's retention rights or
to the number of tenants, lessees, or workers
Agrarian Reform and Social Legislation Notes
Kim Rachelle N. Tapungot
Prof. Atty. IJ Chan-Gonzaga, SJ
Xavier University- College of Law
total number of co- owners or member of the (d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the
cooperative or collective organization DAR shall conduct summary administrative
multiplied by the award limit above proceedings to determine the compensation
prescribed, except in meritorious cases as for the land requiring the landowner, the LBP
determined by the PARC. Title to the and other interested parties to submit
property shall be issued in the name of the evidence as to the just compensation for the
co- owners or the cooperative or collective land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt
organization as the case may be. of the notice. After the expiration of the above
period, the matter is deemed submitted for
b. DAR AO 7, 2011- Sec. 39, 42-49 decision. The DAR shall decide the case
within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for
III. Land Valuation and Landowner decision.
Compensation
a. RA 6657 (e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the
Section 16. Procedure for Acquisition of corresponding payment or, in case of
Private Lands. — For purposes of acquisition rejection or no response from the landowner,
of private lands, the following procedures upon the deposit with an accessible bank
shall be followed: designated by the DAR of the compensation
(a) After having identified the land, the in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with
landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR this Act, the DAR shall take immediate
shall send its notice to acquire the land to the possession of the land and shall request the
owners thereof, by personal delivery or proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer
registered mail, and post the same in a Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the
conspicuous place in the municipal building Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall
and barangay hall of the place where the thereafter proceed with the redistribution of
property is located. Said notice shall contain the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding
value in accordance with the valuation set (f) Any party who disagrees with the decision
forth in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent may bring the matter to the court of proper
provisions hereof. jurisdiction for final determination of just
compensation.
(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of
receipt of written notice by personal delivery Section 17. Determination of Just
or registered mail, the landowner, his Compensation. — In determining just
administrator or representative shall inform compensation, the cost of acquisition of the
the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the land, the current value of the like properties,
offer. its nature, actual use and income, the sworn
valuation by the owner, the tax declarations,
(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the and the assessment made by government
DAR, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) assessors shall be considered. The social
shall pay the landowner the purchase price and economic benefits contributed by the
of the land within thirty (30) days after he farmers and the farmworkers and by the
executes and delivers a deed of Government to the property as well as the
transfer in favor of the government and non-payment of taxes or loans secured from
surrenders the Certificate of Title and other any government financing institution on the
muniments of title. said land shall be considered as additional
factors to determine its valuation.

b. DAR AO 7, Chp 8-9

Agrarian Reform and Social Legislation Notes
Kim Rachelle N. Tapungot
Prof. Atty. IJ Chan-Gonzaga, SJ
Xavier University- College of Law
1. Association of Small Landowners vs the rules. It is equally true that every case
Sec. AR must be prosecuted in accordance with the
Facts: prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly
and speedy administration of justice.

The RTC has proper jurisdiction.

DAR has primary jursidction to determine
agrarian reform matters (administrative),
while the RTC has the original and exlusive
jurisdiction over all petitions for determination
of just compensation (judicial). DAR may
make a preliminary determination of just
compensation for lands taken under AR, but
it is subject to challenge before the courts. In
this case, respondents wrote a letter to DAR
objecting to the land valuation summary and
2. Land Bank vs Natividad requested a conference for the fixing of the
This is a Petition for Review assailing the same, but it was unanswered.
decision of the RTC which ordered the DAR 3. Land Bank vs CA
and LBP to pay the respondents 30php/sqm Facts: Separate petitions for review were
as just compensation for the State’s filed by petitioners DAR and LBP following
acquisition of their properties pursuant to PD the adverse ruling by the Court of Appeals,
27. granting private respondents' Petition for
Facts: Respondents filed a petition for Certiorari and Mandamus. However, upon
determination of just compensation for their motion filed by private respondents, the
agricultural lands which were taken pursuant petitions were ordered consolidated.
to PD 27. The RTC ordered DAR and LBP to Likewise, petitioners seek the reversal of the
pay, to which they filed a MR but it was Resolution, denying their motion for
denied for being pro forma, not containing a reconsideration.
notice of hearing. The decision then became
final and executory. LBP filed a Petition for Private respondents are landowners whose
Relief citing excusable negligence as its landholdings were acquired by the DAR and
ground, alleging that its counsel failed to subjected to transfer to beneficiaries under
include the notice due to pressure of work the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
and that he merely signed and scanned the (CARL). Aggrieved by the alleged lapses of
MR not knowing that that it had no notice of the DAR and LBP with respect to the
hearing. valuation and payment of compensation for
their land pursuant to the provisions of RA
Issue: Was there excusable negligence? 6657, private respondents filed with the
Does the RTC have jurisdiction for Court a Petition for Certiorari and Mandamus
determination of just compensation? with prayer for preliminary mandatory
injunction. Private respondents argued that
Ruling: No. Negligence to be excusable Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990
must be one which ordinary diligence and was issued without jurisdiction and with
prudence could not have guarded against. grave abuse of discretion because it permits
The reason given by LBP was by no means the opening of trust accounts by the LBP, in
excusable. Procedural rules are designed to lieu of depositing in cash or bonds in an
facilitate the adjudication of cases. Courts accessible bank designated by the DAR, the
and litigants are enjoined to abide strictly by compensation for the land before it is taken
Agrarian Reform and Social Legislation Notes
Kim Rachelle N. Tapungot
Prof. Atty. IJ Chan-Gonzaga, SJ
Xavier University- College of Law
and the titles are cancelled. Private
respondents also assail the fact that the DAR Held: To withhold the right of the
and the LBP merely "earmarked", "deposited landowners to appropriate the amounts
in trust" or "reserved" the compensation in already deposited in their behalf as
their names as landowners despite the clear compensation for their properties simply
mandate that before taking possession of the because they rejected the DAR's valuation,
property, the compensation must be and notwithstanding that they have already
deposited in cash or in bonds. The been deprived of the possession and use of
respondent court rendered the assailed such properties is an oppressive exercise of
decision in favor of private respondents. eminent domain. It is unnecessary to
Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration distinguish between deposit of compensation
but respondent court denied the same, (provisional) under Section 16(e) and
hence, the instant petitions. determination of just compensation (final)
under Section 18 for purposes of exercising
Issue: Whether or not the deposit may be the landowners' right to appropriate the
made in other forms besides cash or LBP same. The immediate effect in both
bonds situations is the same the landowner is
deprived of the use and possession of his
Held: In the present suit, the DAR clearly property for which he should be fairly and
overstepped the limits of its power to enact immediately compensated.
rules and regulations when it issued
Administrative Circular No. 9. There is no 4. Lubrica v Land Bank
basis in allowing the opening of a trust Facts: Lubrica is the assignee of Federico C.
account in behalf of the landowner as Suntay over certain parcels of agricultural
compensation for his property because land. A portion of the said property was
Section 16(e) of RA 6657 is very specific that placed under PD 27. The land was thereafter
the deposit must be made only in "cash" or in subdivided and distributed to farmer
"LBP bonds". If it were the intention to beneficiaries. DAR and LBP fixed the value
include a "trust account" among the valid of the land which amount was deposited in
modes of deposit that should have been cash and bonds in favor of Lubrica.
made express, or at least, qualifying words The heirs of Suntay inherited from him a
ought to have appeared from which it can be parcel of agricultural land consisting of two
fairly deduced that a "trust account" is lots, namely, Lot 1 and Lot 2. Lot 2 was
allowed. placed under the coverage of P.D. No. 27 but
only 128.7161 hectares was considered by
The ruling in the "Association" case merely LBP and valued the same at P1,512,575.05.
recognized the extraordinary nature of the Petitioners rejected the valuation of their
expropriation to be undertaken under RA properties, hence the Office of the Provincial
6657 thereby allowing a deviation from the Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD)
traditional mode of payment of compensation conducted summary administrative
and recognized payment other than in cash. proceedings for determination of just
It did not, however, dispense with the settled compensation.
rule that there must be full payment of just
compensation before the title to the ISSUE: WON the determination of just
expropriated property is transferred. compensation should be based on the value
of the expropriated properties at the time of
Issue: Whether or not there should be a payment.
distinction the deposit of compensation and
determination of just compensation HELD: Yes.
Agrarian Reform and Social Legislation Notes
Kim Rachelle N. Tapungot
Prof. Atty. IJ Chan-Gonzaga, SJ
Xavier University- College of Law
Petitioners were deprived of their properties and children. Then the CARL took effect.
without payment of just compensation which, DAR dismissed Grino’s petition for the
under the law, is a prerequisite before the cancellation of the CLTs. Grino’s heirs then
property can be taken away from its owners. sought the exemption of 9.35 hectare lot from
The transfer of possession and ownership of the coverage of either PD 27 or CARL,
the land to the government are conditioned contending that Grino had 7 children and if a
upon the receipt by the landowner of the landowner is entitled to 5 hecatres as
corresponding payment or deposit by the retention limit, Grino’s remaining land would
DAR of the compensation with an accessible not be enough for his children because
bank. Until then, title also remains with the Grino’s 50 hectare lot has already been
landowner. No outright change of ownership ceded in favor of DBP.
is contemplated either. Petitioners were Issue: Does Grino’s heirs have the right to
deprived of their properties way back in retain the land?
1972, yet to date, they have not yet received Ruling: No. Where a landowner is not
just compensation. Thus, it would certainly entitled to retain land under PD 27, he cannot
be inequitable to determine just avail of the right of retention over the same
compensation based on the guideline under RA 6657. It is certain the Grino had no
provided by P.D. No. 227 and E.O. No. 228 right of retention because he owned 9
considering the failure to determine just hectares of tenated Riceland and 50
compensation for a considerable length of hectares of coconut land. If Grino had no
time. That just compensation should be retention rights under PD 27 and RA 6657, it
determined in accordance with R.A. No. follows that his heirs, who are his
6657 and not P.D. No. 227 or E.O. No. 228, successors-in-interest, cannot also exercise
is important considering that just the same right under PD 27 and RA 6657.
compensation should be the full and fair Hence, the petition is dismissed.
equivalent of the property taken from its
owner by the expropriator, the equivalent 2. Estribillo v DAR
being real, substantial, full and ample. This is a Petition for Review on Certiorari
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking
IV. CLOA Generation and Distribution the review and reversal of the Resolutions of
1. Heirs of Grino v DAR the Court of Appeals.
Facts: Grino Sr was the owner of a 9.35
hectare of agricultural land and a 50 hectare Facts: The petitioners are the recipients of
parcel of land, which he mortgaged to DBP. Emancipation Patents (EPs) over parcels of
When PD 27 was issued by Marcos, Grino’s land located at Barangay Angas, Sta. Josefa,
9.35 hectare land was placed under the Agusan del Sur.
coverage and certificates of land transfer
were issued in favor of his tenants. Grino The parcels of land were formerly part of a
filed a petition for the cancellation of such forested area, which have been denuded as
CLTs contending that they were issued a result of the logging operations of
without giving him the opportunity to be respondent Hacienda Maria, Inc. (HMI).
heard and that he had several children and Petitioners, together with other persons,
grandchildren who had no suitable occupied and tilled these areas.
residential lots that might need the lands to
build their homes. Grino offered 7 hectares HMI acquired such forested area from the
from his 50 hectare land to his tenants, but it Republic of the Philippines through a Sales
turned out that Grino later ceded his 50 Patent No. 2683 in 1956 covered by an OCT.
hectare land to DBP via Dacion En Pago.
Grino died and was succeeded by his wife
Agrarian Reform and Social Legislation Notes
Kim Rachelle N. Tapungot
Prof. Atty. IJ Chan-Gonzaga, SJ
Xavier University- College of Law
On 21 October 1972, Presidential Decree there any established tenancy relations
No. 27 was issued mandating that tenanted between HMI and petitioners when
rice and corn lands be brought under Presidential Decree No. 27 took effect on 21
Operation Land Transfer and awarded to October 1972.
farmer-beneficiaries.
DARAB: Petitioners appealed to the
HMI, through a certain Joaquin Colmenares, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication
requested that 527.8308 hectares of its Board (DARAB), which affirmed the RARAD
landholdings be placed under the coverage Decision.
of Operation Land Transfer. Receiving
compensation therefor, HMI allowed CA: The Court of Appeals dismissed the
petitioners and other occupants to cultivate petition for violation of Sec. 5, Rule 7 of the
the landholdings so that the same may be 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
covered under said law.
Hence, this petition contending that there
HMI, through its representatives, actively had been compliance with Rule 7, Section 5
participated in all relevant proceedings, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
including the determination of the Average Moreover, reiterating that EPs are ordinary
Gross Production per hectare at the titles, which become indefeasible one year
Barangay Committee on Land Production, after the registration.
and was a signatory of an undated
Landowner and Tenant Production ISSUE: Whether or not the transfer
Agreement (LTPA), covering the 527.8308 certificates of title issued pursuant to
hectares. The LTPA was submitted to the Emancipation Patents acquire the same
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) in 1977. protection accorded to other Transfer
Certificates of Title.
In 1982, a final survey over the entire area
was conducted and approved. From 1984 to
1988, the corresponding TCTs and EPs RULING: YES. Certificate of Title issued
covering the entire 527.8308 hectares were pursuant to Emancipation Patents are as
issued to petitioners, among other persons. indefeasible as TCTs issued in registration
proceedings. After complying with the
In December 1997, HMI filed with the procedure, therefore, in Section 105 of
Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator Presidential Decree No. 1529, otherwise
(RARAD) of CARAGA, Region XIII, petitions known as the Property Registration Decree
seeking the declaration of erroneous (where the DAR is required to issue the
coverage under Presidential Decree No. 27 corresponding certificate of title after granting
of 277.5008 hectares of its former an EP to tenant-farmers who have complied
landholdings. HMI claimed that said area with Presidential Decree No. 27), the TCTs
was not devoted to either rice or corn, that issued to petitioners pursuant to their EPs
the area was untenanted, and that no acquire the same protection accorded to
compensation was paid therefor. other TCTs. The EPs themselves, like the
Certificates of Land Ownership Award
RARAD: On 27 November 1998, after (CLOAs) in Republic Act No. 6657 (the
petitioners failed to submit a Position Paper, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
the RARAD rendered a Decision declaring as 1988), are enrolled in the Torrens system of
void the TCTs and EPs awarded to registration. The Property Registration
petitioners because the land covered was not Decree in fact devotes Chapter IX on the
devoted to rice and corn, and neither was subject of EPs. Indeed, such EPs and
Agrarian Reform and Social Legislation Notes
Kim Rachelle N. Tapungot
Prof. Atty. IJ Chan-Gonzaga, SJ
Xavier University- College of Law
CLOAs are, in themselves, entitled to be as
indefeasible as certificates of title issued in
registration proceedings.

With the CA dismissing the petition for

violation of Sec. 5, Rule 7 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, the Supreme Court ruled
that the Petitioners have sufficiently complied
with Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure concerning the Certification
Against Forum Shopping. In the case,
Petitioner Samuel A. Estribillo, in signing the
Verification and Certification Against Forum
Shopping, falls within the phrase “plaintiff or
principal party” who is required to certify
under oath the matters mentioned in Rule 7,
Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure. Moreover, even if we assume for
the sake of argument that there was violation
of Rule 7, Section 5 of the 1997 Rules of Civil
Procedure, a relaxation of such rule would be
justified for two compelling reasons: social
justice considerations and the apparent merit
of the Petition.

DISPOSITIVE: The Supreme Court granted

the petitions. The resolutions of the Court of
Appeals are reversed and set aside. The EPs
and the corresponding TCTs issued to
petitioners or to their successors-in-interest
are declared valid and subsisting.

Agrarian Reform and Social Legislation Notes

Kim Rachelle N. Tapungot
Prof. Atty. IJ Chan-Gonzaga, SJ
Xavier University- College of Law
3. CREBA vs Sec. of Agr. Reform Petitioners filed an MR. Denied.
They filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari
with application for Temporary Restraining
Order and Writ of Preliminary Injunction

SC then referred the petition to the CA.

Petitioners moved for MR but was denied.
CA rendered a decision affirming the Order
of Dismissal issued by the RTC

ISSUES:
1. Whether or not the reclassification of
the subject lands to industrial use by
the Municipality of Balamban, Cebu
pursuant to its authority under
Section 20(a) of Republic Act No.
7160 or the Local Government Code
4. Ros v DAR of 1991 (the "LGC") has the effect of
Facts: Petitioners are the taking such lands out of the coverage
owners/developers of several parcels of land of the CARL and beyond the
located in Arpili, Balamban, Cebu. By virtue jurisdiction of the DAR
of Municipal Ordinance No. 101 passed by
the Municipal Council of Balamban, Cebu, RULING: NO. Petition lacks merit.
these lands were reclassified as industrial Petitioners are of the view that local
lands. The Provincial Board approved governments have the power to reclassify
Balamban’s land use plan. Accordingly, portions of their agricultural lands, subject to
petitioners secured all the necessary permits the conditions stated in Sec 20 of the Local
and appropriate government certifications Government Code. According to them, if the
Despite these permits and certifications, agricultural land sought to be reclassified by
petitioner Matthias Mendezona received a the local government is one which has
letter from the Director of the Department of already been brought under the coverage of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) Regional Office for the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
Region 7, informing him that the DAR was (CARL) and/or which has been distributed to
disallowing the conversion of the subject agrarian reform beneficiaries, then such
lands for industrial use and directed him to reclassification must be confirmed by the
cease and desist from further developments DAR pursuant to its authority under Section
on the land to avoid the incurrence of civil 65 of the CARL. If, however, the land sought
and criminal liabilities. to be reclassified is not covered by the CARL
Petitioners were thus constrained to file a and not distributed to agrarian reform
complaint on July 29,1996 for Injunction w beneficiaries, then no confirmation from the
Application for TRO and a Writ of Preliminary DAR is necessary in order for the
Injunction. In an order dated 1996, the RTC reclassification to become effective as such
dismissed the complaint, ruling that the DAR case would not fall within the DAR’s
has jurisdiction over the complaint. (Note that conversion authority.
the application by petitioners for conversion
was filed June 13,1995 or after the effectivity This is wrong.
of the CARL, which means there must be
conversion clearance from DAR) After the passage of CARL, agricultural
Procedural: lands, though reclassified, have to go
Agrarian Reform and Social Legislation Notes
Kim Rachelle N. Tapungot
Prof. Atty. IJ Chan-Gonzaga, SJ
Xavier University- College of Law
through the process of conversion, Reform Adjudicator of Region IV a complaint
jurisdiction over which is vested in the DAR. against respondent and Mayor Olivares for
However, agricultural lands already maintenance of peaceful possession and
reclassified before the effectivity of Rep. Act security of tenure with damages. It was then
No. 6657 are exempted from conversion. amended into complaint for damages and
The requirement that agricultural lands must disturbance compensation, with prayer
go through the process of conversion despite for TRO and injunction. They invoked Sec.
having undergone reclassification was 30 10 and 31(1) 11 of RA 3844.
underscored in the case of Alarcon v. Court
of Appeals, where it was held that On July 28, 1997, Regional Adjudicator
reclassification of land does not suffice: rendered a decision holding that under Metro
In the case at bar, there is no final order of Manila Zoning Ordinance No. 81-01 issued
conversion. The subject landholding was in 1981, the subject saltbeds have been
merely reclassified. Conversion is different reclassified to residential lands.
from reclassification. Conversion is the act of Consequently, the juridical tie between the
changing the current use of a piece of parties was severed, for no tenurial
agricultural land into some other use as relationship can exist on a land that is no
approved by the Department of Agrarian longer agricultural.
Reform. Reclassification, on the other hand, DARAB affirmed the decision in toto. CA
is the act of specifying how agricultural lands reversed the decision of DARAB and
shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses ordering the dismissal of petitioners’
such as residential, industrial, commercial, complaint against respondent.
as embodied in the land use plan, subject to
the requirements and procedure for land use ISSUES:
conversion. Accordingly, a mere 1. WON a mere reclassification of the land
reclassification of agricultural land does not from agricultural to residential, without
automatically allow a landowner to change its any court action by the landowner to
use and thus cause the ejectment of the eject or dispossess the tenant, entitles
tenants. He has to undergo the process of the latter to disturbance compensation. -
conversion before he is permitted to use the NO
agricultural land for other purposes. 2. WON Metro Manila Zoning Ordinance
No. 81-01 extinguish the tenurial
DISPOSITIVE: PETITION DENIED FOR relationship of landlord and tenant. -NO
LACK OF MERIT.
Procedural Issue:
5. Alarcon v CA What law must govern the case? Is it RA No.
Facts: Pascual & Santos is the owner of 1199 or RA 3844?
several saltbeds in Paranaque. In 1950, it
constituted petitioners as tenants of the HELD: Respondent contends that RA 1199
saltbeds under a 50-50 share tenancy must govern the instant petition because
agreement. In 1994, city government of Section 35 of RA 3844 clearly exempts the
Paranaque authorized the dumping of saltbeds from leasehold and provides that
garbage on the adjoining lot which polluted the provisions of RA 1199 shall govern the
the main source of salt water and adversely consideration as well as the tenancy system
affected the salt production. Petitioners prevailing on saltbeds.
informed private respondent but it did not
take any step for such. Their protest with the We do not agree. Section 76 of Republic Act
city government was also ignored. No. 6657 expressly repealed Section 35 of
Petitioners filed with the Regional Agrarian RA 3844. It therefore abolished the
Agrarian Reform and Social Legislation Notes
Kim Rachelle N. Tapungot
Prof. Atty. IJ Chan-Gonzaga, SJ
Xavier University- College of Law
exemption applied to saltbeds and provided  Conversion is the act of changing the
that all tenanted agricultural lands shall be current use of a piece of agricultural land
subject to leasehold. Consequently, RA into some other use as approved by the
3844, not RA 1199, must govern the instant Department of Agrarian Reform.
petition.  Reclassification, on the other hand, is
the act of specifying how agricultural
A tenancy relationship, once established, lands shall be utilized for non-
entitles the tenant to a security of tenure. He agricultural uses such as residential,
can only be ejected from the agricultural industrial, commercial, as embodied in
landholding on grounds provided by law. the land use plan, subject to the
requirements and procedure for land use
It is clear that a tenant can be lawfully ejected conversion. .
only if there is a court authorization in a
judgment that is final and executory and after Since in this case, there is neither a final
a hearing where the reclassification of the order of conversion by the DAR nor a court
landholding was duly determined. If the court judgment authorizing the tenants ejectment
authorizes the ejectment, the tenant who is on the ground of reclassification, as a result
dispossessed of his tenancy is entitled to of the landowner’s court action, there is no
disturbance compensation. legal basis to make respondent liable to pay
disturbance compensation. Accordingly, the
Contrary to petitioners claim, the Court of Appeals committed no error in
reclassification of the land is not enough to ordering the dismissal of the complaint
entitle them to disturbance compensation. before the DARAB.
The law is clear that court proceedings are
indispensable where the reclassification of PETITION FOR REVIEW IS DENIED.
the landholding is duly determined before
ejectment can be effected, which in turn 6. Province of Cam Sur v CA
paves the way for the payment of Facts: Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) of
disturbance compensation. As held by the Camarines Sur passed Resolution 129
Court of Appeals, the parties can still authorizing the province to expropriate
continue with their tenurial relationship even property in order to establish a pilot farm for
after such reclassification. In fact, it is non-food and non-agricultural crops and
undisputed that in this case, the parties housing project for the government
continued with their landlord-tenant employees. By virtue of the resolution, Cam
relationship even after the enactment of Sur filed two separate cases for expropriation
Metro Manila Zoning Ordinance No. 81-01. It and a motion for the issuance of writ of
was only in 1994 when this relationship was possession against San Joaquins, the
interrupted because of the dumping of private respondents.  The San Joaquins
garbage by the Paranaque City Government. moved to dismiss complaints on the ground
Clearly, it was this latter event which caused of inadequacy of the price offered and a
petitioner’s dispossession, and it would be motion for relief. The RTC denied the
unfair to oblige respondent to pay motions and authorized Cam Sur to take
compensation for acts it did not commit. possession of the property. In their petition
before the Court of Appeals, private
In the case at bar, there is no final order of respondents ask the CA to declare
conversion. The subject landholding was Resolution 129 null and void, dismiss the
merely reclassified. Conversion is different expropriation complaints, and set aside the
from reclassification. authority granted to Cam Sur to take
possession of property.  Province of Cam
Agrarian Reform and Social Legislation Notes
Kim Rachelle N. Tapungot
Prof. Atty. IJ Chan-Gonzaga, SJ
Xavier University- College of Law
Sur claimed that it has authority to initiate general public (e.g. roads, bridges, public
expropriation proceedings under the Local plazas, etc.) before the taking thereof could
Government Code and that the satisfy the constitutional requirement of
expropriations are for a public purpose. "public use". Under the new concept, "public
Asked by the CA, Solicitor General stated use" means public advantage, convenience
that there is no need for the approval of the or benefit, which tends to contribute to the
President for the province to expropriate general welfare and the prosperity of the
properties, however, approval of the whole community, like a resort complex for
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is tourists or housing project.
needed to convert the property from
agricultural to non-agricultural (housing The expropriation of the property authorized
purpose).  The Court of Appeals set aside by the questioned resolution is for a public
the order of the trial court, allowing the purpose. The establishment of a pilot
Province of Camarines Sur to take development center would inure to the direct
possession of private respondents' lands and benefit and advantage of the people of the
the order denying the admission of the Province of Camarines Sur. Once
amended motion to dismiss. It also ordered operational, the center would make available
the trial court to suspend the expropriation to the community invaluable information and
proceedings until after the Province of technology on agriculture, fishery and the
Camarines Sur shall have submitted the cottage industry. Ultimately, the livelihood of
requisite approval of the Department of the farmers, fishermen and craftsmen would
Agrarian Reform to convert the classification be enhanced. The housing project also
of the property of the private respondents satisfies the public purpose requirement of
from agricultural to non- agricultural land. the Constitution. As held in Sumulong v.
Hence this petition. Guerrero, 154 SCRA 461, "Housing is a
basic human need. Shortage in housing is a
Issue: Whether or not the resolution is valid, matter of state concern since it directly and
i.e. the expropriation is for a public purpose significantly affects public health, safety, the
or public use. environment and in sum the general
welfare."
Ruling: The expropriation is for a public
purpose, hence the resolution is authorized
and valid. When the Court of Appeals
ordered the suspension of the proceedings
until the Province of Camarines Sur shall V. Installation
have obtained the authority of the
Department of Agrarian Reform to change
the classification of the lands sought to be
expropriated from agricultural to non-
agricultural use, it assumed that the
resolution is valid and that the expropriation
is for a public purpose or public use. There
has been a shift from the literal to a broader
interpretation of "public purpose" or "public
use" for which the power of eminent domain
may be exercised.

The old concept was that the condemned

property must actually be used by the
Agrarian Reform and Social Legislation Notes
Kim Rachelle N. Tapungot
Prof. Atty. IJ Chan-Gonzaga, SJ
Xavier University- College of Law