Held:
Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation vs  Court of Appeals In Natalia Realty, Inc. vs (DAR) Department of Agrarian Reform, the Court
G.R. No. 112526 held that lands classified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the
CARL may not be compulsorily acquired for distribution to farmer
October 12, 2001
beneficiaries.
367 SCRA 175 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.
Facts:
Petitioner, Sta. Rosa Realty Development Corporation (SRRDC) was the 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%
registered owner of two parcels of land, situated at Barangay Casile,
and over, which exempted the land from the coverage of CARL.
Cabuyao, Laguna covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and 84891, with a total area Hence, the Court remanded the case to the DARAB for re-evaluation and
of 254.6 hectares. determination of the nature of the parcels of land involved to resolve the
issue of its coverage by the Comprehensive Land Reform Program.In the
meantime, the effects of the CLOAs issued by the DAR to supposed farmer
The parcels of land in Barangay Casile were declared as "PARK" by a beneficiaries shall continue to be stayed by the temporary restraining order
Zoning Ordinance adopted by the municipality of Cabuyao in 1979, as issued on December 15, 1993, which shall remain in effect until final
decision on the case.
certified by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board.
On December 12, 1989, Secretary of Agrarian Reform Miriam Defensor ROXAS & CO., INC., petitioner,
Santiago sent two (2) notices of acquisition to petitioner, stating that vs.
petitioner's landholdings had been placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS, DEPARTMENT OF
Reform Program. AGRARIAN REFORM, SECRETARY OF
AGRARIAN REFORM, DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR FOR REGION
IV, MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM
On April 6, 1990, petitioner sent a letter to the Land Bank of the Philippines OFFICER OF NASUGBU, BATANGAS and DEPARTMENT OF
stating that its property under the aforesaid land titleswere exempt from AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, respondents.
CARP coverage because they had been classified as watershed area and were G.R. No. 127876 December 17, 1999
the subject of a pending petition for land conversion.
FACTS:
On January 5, 1994, the Sangguniang Bayan of Cabuyao, Laguna issued a
 This case involves three (3) haciendas in Nasugbu, Batangas owned
Resolution voiding the zoning classification of the land at Barangay Casile as by petitioner and the validity of the acquisition of these haciendas by the
Park and declaring that the land is now classified as agricultural land. government under Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law of 1988.
Issue:  Petitioner Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the
Whether or not the property in question is covered by CARP despite the fact registered owner of three haciendas, namely, Haciendas Palico, Banilad and
that the entire property formed part of a watershed area prior to the Caylaway, all located in the Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas. Hacienda
enactment of R. A. No. 6657. Palico is 1,024 hectares in area.
 On July 27, 1987, the Congress of the Philippines formally convened requested that a trust account representing the valuation of three portions of
and took over legislative power from the President. 2 This Congress passed Hacienda Palico be opened in favor of the petitioner in view of the latter's
Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) rejection of its offered value.
of 1988. The Act was signed by the President on June 10, 1988 and took  Despite petitioner's application for conversion, respondent DAR
effect on June 15, 1988. proceeded with the acquisition of the two Haciendas. The LBP trust accounts
 Before the law's effectivity, on May 6, 1988, petitioner filed with as compensation for Hacienda Palico were replaced by respondent DAR with
respondent DAR a voluntary offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the cash and LBP bonds. On October 22, 1993, from the mother title of TCT No.
provisions of E.O. No. 229. Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later placed 985 of the Hacienda, respondent DAR registered Certificate of Land
under compulsory acquisition by respondent DAR in accordance with the Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 6654. On October 30, 1993, CLOA's were
CARL. Hacienda Palico distributed to farmer beneficiaries.
 On September 29, 1989, respondent DAR, through respondent
Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of Nasugbu, Batangas, sent a
notice entitled "Invitation to Parties" to petitioner. The Invitation was Hacienda Banilad
addressed to "Jaime Pimentel, Hda. Administrator, Hda. Palico." Therein, the
MARO invited petitioner to a conference on October 6, 1989 at the DAR  On August 23, 1989, respondent DAR, through respondent MARO
office in Nasugbu to discuss the results of the DAR investigation of of Nasugbu, Batangas, sent a notice to petitioner addressed as follows:
Hacienda Palico, which was "scheduled for compulsory acquisition this year
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program." Mr. Jaime Pimentel
 On December 12, 1989, respondent DAR through then Department Hacienda Administrator
Secretary Miriam D. Santiago sent a "Notice of Acquisition" to petitioner. Hacienda Banilad
The Notice was addressed as follows: Nasugbu, Batangas

Roxas y Cia, Limited  The MARO informed Pimentel that Hacienda Banilad was subject to
Soriano Bldg., Plaza Cervantes compulsory acquisition under the CARL; that should petitioner wish to avail
Manila, Metro Manila. of the other schemes such as Voluntary Offer to Sell or Voluntary Land
Transfer, respondent DAR was willing to provide assistance thereto.
 Petitioner was informed that 1,023.999 hectares of its land in  On December 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the Department
Hacienda Palico were subject to immediate acquisition and distribution by Secretary, sent to petitioner two (2) separate "Notices of Acquisition" over
the government under the CARL; that based on the DAR's valuation criteria, Hacienda Banilad. These Notices were sent on the same day as the Notice of
the government was offering compensation of P3.4 million for 333.0800 Acquisition over Hacienda Palico. Unlike the Notice over Hacienda Palico,
hectares; that whether this offer was to be accepted or rejected, petitioner was however, the Notices over Hacienda Banilad were addressed to:
to inform the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD) of the
DAR; that in case of petitioner's rejection or failure to reply within thirty Roxas y Cia. Limited
days, respondent DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings 7th Floor, CachoGonzales
with notice to petitioner to determine just compensation for the land; that if Bldg. 101 Aguirre St., Leg.
petitioner accepts respondent DAR's offer, or upon deposit of the Makati, Metro Manila.
compensation with an accessible bank if it rejects the same, the DAR shall
take immediate possession of the land.  Respondent DAR offered petitioner compensation of P15,108,995.52
 Almost two years later, on September 26, 1991, the DAR Regional for 729.4190 hectares and P4,428,496.00 for 234.6498 hectares.
Director sent to the LBP Land Valuation Manager three (3) separate  On September 26, 1991, the DAR Regional Director sent to the LBP
Memoranda entitled "Request to Open Trust Account." Each Memoranda Land Valuation Manager a "Request to Open Trust Account" in petitioner's
name as compensation for 234.6493 hectares of Hacienda Banilad. A second  On August 24, 1993 petitioner instituted Case No. N00179646 (BA)
"Request to Open Trust Account" was sent on November 18, 1991 over with respondent DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) praying for the
723.4130 hectares of said Hacienda. cancellation of the CLOA's issued by respondent DAR in the name of several
 On December 18, 1991, the LBP certified that the amounts of persons. Petitioner alleged that the Municipality of Nasugbu, where the
P4,428,496.40 and P21,234,468.78 in cash and LBP bonds had been haciendas are located, had been declared a tourist zone, that the land is not
earmarked as compensation for petitioner's land in Hacienda Banilad. suitable for agricultural production, and that the Sangguniang Bayan of
Nasugbu had reclassified the land to nonagricultural.
 On May 4, 1993, petitioner applied for conversion of both Haciendas
Palico and Banilad.  In a Resolution dated October 14, 1993, respondent DARAB held
that the case involved the prejudicial question of whether the property was
subject to agrarian reform, hence, this question should be submitted to the
Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform for determination.
Hacienda Caylaway

 Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered for sale to the

government on May 6, 1988 before the effectivity of the CARL. The ISSUE(S):
Hacienda has a total area of 867.4571 hectares. 1. W/N this Court can take cognizance of this petition despite
petitioner's failure to exhaust administrative remedies;
 On January 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through the Regional
Director for Region IV, sent to petitioner two (2) separate Resolutions 2. W/N the acquisition proceedings over the three haciendas were valid
accepting petitioner's voluntary offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway, particularly and in accordance with law;
TCT Nos. T44664 and T44663. The Resolutions were addressed to: 3. assuming the haciendas may be reclassified from agricultural to
nonagricultural, W/N this court has the power to rule on this issue.
Roxas & Company, Inc.
7th Flr. CachoGonzales Bldg.
Aguirre, Legaspi Village HELD:
Makati, M. M 1. YES.
As a general rule, before a party may be allowed to invoke the jurisdiction of
 Nevertheless, on August 6, 1992, petitioner, through its President, the courts of justice, he is expected to have exhausted all means of
Eduardo J. Roxas, sent a letter to the Secretary of respondent DAR administrative redress. This is not absolute, however. There are instances
withdrawing its VOS of Hacienda Caylaway. The Sangguniang Bayan of when judicial action may be resorted to immediately. Among these
Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly authorized the reclassification of Hacienda exceptions are:
Caylaway from agricultural to nonagricultural. As a result, petitioner
informed respondent DAR that it was applying for conversion of Hacienda 1. when the question raised is purely legal;
Caylaway from agricultural to other uses.
2. when the administrative body is in estoppel;
 In a letter dated September 28, 1992, respondent DAR Secretary
3. when the act complained of is patently illegal;
informed petitioner that a reclassification of the land would not exempt it
from agrarian reform. Respondent Secretary also denied petitioner's 4. when there is urgent need for judicial intervention;
withdrawal of the VOS on the ground that withdrawal could only be based on 5. when the respondent acted in disregard of due process;
specific grounds such as unsuitability of the soil for agriculture, or if the 6. when the respondent is a department secretary whose acts, as an alter
slope of the land is over 18 degrees and that the land is undeveloped. ego of the President, bear the implied or assumed approval of the latter;
 Despite the denial of the VOS withdrawal of Hacienda Caylaway, on 7. when irreparable damage will be suffered;
May 11, 1993, petitioner filed its application for conversion of both 8. when there is no other plain, speedy and adequate remedy;
Haciendas Palico and Banilad.
9. when strong public interest is involved; Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988
10. when the subject of the controversy is private land; and (CARL), provides for two (2) modes of acquisition of private land:
compulsory and voluntary. The procedure for the compulsory acquisition of
11. in quo warranto proceedings.
private lands is set forth in Section 16 of R.A. 6657.
Petitioner rightly sought immediate redress in the courts. There was a In the compulsory acquisition of private lands, the landholding, the
violation of its rights and to require it to exhaust administrative remedies landowners and the farmer beneficiaries must first be identified. After
before the DAR itself was not a plain, speedy and adequate remedy. identification, the DAR shall send a Notice of Acquisition to the landowner,
by personal delivery or registered mail, and post it in a conspicuous place in
Respondent DAR issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA's) to the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is
farmer beneficiaries over portions of petitioner's land without just located. Within thirty days from receipt of the Notice of Acquisition, the
compensation to petitioner. A Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his
is evidence of ownership of land by a beneficiary under R.A. 6657, the acceptance or rejection of the offer. If the landowner accepts, he executes
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. Before this may be awarded and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the
to a farmer beneficiary, the land must first be acquired by the State from the certificate of title. Within thirty days from the execution of the deed of
landowner and ownership transferred to the former. The transfer of transfer, the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) pays the owner the purchase
possession and ownership of the land to the government are conditioned price. If the landowner rejects the DAR's offer or fails to make a reply, the
upon the receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or deposit DAR conducts summary administrative proceedings to determine just
by the DAR of the compensation with an accessible bank. Until then, title compensation for the land. The landowner, the LBP representative and other
remains with the landowner. There was no receipt by petitioner of any interested parties may submit evidence on just compensation within fifteen
compensation for any of the lands acquired by the government. days from notice. Within thirty days from submission, the DAR shall decide
the case and inform the owner of its decision and the amount of just
The kind of compensation to be paid the landowner is also specific. The law compensation. Upon receipt by the owner of the corresponding payment, or,
provides that the deposit must be made only in "cash" or "LBP bonds." in case of rejection or lack of response from the latter, the DAR shall deposit
Respondent DAR's opening of trust account deposits in petitioner' s name the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds with an accessible bank. The DAR
with the Land Bank of the Philippines does not constitute payment under the shall immediately take possession of the land and cause the issuance of a
law. Trust account deposits are not cash or LBP bonds. The replacement of transfer certificate of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The
the trust account with cash or LBP bonds did not ipso facto cure the lack of land shall then be redistributed to the farmer beneficiaries. Any party may
compensation; for essentially, the determination of this compensation was question the decision of the DAR in the regular courts for final determination
marred by lack of due process. In fact, in the entire acquisition proceedings, of just compensation.
respondent DAR disregarded the basic requirements of administrative due
process. Under these circumstances, the issuance of the CLOA's to farmer Under Section 16 of the CARL, the first step in compulsory acquisition is the
beneficiaries necessitated immediate judicial action on the part of the identification of the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries. However, the
petitioner. law is silent on how the identification process must be made. To fill in this
gap, the DAR issued on July 26, 1989 Administrative Order No. 12, Series or
1989, which set the operating procedure in the identification of such lands.
2. NO.
Procedure in the acquisition of private lands under the provisions of the law: Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989 requires that the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) keep an updated master list of all
A. Modes of Acquisition of Land under R. A. 6657 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 without due process of law." The CARL was not intended to take away
"conference/meeting" over the land covered by the CACF. He also sends property without due process of law. The exercise of the power of eminent
invitations to the prospective farmerbeneficiaries the representatives of the domain requires that due process be observed in the taking of private
Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC), the Land Bank of the property.
Philippines (LBP) and other interested parties to discuss the inputs to the
valuation of the property and solicit views, suggestions, objections or DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989, from whence the Notice of Coverage first
agreements of the parties. At the meeting, the landowner is asked to indicate sprung, was amended in 1990 by DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 and in
his retention area. 1993 by DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993. The Notice of Coverage and letter
The MARO shall make a report of the case to the Provincial Agrarian of invitation to the conference meeting were expanded and amplified in said
Reform Officer (PARO) who shall complete the valuation of the land. Ocular amendments.
inspection and verification of the property by the PARO shall be mandatory
when the computed value of the estate exceeds P500,000.00. Upon DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1990 lays down the rules on both Voluntary Offer
determination of the valuation, the PARO shall forward all papers together to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) transactions involving lands
with his recommendation to the Central Office of the DAR. The DAR enumerated under Section 7 of the CARL. In both VOS and CA.
Central Office, specifically, the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution transactions, the MARO prepares the Voluntary Offer to Sell Case Folder
(BLAD), shall review, evaluate and determine the final land valuation of the (VOCF) and the Compulsory Acquisition Case Folder (CACF), as the case
property. The BLAD shall prepare, on the signature of the Secretary or his may be, over a particular landholding. The MARO notifies the landowner as
duly authorized representative, a Notice of Acquisition for the subject well as representatives of the LBP, BARC and prospective beneficiaries of
property. From this point, the provisions of Section 16 of R.A. 6657 then the date of the ocular inspection of the property at least one week before the
apply. scheduled date and invites them to attend the same. The MARO, LBP or
BARC conducts the ocular inspection and investigation by identifying the
For a valid implementation of the CAR program, two notices are required: land and landowner, determining the suitability of the land for agriculture
(1) the Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary and productivity, interviewing and screening prospective farmer
conference sent to the landowner, the representatives of the BARC, LBP, beneficiaries. Based on its investigation, the MARO, LBP or BARC prepares
farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties pursuant to DAR A.O. No. the Field Investigation Report which shall be signed by all parties concerned.
12, Series of 1989; and (2) the Notice of Acquisition sent to the landowner In addition to the field investigation, a boundary or subdivision survey of the
under Section 16 of the CARL. land ma also be conducted by a Survey Party of the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to be assisted by the MARO.
The importance of the first notice, i.e., the Notice of Coverage and the letter This survey shall delineate the areas covered by Operation Land Transfer
of invitation to the conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated. (OLT), areas retained by the landowner, areas with infrastructure, and the
They are steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative areas subject to VOS and CA. After the survey and field investigation, the
due process. The implementation of the CARL is an exercise of the State's MARO sends a "Notice of Coverage" to the landowner or his duly authorized
police power and the power of eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL representative inviting him to a conference or public hearing with the farmer
prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police beneficiaries, representatives of the BARC, LBP, DENR, Department of
power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Agriculture (DA), nongovernment organizations, farmer's organizations and
Constitution. But where, to carry ou such regulation, the owners are deprived other interested parties. At the public hearing, the parties shall discuss the
of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also a results of the field investigation, issues that may be raised in relation thereto,
taking under the power of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not a inputs to the valuation of the subject landholding, and other comments and
mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the recommendations by all parties concerned. The Minutes of the
title to and physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial rights conference/public hearing shall form part of the VOCF or CACF which files
accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary. The Bill of Rights shall be forwarded by the MARO to the PARO. The PARO reviews,
provides that "[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property evaluates and validates the Field Investigation Report and other documents in
the VOCF/CACF. He then forwards the records to the RARO for another administrator of Hacienda Palico. The invitation was received on the same
review. day it was sent as indicated by a signature and the date received at the bottom
left corner of said invitation. With regard to Hacienda Banilad, respondent
DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993, modified the identification process and DAR claims that Jaime Pimentel, administrator also of Hacienda Banilad,
increased the number of governmen agencies involved in the identification was notified and sent an invitation to the conference. Pimentel actually
and delineation of the land subject to acquisition. This time, the Notice of attended the conference on September 21, 1989 and signed the Minutes of
Coverage is sent to the landowner before the conduct of the field the meeting on behalf of petitioner corporation. The Minutes was also signed
investigation and the sending must comply with specific requirements. by the representatives of the BARC, the LBP and farmer beneficiaries. No
Representatives of the DAR Municipal Office (DARMO) must send the letter of invitation was sent or conference meeting held with respect to
Notice of Coverage to the landowner by "personal delivery with proof of Hacienda Caylaway because it was subject to a Voluntary Offer to Sell to
service, or by registered mail with return card," informing him that his respondent DAR.
property is under CARP coverage and that if he desires to avail of his right of
retention, he may choose which area he shall retain. The Notice of Coverage When respondent DAR, through the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
shall also invite the landowner to attend the field investigation to be (MARO), sent to the various parties the Notice of Coverage and invitation to
scheduled at least two weeks from notice. The field investigation is for the the conference, DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989 was already in effect more
purpose of identifying the landholding and determining its suitability for than a month earlier. The Operating Procedure in DAR Administrative Order
agriculture and its productivity. A copy of the Notice of Coverage shall be No. 12 does not specify how notices or letters of invitation shall be sent to
posted for at least one week on the bulletin board of the municipal and the landowner, the representatives of the BARC, the LBP, the farmer
barangay halls where the property beneficiaries and other interested parties. The procedure in the sending of
is located. The date of the field investigation shall also be sent by the DAR these notices is important to comply with the requisites of due process
Municipal Office to representatives of the LBP, BARC, DENR and especially when the owner, as in this case, is a juridical entity. Petitioner is a
prospective farmer beneficiaries. The field investigation shall be conducted domestic corporation, and therefore, has a personality separate and distinct
on the date set with the participation of the landowner and the various from its shareholders, officers and employees.
representatives. If the landowner and other representatives are absent, the
field investigation shall proceed, provided they were duly notified thereof. The Notice of Acquisition in Section 16 of the CARL is required to be sent to
Should there be a variance between the findings of the DAR and the LBP as the landowner by "personal delivery or registered mail." Whether the
to whether the land be placed under agrarian reform, the land's suitability to landowner be a natural or juridical person to whose address the Notice may
agriculture, the degree or development of the slope, etc., the conflict shall be be sent by personal delivery or registered mail, the law does not distinguish.
resolved by a composite team of the DAR, LBP, DENR and DA which shall The DAR Administrative Orders also do not distinguish. In the proceedings
jointly conduct further investigation. The team's findings shall be binding on before the DAR, the distinction between natural and juridical persons in the
both DAR and LBP. After the field investigation, the DAR Municipal Office sending of notices may be found in the Revised Rules of Procedure of the
shall prepare the Field Investigation Report and Land Use Map, a copy of DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB). Service of pleadings before the
which shall be furnished the landowner "by personal delivery with proof of DARAB is governed by Section 6, Rule V of the DARAB Revised Rules of
service or registered mail with return card." Another copy of the Report and Procedure. Notices and pleadings are served on private domestic
Map shall likewise be posted for at least one week in the municipal or corporations or partnerships in the following manner:
barangay halls where the property is located.
Sec. 6. Service upon Private Domestic Corporation or Partnership. — If the
B. The Compulsory Acquisition of Haciendas Palico and Banilad defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines or a
partnership duly registered, service may be made on the president, manager,
In the case at bar, respondent DAR claims that it, through MARO Leopoldo secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors or partners.
C. Lejano, sent a letter of invitation entitled "Invitation to Parties" dated
September 29, 1989 to petitioner corporation, through Jaime Pimentel, the
Similarly, the Revised Rules of Court of the Philippines, in Section 13, Rule acquisition, which portions it could rightfully retain, whether these retained
14 provides: portions were compact or contiguous, and which portions were excluded
from CARP coverage. Even respondent DAR's evidence does not show that
Sec. 13. Service upon private domestic corporation or partnership. — If the petitioner, through its duly authorized representative, was notified of any
defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of the Philippines or a ocular inspection and investigation that was to be conducted by respondent
partnership duly registered, service may be made on the president, manager, DAR. Neither is there proof that petitioner was given the opportunity to at
secretary, cashier, agent, or any of its directors. least choose and identify its retention area in those portions to be acquired
compulsorily. The right of retention and how this right is exercised, is
Summonses, pleadings and notices in cases against a private domestic guaranteed in Section 6 of the CARL.
corporation before the DARAB and the regular courts are served on the Under the law, a landowner may retain not more than five hectares out of the
president, manager, secretary, cashier, agent or any of its directors. These total area of his agricultural land subject to CARP. The right to choose the
persons are those through whom the private domestic corporation or area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, pertains to the
partnership is capable of action. landowner. If the area chosen for retention is tenanted, the tenant shall have
the option to choose whether to remain on the portion or be a beneficiary in
Jaime Pimentel is not the president, manager, secretary, cashier or director of the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features.
petitioner corporation.
C. The Voluntary Acquisition of Hacienda Caylaway
Assuming further that petitioner was duly notified of the CARP coverage of
its haciendas, the areas found actually subject to CARP were not properly Hacienda Caylaway was voluntarily offered for sale in 1989. The Hacienda
identified before they were taken over by respondent DAR. Respondents has a total area of 867.4571 hectares and is covered by four (4) titles. In two
insist that the lands were identified because they are all registered property separate Resolutions both dated January 12, 1989, respondent DAR, through
and the technical description in their respective titles specifies their metes the
and bounds. Respondents admit at the same time, however, that not all areas Regional Director, formally accepted the VOS over the two of these four
in the haciendas were placed under the comprehensive agrarian reform titles. The land covered by two titles has an area of 855.5257 hectares, but
program invariably by reason of elevation or character or use of the land. only 648.8544 hectares thereof fell within the coverage of R.A. 6657.
Petitioner claims it does not know where these portions are located.
The acquisition of the landholdings did not cover the entire expanse of the
two haciendas, but only portions thereof. Hacienda Palico has an area of Respondent DAR, on the other hand, avers that surveys on the land covered
1,024 hectares and only 688.7576 hectares were targetted for acquisition. by the four titles were conducted in 1989, and that petitioner, as landowner,
Hacienda Banilad has an area of 1,050 hectares but only 964.0688 hectares was not denied participation therein, The results of the survey and the land
were subject to CARP. The haciendas are not entirely agricultural lands. In valuation summary report, however, do not indicate whether notices to attend
fact, the various tax declarations over the haciendas describe the the same were actually sent to and received by petitioner or its duly
landholdings as "sugarland," and "forest, sugarland, pasture land, horticulture authorized representative. To reiterate, Executive Order No. 229 does not lay
and woodland." down the operating procedure, much less the notice requirements, before the
VOS is accepted by respondent DAR. Notice to the landowner, however,
Under Section 16 of the CARL, the sending of the Notice of Acquisition cannot be dispensed with. It is part of administrative due process and is an
specifically requires that the land subject essential requisite to enable the landowner himself to exercise, at the very
to land reform be first identified. The two haciendas in the instant case cover least, his right of retention guaranteed under the CARL.
vast tracts of land. Before Notices of Acquisition were sent to petitioner,
however, the exact areas of the landholdings were not properly segregated
and delineated. Upon receipt of this notice, therefore, petitioner corporation 3. NO.
had no idea which portions of its estate were subject to compulsory
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction does not warrant a court to arrogate unto Nov. 27, 2008
itself authority to resolve a controversy the jurisdiction over which is initially 572 SCRA 108 (2008)
lodged with an administrative body of special competence. Respondent DAR
is in a better position to resolve petitioner's application for conversion, being Facts:
primarily the agency possessing the necessary expertise on the matter. The Respondents, heirs of the deceased Dumlao, were the co-owners of several
power to determine whether Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway are parcels of agricultural land with an aggregate area of 32.2379 hectares
nonagricultural, hence, exempt from the coverage of the CARL lies with the situated at Villaverde, Nueva Vizcaya. The properties were placed under
DAR, not with this Court. Operation Land Transfer by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
However, the definite time of actual taking was not stated.
(Roxas & Co. vs  CA ,   G.R. No. 127876, Dec 17, 1999,321 SCRA 106) Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 and Executive Order (EO) No. 228, a
preliminary valuation was made by the DAR on the landholdings covered by
Facts: TCT Nos. 41504 and T-1180 with a total area of 16.3939 hectares.
Petitioner Roxas & Co., is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner
of three haciendas, namely, Haciendas Palico, Banilad and Caylaway, all Finding the valuation to be correct, petitioner bank informed respondents of
located in the Municipality of Nasugbu, Batangas. the said valuation. Payments were then deposited in the name of the
Before the law's effectivity, on May 6, 1988, petitioner filed with respondent
landowners.
DAR a voluntary offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the provisions
of E.O. No. 229. Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later placed under
compulsory acquisition by respondent DAR in accordance with the CARL. Issues:
Issues: 1. Whether or not since the properties were acquired pursuant to PD No. 27,
1. Whether or not  acquisition proceedings over the three haciendas were the formula for computing just compensation provided by said decree and
valid and in accordance with law
2. Whether or not assuming the haciendas may be reclassified from Executive Order No. 228 should apply.
agricultural to non-agricultural, Supreme Court has the power to rule on this
issue
2. Whether or not October 21, 1972 (when PD 27 was issued) should be
Held: deemed as the date of taking of the subject properties.
1. No.

2. No. The failure of respondent DAR to comply with the requisites of due Held:
process in the acquisition proceedings does not give this Court the power to 1. The Court has repeatedly held that if just compensation was not settled
nullify the CLOA's already issued to the farmer beneficiaries. To assume the
power is to short-circuit the administrative process, which has yet to run its prior to the passage of RA No. 6657, it should be computed in accordance
regular course. Respondent DAR must be given the chance to correct its with said law, although the property was acquired under PD No. 27.
procedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings.
In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Estanislao, the Court ruled that taking into
  account the passage of RA No. 6657 in 1988 pending the settlement of just

Land Bank compensation, it is that law which applies to landholdings seized under PD
vs No. 27, with said decree and EO No. 288 having only suppletory effect.
Dumlao
G.R No. 167809
 (1) year from receipt of claimfolder.
Guided by this precept, just compensation for purposes of agrarian reform
under PD 27 should adhere to Section 17 of RA 6657. 2. No. The "taking" of the properties for the purpose of computing just
Section 17 was converted into a formula by the DAR through Administrative compensation should be reckoned from the date of issuance of emancipation
Order (AO) No. 6, Series of 1992, as amended by AO No. 11, Series of patents, and not on October 21, 1972, as petitioner insists. The nature of the
1994,72 the pertinent portions of which provide: land at that time determines the just compensation to be paid.

A. There shall be one basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by It is undisputed that emancipation patents were issued to the farmer-
[Voluntary Offer to Sell] or [Compulsory Acquisition] regardless of the date beneficiaries. However, their issuance dates are not shown. As such, the trial
of offer or coverage of the claim: court should determine the date of issuance of these emancipation patents in
LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1) order to ascertainthe date of taking and proceed to compute the just
Where: LV = Land Value compensation due to respondents, in accordance with RA No. 6657.
CNI = Capitalized Net Income
CS = Comparable Sales  
MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration Land Bank vs CA, Yap, et al
G.R. No. 118712, Oct. 6, 1995,
The above formula shall be used if all the three factors are present, relevant 249 SCRA 149 (1995)
and applicable.
A.1 When the CS factor is not present and CNI and MV are applicable, the Facts:
formula shall be: Private respondents are landowners whose landholdings were acquired by the
LV = (CNI x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1) DAR and subjected to transfer schemes to qualified beneficiaries under the
A.2 When the CNI factor is not present, and CS and MV are applicable, the CARL.
formula shall be: Petitioners assail decision of CA which ruled as follows:
LV = (CS x 0.9) + (MV x 0.1)
A.3 When both the CS and CNI are not present and only MV is applicable, WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Petition for Certiorari and
the formula shall be: Mandamus is hereby GRANTED:
LV = MV x 2
In no case shall the value of the land using the formula MV x 2 exceed the
lowest value of land within the same estate under consideration or within the a) DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990 is declared null and void
same barangay or municipality (in that order) approved by LBP within one
insofar as it provides for the opening of trust accounts in lieu of deposits in Land Bank
vs
cash or bonds; Colarina
G.R. No. 176410, Sep. 1, 2010,
629 SCRA 614 (2010)

b) Landbank is ordered to immediately deposit — not merely "earmark", Facts:

Respondent  Colarina manifested his voluntary offer to his sell three (3)
"reserve" or "deposit in trust" — with an accessible bank designated by DAR
parcels of agricultural land to the DAR for coverage under Comprehensive
in the names of the following [private respondents] the following amounts in Agrarian Reform Law.
cash and in government financial instruments — within the parameters of Disappointed with the low valuation by petitioner and the DAR, respondent
filed a Complaint before the Regional Trial Court, Branch 3, Legazpi, Albay,
Sec. 18 (1) of RA 6657: for the judicial determination of just compensation.
P 1,455,207.31 Pedro L. Yap
During pre-trial, LBP manifested that the subject properties may be
P 135,482.12 Heirs of Emiliano Santiago reassessed and revaluated based on the new guidelines set forth in DAR A.O.
P 15,914,127.77 AMADCOR; No. 11, Series of 1994.
The respondent, to support his valuation of the subject properties, presented
in evidence his own testimony and that of  Oliva), then Assistant Provincial
c) The DAR-designated bank is ordered to allow the [private respondents] to Assessor of Camarines Sur and President of the Camarines Chapter of the
withdraw the above-deposited amounts without prejudice to the final National Real Estate Association.

determination of just compensation by the proper authorities; Thereafter, the SAC rendered a decision reconciling the conflicting evidence
of the parties. The SAC followed the formula of the LBP and its land use
classification of the subject properties; the appraisal report on the valuation
Issue: thereof.
Whether or not private respondents are entitled to withdraw the amounts
deposited in trust in their behalf pending the final resolution of the cases
Both parties appealed to the CA. The appellate court affirmed the ruling of
involving the final valuation of their properties the SAC

Issue:
Held: Whether or not the lower courts’ computation of just compensation for the
YES. The attempt to make a distinction between the deposit of compensation subject properties is correct.
under Section 16(e) of RA 6657 and determination of just compensation Held:
under Section 18 is unacceptable. To withhold the right of the landowners to No. The factors for the determination of just compensation in Section 17 of
appropriate the amounts already deposited in their behalf as compensation R.A. No. 6657, and consequently converted into a formula in A.O. No. 6,
Series of 1992, as amended by A.O. No. 11, Series of 1994, is mandatory.
for their properties simply because they rejected the DAR's valuation, and Land Bank of the Philippines v. Sps. Banal, as affirmed by our subsequent
notwithstanding that they have already been deprived of the possession and rulings, did not equivocate.
We note that A.O. No. 6, Series of 1992 (as amended by A.O. No. 11, Series
use of such properties, is an oppressive exercise of eminent domain.
of 1994) has been superseded by A.O. No. 5, Series of 1998. However, A.O. The appellate court also required petitioner LBP to pay a compounded
No. 5, Series of 1998, is not applicable to the present case as the subject
properties were assessed and valued prior to its effectivity. interest of 6% per annum in compliance with DAR Administrative Order No.
13, series of 1994.
However, the RTC, as well as the CA, was gravely mistaken in using
respondent’s valuation of the properties contained in Oliva’s appraisal report. As to its coverage, the Order states: These rules and regulations shall apply
Oliva’s appraisal report did not attach pertinent documents thereto, to landowners: (1) whose lands are actually tenanted as of 21 October 1972
considering that, as he had testified, he used the productivity approach.
or thereafter and covered by OLT; (2) who opted for government financing
Thus, replacing the valuation of the subject properties pursuant to the
determination of petitioner where the LV was pegged using the formula through Land Bank of the Philippines as mode of compensation; and, (3)
{CNI x 90%} + {MV x 2}, we arrive at a different amount. who have not yet been paid for the value of their land.
 
Land Bank v. CA and Pascual
Issue:
G.R. No. 128557
Whether or not  CA cannot enforce PARAD's valuation since it cannot make
Dec. 29, 1999
such determination for want of jurisdiction hence void.
321 SCRA 629 (1999)

Whether or not CA erred in ruling that private respondent can avail of the 6%
Facts:
compounded interest prescribed for unpaid landowners by Administrative
Respondent Jose Pascual owned three (3) parcels of land located in
Order No. 13, Series of 1994.
Gattaran,Cagayan. Pursuant to PD 27 and EO 228, the DAR placed these
lands under its Operation Land Transfer (OLT).
Held:
On 11 June 1992 the PARAD ruled in favor of private respondent and
No. Petitioner's contention that Sec. 12, par. (b), of PD 946, which provides
ordered petitioner LBP to pay private respondent a total amount of
that the valuation of lands covered by PD 27 isunder the exclusive
P1,961,950.00. Private respondent accepted the valuation.
jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform, is still in effect cannot be
sustained. It seems that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform erred in issuing
Petitioner LBP having refused to comply with its obligation despite the Memorandum Circular No. I, Series of 1995, directing the DARAB to refrain
directive of the Secretary of the DAR and the various demand letters of from hearing valuation cases involving PD 27 lands. For on the contrary, it is
private respondent Jose Pascual, the latter finally filed an action for the DARAB which has the authority to determine the initial valuation of
Mandamus in the Court of Appeals to compel petitioner to pay the valuation lands involving agrarian reform although such valuation may only be
determined by the PARAD. considered preliminary as the final determination of just compensation is
vested in the courts.
CA ruled in respondent’s favor.
YES. At first glance it would seem that private respondent’s lands are indeed
covered by AO No. 13. However, Part IV shows that AO No. 13 provides a
The petitioner also invokes his rights not to be deprived of his property
fixed formula for determining the Land Value (LV) and the additional without due process of law and to the retention of his small parcels of rice
interests it would have earned. In the decision of PARAD, however, the Land holding as guaranteed under Article XIII, Section 4 of the Constitution
Value (LV) of private respondent’s property was computed by using the GSP Issue:
for 1992, which is P300.00 per cavan of palay and P250.00 per cavan of Whether or not CARL violates due process because landowner is divested of
his property even before actual payment to him in full of just compensation,
corn.
in contravention of a well- accepted principle of eminent domain

Held:
The purpose of AO No. 13 is to compensate the landowners for unearned NO. The recognized rule, indeed, is that title to the property expropriated
shall pass from the owner to the expropriator only upon full payment of the
interests. 53 Had they been paid in 1972 when the GSP for rice and corn was
just compensation. Jurisprudence on this settled principle is consistent both
valued at P35.00 and P31.00, respectively, and such amounts were deposited here and in other democratic jurisdictions.
in a bank, they would have earned a compounded interest of 6% per annum. It is true that P.D. No. 27 expressly ordered the emancipation of tenant-
farmer as October 21, 1972 and declared that he shall "be deemed the owner"
Thus, if the PARAD used the 1972 GSP, then the product of (2.5 x AGP x of a portion of land consisting of a family-sized farm except that "no title to
P35 or P31) could be multiplied by (1.06)n to determine the value of the land the land owned by him was to be actually issued to him unless and until he
had become a full-fledged member of a duly recognized farmers'
plus the additional 6% compounded interest it would have earned from 1972.
cooperative." It was understood, however, that full payment of the just
However, since the PARAD already increased the GSP from P35.00 to compensation also had to be made first, conformably to the constitutional
P300.00/cavan of palay and from P31.00 to P250.00/cavan of corn, there is requirement.

no more need to add any interest thereon, muchless compound it. To the When E.O. No. 228, categorically stated in its Section 1 that:
extent that it granted 6% compounded interest to private respondent Jose
All qualified farmer-beneficiaries are now deemed full owners as of October
Pascual, the Court of Appeals erred. 21, 1972 of the land they acquired by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 27.
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines vs  Secretary of it was obviously referring to lands already validly acquired under the said
Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, decree, after proof of full-fledged membership in the farmers' cooperatives
Jul 14, 1989, and full payment of just compensation. Hence, it was also perfectly proper
for the Order to also provide in its Section 2 that the "lease rentals paid to the
Facts: landowner by the farmer- beneficiary after October 21, 1972 (pending
transfer of ownership after full payment of just compensation), shall be
On September 3, 1986, the petitioner protested the erroneous inclusion of his considered as advance payment for the land."
small landholding under Operation Land transfer and asked for the recall and
cancellation of the Certificates of Land Transfer in the name of the private The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of possession and
respondents. ownership of the land to the government on receipt by the landowner of the
corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in
The petitioner contends that the issuance of E.0. Nos. 228 and 229 shortly cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank. Until then, title also remains
before Congress convened is anomalous and arbitrary, besides violating the with the landowner. No outright change of ownership is contemplated either.
doctrine of separation of powers. Hence, the argument that the assailed measures violate due process by
arbitrarily transferring title before the land is fully paid for must also be parties whether or not the subject land is covered by [CARL] and whether or
rejected.
not the defendants are qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries"; "it is
Pasco v. Pison-Arceo Agri. Dev. Corp. mandatory on the part of the courts to take judicial notice of agrarian laws";
G.R. No. 165501 and the unlawful detainer case, at all events, was prematurely filed as
Mar 28, 2006 respondent’s right to eject them would arise only after they are reimbursed of
485 SCRA 514 their expenses in repairing the house and, therefore, the MTCC has no
jurisdiction yet to order their ejectment.
Facts:
Respondent, Pison-Arceo Agricultural and Development Corporation, is the
registered owner of a parcel of land in Negros Occidental containing more
On December 5, 2000, the RTC of Bacolod City affirmed the decision of
than 100 hectares. Constructed on respondent’s parcel of land are houses
MTCC Talisay, with modification. Petitioners moved to reconsider, but were
which are occupied by its workers. Petitioners, ceased to be employed by
denied.
respondent by 1987, petitioners were asked to vacate the house they were
occupying but they refused, hence, respondent filed a complaint for unlawful
detainer against them before the MTCC in Talisay City. Hence, they elevated the case to the CA. On August 27, 2003, the appellate
court denied petitioners’ petition.
On June 30, 2000, the MTCC of Talisay rendered judgment in favor of In the meantime, the MARO of Talisay City issued on August 24, 2004 a
respondent. Certification that herein petitioner Jesus Pasco is registered as potential
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) beneficiary in the land
owned by respondent.
On August 23, 2000, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of
Talisay City sent a Notice of Coverage advising respondent that its parcel of
Held:
land is now covered under Republic Act 6657.
Yes. The issuance of a Notice of Coverage is merely a preliminary step for
On August 24, 2000 petitioners appealed the MTCC decision in the Unlawful
the State’s acquisition of the land for agrarian reform purposes and it does
Detainer Case to the RTC, raising for the first time that, respondent’s
not automatically vest title or transfer the ownership of the land to the
hacienda is covered by the CARL and they are qualified beneficiaries
government.
thereunder; whether they are qualified beneficiaries is material to the
A Notice of Coverage does not ipso facto render the land subject thereof a
determination of whether they are planters or builders or sowers in bad faith;
land reform area, since during a field investigation the DAR and Land Bank
"upon knowledge that the land subject of the unlawful detainer case is an
of the Philippines would make a determination as to whether, among other
hacienda, it is within the sound discretion of the judge to clarify from the
things, "the land will be placed under agrarian reform, the land’s suitability
to agriculture."

The owner retains its right to eject unlawful possessors of his land.
As for the registration of petitioners as potential CARP beneficiaries, the
same does not help their cause. As "potential" CARP beneficiaries, they are
included in the list of those who may be awarded land under the CARP.
Nothing in the records of the case shows that the DAR has made an award in
favor of petitioners, hence, no rights over the land they occupy can be
considered to have vested in their favor in accordance with Section 24 of the
CARL which reads: “The rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall
commence from the time the DAR makes an award of the land to him…”