CASE LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE

YEAR CITATION PRINCIPLE TEXT

LIBERAL INTERPRETATION OF AGRARIAN LAWS & RULES
G.R. No. 133706 - May 7, 2002 to achieve a dignified existence for the small Agrarian laws must be interpreted liberally in favor of the grantee, in order to
farmers give full force and effect to their clear intent, which is "to achieve a dignified
FRANCISCO ESTOLAS, Petitioner, vs. ADOLFO existence for the small farmers" and to make them "more independent, self-
MABALOT, Respondent. reliant and responsible citizens, and a source of genuine strength in our
democratic society."
HOSPICIO NILO vs. HONORABLE COURT OF SOCIAL JUSTICE Social justice as thus defined and in its true meaning is not meant to countenance, much less
APPEALS and ALMARIO GATCHALIAN, G.R. No. perpetuate, an injustice against any group-not even as against landholders. For the
L-34586 April 2, 1984 landholders as a component unit or element in our agro-industrial society are entitled to
'equal justice under law' which our courts are, above everything else, under mandate of the
Constitution to dispense fairly, without fear nor favor.

G.R. No. L-36625 April 2, 1984

FORTUNATO CASTRO, petitioner,

vs.
JUAN CASTRO, respondent.

G.R. No. L-34586 April 2, 1984 PROTECTION ALSO EXTENDS TO In Dequito v. Llamas, (66 SCRA 504) we ruled that the petitioner-tenant ought to know that if
he has rights to protection as a tenant, the landowner has also rights under the law. The
THE LANDOWNERS protective mantle of social justice cannot be utilized as an instrument to hoodwink courts of
HOSPICIO NILO, petitioner,
justice and undermine the rights of landowners on the plea of helplessness and heartless
vs.
exploitation of the tenant by the landowner.
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS and ALMARIO
GATCHALIAN, respondents.

G.R. No. L-36625 April 2, 1984

FORTUNATO CASTRO, petitioner,

vs.
JUAN CASTRO, respondent.

G.R. No. 165155 DEFFECT IN NOTICE OF APPEAL The petition is meritorious. The defects found in the two notices of appeal
are not of such nature that would cause a denial of the right to appeal.
REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION OF RULES Placed in their proper factual context, the defects are not only excusable
BOARD, Office of the Regional Adjudicator, San
Fernando, Pampanga, CECILIA MANIEGO, JOSE
but also inconsequential.
BAUTISTA, ELIZA PACHECO, JUANITO FAJARDO,
MARIO PACHECO, MARIANO MANANGHAYA as
heir of Antonio Mananghaya, MARCIANO
NATIVIDAD, ROBERTO BERNARDO in his Alleged failure to specify grounds for appeal
personal capacity EDILBERTO NATIVIDAD, as heir
of Ismael Natividad, JEFFREY DIAZ as BENIGNO
CABINGAO, MARIO GALVEZ, DELFIN SACDALAN, There is nothing sacred about the forms of pleadings or processes, their
as heir of Avelino Santos, Petitioners,1 sole purpose being to facilitate the application of justice to the rival claims
vs. of contending parties. Hence, pleadings as well as procedural rules
COURT OF APPEALS, VERONICA R. GONZALES, should be construed liberally. Dismissal of appeals purely on technical
DEOGRACIAS REYES, LEONARDO REYES, grounds is frowned upon because rules of procedure should not be
ISABELITA BALATBAT, MANUELA REYES,
WILHELMINA ALMERO, ARTURO REYES, applied to override substantial justice. Courts must proceed with caution
EPIFANIO REYES, GLORIA REYES, MARIO so as not to deprive a party of statutory appeal; they must ensure that all
REYES, TERESITA BALATBAT, LYDIA litigants are granted the amplest opportunity for the proper and just
BALATBAT, FERNANDO BALATBAT, VICENTE ventilation of their causes, free from technical constraints.33 If the
BALATBAT, GILBERTO REYES, RENE REYES, foregoing tenets are followed in a civil case, their application is made
EMILIA DUNGO, BRENDA CANCIO, VICTOR
REYES, and EDGARDO REYES, represented by more imperative in an agrarian case where the rules themselves provide
VERONICA R. GONZALES, for herself and as for liberal construction, thus:
attorney-in-fact, Respondents.
Rule I
General Provisions

Section 2. Construction. These Rules shall be liberally construed to carry

out the objectives of the agrarian reform program and to promote just,
expeditious, and inexpensive adjudication and settlement of agrarian
cases, disputes or controversies.

xxxx

Section 3. Technical Rules Not Applicable. The Board and its Regional
and Provincial Adjudicators shall not be bound by technical rules of
procedure and evidence as prescribed in the Rules of Court, but shall
proceed to hear and decide all agrarian cases, disputes or controversies
in a most expeditious manner, employing all reasonable means to
ascertain the facts of every case in accordance with justice and equity.

xxxx

Rule VIII

JURISDICTION
1993 Remigio Isidro vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals A CASE INVOLVING AN But a case involving an agricultural land does not automatically make
(Seventh Division) And Natividad Gutierrez, G.R. No. AGRICULTURAL LAND DOES NOT such case an agrarian dispute upon which the DARAB has jurisdiction.
L-105586 December 15, 1993
AUTOMATICALLY MAKE SUCH CASE The mere fact that the land is agricultural does not ipso facto make the
AN AGRARIAN DISPUTE UPON possessor an agricultural lessee of tenant. The law provides for
WHICH THE DARAB HAS conditions or requisites before he can qualify as one and the land being
JURISDICTION agricultural is only one of
them. 18 The law states that an agrarian dispute must be a controversy
relating to a tenurial arrangement over lands devoted to agriculture. And
as previously mentioned, such arrangement may be leasehold, tenancy
or Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the
alleged tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal relationship. The
intent of the parties, the understanding when the farmer is installed, and
their written agreements, provided these are complied with and are not
contrary to law, are even more important. 19chanrobles virtual law library

1994 G.R. No.177374 July 2, 2014 BASED ON 1994 DARAB RULES, Subparagraph (f) stated above provides that the DARAB has exclusive
DARAB HAS JURISDICTION TO jurisdiction over cases involving the issuance, [correction and cancellation
MARIANO JOSE, FELICISIMO JOSE, deceased, CANCEL CLOA OR EP of CLOAs and EPs which are] registered with the Land Registration
substituted by his children MARIANO JOSE, CAMILO
JOSE, TIBURCIA JOSE, FERMINA JOSE, and
Authority (the Registry of Deeds).
VICTORIA JOSE, Petitioners,
vs.
ERNESTO M. NOVIDA, RODOLFO PALA YLA Y, JR.,
ALEX M. BELARMINO, RODRIGO LIBED,
LEONARDO L. LIBED, BERNARDO B. BELARMINO,
BENJAMIN G. ACOSTA, MODESTO A. ORLANDA,
W ARLITO B. MEJIA, MAMERTO B. BELARMINO,
MARCELO 0. DELFIN and HEIRS OF LUCINO A.
ESTEBAN, represented by CRESENCIA M. VDA. DE
ESTEBAN, Respondents.

2001 Heirs of Julian De La Cruz and Lenora Talaro vs. JURISDICTION OF THE DARAB The jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial agency, over the
Heirs of Alberto Cruz, G.R. No. 162890, 22 November subject matter of a complaint or petition is determined by the allegations
2005, 475 Scra 743, 755-756, Citing Vesagas V.
Court of Appeals, 422 Phil. 860, 869 (2001).
therein. However, in determining jurisdiction, it is not only the nature of
the issues or questions that is the subject of the controversy that should
be determined, but also the status or relationship of the parties. Thus, if
the issues between the parties are intertwined with the resolution of an
issue within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB, such dispute must
be addressed and resolved by the DARAB
2005 Heirs of Rafael Magpily vs. De Jesus, G.R. No. AGRARIAN DISPUTE "Agrarian dispute" is defined in Section 3 of Republic Act No. 6657 as any
 167748, 8 November 2005, 474 Scra 366, 373-374; controversy relating to tenurial arrangements - whether leasehold,
tenancy, stewardship or otherwise - over lands devoted to agriculture;
Islanders Carp Farmers Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose including disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or representation
Cooperative, Inc. vs. Lapanday Agricultural and Dev’t.
Corp., G.R. No. 159089, 3 May 2006, 489 Scra 80, 88
of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to
arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It includes any
controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under Republic
Act No. 6657 and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership
from landowner to farmworkers, tenants and other agrarian reform
beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of
farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and
lessee. It refers to any controversy relating to, inter alia, tenancy over
lands devoted to agriculture.

2009 Francisco Salazar vs. Reynaldo De Leon represented PRIMARY JURISDICTION OF THE ”the Court dismissed the Complaint for recovery of possession of real
by his Attorney-in-Fact, Feliciano Jabonilla, G.R. No. DARAB property and declared that the dispute between the parties as landowner
127965, January 20, 2009
and tenant is agrarian in nature falling within the domain of the DARAB.
The Court also noted that such ruling is "in line with the doctrine of
primary jurisdiction which precludes the regular courts from resolving a
controversy over which jurisdiction has been lodged with an
administrative body of special competence."

2013 HEIRS OF SANTIAGO NISPEROS vs. MARISSA JURISDICTION  Jurisdiction over the nature and subject matter of an action is
NISPEROS-DUCUSIN, July 31, 2013 conferred by the Constitution and the law, and not by the consent
or waiver of the parties where the court otherwise would have no
jurisdiction over the nature or subject matter of the action.

2014 G.R. No. 194818 June 9, 2014 CASE INVOLVING AGRICULTURAL A case involving agricultural land does not immediately qualify it as an
LAND DOES NOT IMMEDIATELY agrarian dispute. The mere fact that the land is agricultural does not ipso
CHARLES BUMAGAT, JULIAN BACUDIO, ROSARIO QUALIFY IT AS AN AGRARIAN facto make the possessor an agricultural lessee or tenant; there are
PADRE, SPOUSES ROGELIO and ZOSIMA PADRE,
and FELIPE DOMINCIL, Petitioners,
DISPUTE conditions or requisites before he can qualify as an agricultural lessee or
vs. tenant, and the subject matter being agricultural land constitutes simply
REGALADO ARRIBAY, Respondent. one condition. In order to qualify as an agrarian dispute, there must
likewise exist a tenancy relation between the parties.

2015 DAR vs. Igmidio D. Robles, et al. G.R. No. 190482, JURISDICTION In light of the principle that jurisdiction over the subject matter and nature
December 09, 2015 of the petition is conferred by law and determined by the material
allegations therein, and is not affected by the defenses or theories set up
in the respondent's answer or motion to dismiss, the Court finds that the
 DAR's petition for annulment of deeds of sale and cancellation of titles
falls under the jurisdiction of the PARAD under Section 1 (1.5), Rule II of
the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure, as it contains sufficient allegations
to the effect it involves sales of agricultural lands under the coverage of
the CARL.

2015 NICOLAS v. FIL ESTATE PROPERTIES G.R. No. AGRARIAN DISPUTE The jurisdiction of the PARAD and the DARAB is only limited to cases
163598, August 12, 2015 involving agrarian disputes, including incidents arising from the
JURISDICTION implementation of agrarian laws;

FORUM SHOPPING In order for the DARAB and the RARAD to have jurisdiction over the
case, therefore, a tenurial arrangement or tenancy relationship between
the parties must exist;

The rule is that where there is want of jurisdiction over a subject matter,
the judgment is rendered null and void. A void judgment is in legal effect
no judgment, by which no rights are divested, from which no right can be
obtained, which neither binds nor bars any one, and under which all acts
performed and all claims flowing out are void. It is not a decision in
contemplation of law and, hence, it can never become executory. It also
follows that such a void judgment cannot constitute a bar to another case
by reason of res judicata; and

The rule against forum shopping does not require absolute identity of
parties; substantial identity of parties is sufficient. There is substantial
identity of parties where there is a community of interest between a party
in the first case and a party in the second case.

2015 DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, EXPANDED JURISDICTION In light of the principle that jurisdiction over the subject matter and nature
REPRESENTED BY MS. FRITZI C. PANTOJA IN of the petition is conferred by law and determined by the material
HER CAPACITY AS PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN
REFORM OFFICER OF LAGUNA, Petitioner, v.
allegations therein, and is not affected by the defenses or theories set up
IGMIDIO D. ROBLES, RANDY V. ROBLES, MARY in the respondent's answer or motion to dismiss, the Court finds that the
KRIST B. MALIMBAN, ANNE JAMAICA G. ROBLES, DAR's petition for annulment of deeds of sale and cancellation of titles
JOHN CARLO S. ROBLES AND CHRISTINE ANN V. falls under the jurisdiction of the PARAD under Section 1 (1.5), Rule II of
ROBLES G.R. No. 190482, December 09, 2015 the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure, as it contains sufficient allegations
to the effect it involves sales of agricultural lands under the coverage of
the CARL
2015 Irene D. Ofiladavs.Spouses Ruben Andal and Miraflor AN ALLEGATION OF TENANCY An allegation of tenancy before the MTC does not automatically deprive
Andal, G.R. No. 192270, January 26, 2015 BEFORE THE MTC DOES NOT the court of its jurisdiction.1âwphi1 Basic is the rule that:
AUTOMATICALLY DEPRIVE THE x x x the material averments in the complaint determine the jurisdiction of
COURT OF ITS JURISDICTION a court. x x x a court does not lose jurisdiction over an ejectment suit by
the simple expedient of a party raising as a defense therein the alleged
existence of a tenancy relationship between the parties. The court
continues to have the authority to hear and evaluate the evidence,
precisely to determine whether or not it has jurisdiction, and, if, after
hearing, tenancy is shown to exist, it shall dismiss the case for lack of
jurisdiction.45
The Court agrees with the conclusion of both the MTC and the RTC that
for dearth of evidence, tenurial relationship between the parties was not
sufficiently shown. Thus, the said courts correctly assumed jurisdiction
over the ejectment case.
The fact alone of working on another’s landholding does not raise a
presumption of the existence of agricultural tenancy. For tenancy to be
proven, all indispensable elements must be established, the absence of
one or more requisites will not make the alleged tenant a de facto one.
These are: 1)the parties are the landowner and the tenant; 2) the subject
is agricultural land; 3) there is consent by the landowner; 4) the purpose
is agricultural production; 5) there is personal cultivation; and 6) there
issharing of the harvests.46

2015 Irene D. Ofilada vs.Spouses Ruben Andal and Miraflor AGRARIAN DISPUTE Even if the tenurial arrangement has been severed, the action still
Andal, G.R. No. 192270, January 26, 2015 involves an incident arising from the landlord and tenant relationship.
EVEN IF THE TENURIAL Where the case involves the dispossession by a former landlord of a
ARRANGEMENT HAS BEEN former tenant of the land claimed to have been given as compensation in
SEVERED, THE ACTION STILL consideration of the renunciation of the tenurial rights, there clearly exists
INVOLVES AN INCIDENT ARISING an agrarian dispute. On this point the Court has already ruled:
FROM THE LANDLORD AND TENANT Indeed, Section 21 of Republic Act No. 1199, provides that ‘all cases
RELATIONSHIP involving the dispossession of a tenant by the landlord or by a third party
and/or the settlement and disposition of disputes arising from the
relationship of landlord and tenant … shall be under the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations.’ This jurisdiction
does not require the continuance of the relationship of landlord and tenant
– at the time of the dispute. The same may have arisen, and of ten times
arises, precisely from the previous termination of such relationship. If the
 same existed immediately, or shortly, before the controversy and the
subject matter thereof is whether or not said relationship has been
lawfully terminated, or if the dispute otherwise springs or originates from
the relationship of landlord and tenant, the litigation is (then) cognizable
only by the Court of Agrarian Relations

2016 ROMEO M. LANDICHO VS. WILLIAM C. LIMQUECO AGRARIAN DISPUTE When the certification against forum shopping was not signed by all the
G.R. No. 194556, December 7, 2016. plaintiffs or petitioners in a case, the effect would be that only those who
JURISDICTION did not sign would be dropped as parties in the case

Rule 43 is the remedy involving questions of fact or law or both (from

DARAB to CA)

What is agrarian dispute?

In order for the DARAB and PARAD to exercise jurisdiction over such
controversies, sufficient allegations establishing the existence of an
agrarian dispute must be made in the complaint following the rule that the
jurisdiction of a tribunal, including a quasi-judicial officer or government
agency, over the nature and subject matter of a petition or complaint is
determined by the material allegations therein

2016 TERESITA TAN, Petitioner, v. JOVENCIO F. CINCO, DECISION RENDERED BY COURT A judgment rendered by a court without jurisdiction is null and void and
SIMON LORI HOLDINGS, INC., PENTACAPITAL WITHOUT JURISDICTION IS NULL may be attacked anytime. It creates no rights and produces no
INVESTMENT CORPORATION, FORTUNATO G.
PE, RAYMUNDO G. PE, JOSE REVILLA REYES,
AND VOID effect.1âwphi1 It remains a basic fact in law that the choice of the proper
JR., AND DEPUTY SHERIFF ROMMEL IGNACIO, forum is crucial, as the decision of a court or tribunal without jurisdiction is
G.R. No. 213054, June 15, 2016 a total nullity. A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all.
All acts performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no
legal effect.
2017 April 24, 2017, G.R. No. 189950* WHEN THE COURT HAS NO When a court has no jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it
JURISDICTION has is to dismiss the action, as any act it performs without jurisdiction is
BERNADETTE S. BILAG, ERLINDA null and void, and without any binding legal effects.1
BILAGSANTILLAN, DIXON BILAG, REYNALDO B.
SUELLO, HEIRS OF LOURDES S. BILAG, HEIRS OF
LETICIA BILAG-HANAOKA, and HEIRS OF NELLIE
BILAG, Petitioners,
vs.
ESTELA AY-AY, ANDRES ACOP, JR., FELICITAS
AP-AP, SERGIO AP-AP, JOHN NAPOLEON A.
RAMIREZ, JR., and MA. TERESA A. RAMIREZ,
Respondents

2017 BERNADETTE S. BILAG, ERLINDA JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT "[j]urisdiction is defined as the power and authority of a court to hear, try,
BILAGSANTILLAN, DIXON BILAG, REYNALDO B. MATTER and decide a case. In order for the court or an adjudicative body to have
SUELLO, HEIRS OF LOURDES S. BILAG, HEIRS OF
LETICIA BILAG-HANAOKA, and HEIRS OF NELLIE
authority to dispose of the case on the merits, it must acquire, among
BILAG, others, jurisdiction over the subject matter. It is axiomatic that jurisdiction
over the subject matter is the power to hear and determine the general
VS. class to which the proceedings in question belong; it is conferred by law
ESTELA AY-AY, ANDRES ACOP, JR., FELICITAS and not by the consent or acquiescence of any or all of the parties or by
AP-AP, SERGIO AP-AP, JOHN NAPOLEON A. erroneous belief of the court that it exists. Thus, when a court has no
RAMIREZ, JR., and MA. TERESA A. RAMIREZ, G.R.
No. 189950, April 24, 2017
jurisdiction over the subject matter, the only power it has is to dismiss the
action." 23 Perforce, it is important that a court or tribunal should first
determine whether or not it has jurisdiction over the subject matter
presented before it, considering that any act that it performs without
jurisdiction shall be null and void, and without any binding legal effects.
2017 DOUGLAS F. ANAMA vs. CITIBANK, N.A., G.R. No. Jurisdiction being a matter of Jurisdiction is defined as the power and authority of the courts to hear, try
192048, December 13, 2017 substantive law, the established rule and decide cases. What determines the jurisdiction of the court is the
is that the statute in force at the time nature of the action pleaded as appearing from the allegations in the
of the commencement of the action complaint. The averments and the character of the relief sought are the
determines the jurisdiction of the ones to be consulted.46
court
The principle is that jurisdiction over the subject matter of a case is
conferred by law and determined by the allegations in the complaint
which comprise a concise statement of the ultimate facts constituting the
plaintiffs cause of action. The nature of an action, as well as which court

1
 or body has jurisdiction over it, is determined based on the allegations
contained in the complaint of the plaintiff, irrespective of whether or not
the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon all or some of the claims
asserted.47 Jurisdiction being a matter of substantive law, the established
rule is that the statute in force at the time of the commencement of the
action determines the jurisdiction of the court

2017 RENE H. IMPERIAL and NIDSLAND RESOURCES Decision rendered without jurisdiction RENE H. IMPERIAL and NIDSLAND RESOURCES AND
AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs. is null and void DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION vs.
HON. EDGAR L. ARMES, Presiding Judge of Branch
4, Regional Trial Court, 5th Judicial Region, Legazpi
HON. EDGAR L. ARMES, Presiding Judge of Branch 4, Regional Trial
City and ALFONSO B. CRUZ, JR, G.R. No. 178842, Court, 5th Judicial Region, Legazpi City and ALFONSO B. CRUZ, JR,
January 30, 2017 G.R. No. 178842, January 30, 2017

x-----------------------x x-----------------------x
G.R. No. 195509
G.R. No. 195509
ALFONSO B. CRUZ, Petitioner,
vs. ALFONSO B. CRUZ, Petitioner,
RENE IMPERIAL and NIDSLAND RESOURCES AND vs.
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Respondents. RENE IMPERIAL and NIDSLAND RESOURCES AND DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, Respondents.

2017 Union Bank v. Miguel Carasocho et.al, March 1, 2017 CANCELLATION the DARAB has jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of
G.R. No. 200369 registered CLO As relating to an agrarian dispute between landowners
JURISDICTION and tenants. However, in cases concerning the cancellation of CLO As
that involve parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees - cases
related to the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, rules
and regulations – the jurisdiction is with the DAR, and not the DARAB.

The jurisdiction of a court or tribunal over the nature and subject matter of
an action is conferred by law
 Jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations of the
complaint.52 For the PARAD and DARAB to acquire jurisdiction over the
case, there must be a prima facie showing that there is a tenurial
arrangement or tenancy relationship between the parties.

The Supreme Court is not a trier of facts. Factual findings of

administrative agencies are generally accorded respect and even finality
by this Court, especially when these findings are affirmed by the Court of
Appeals

2018 CHAILESE DEVT. CO. vs. DIZON, ET. AL G.R. No. AGRARIAN DISPUTE Mere allegation is not enough to prove presence of an agrarian dispute;
206788, February 14, 2018.
JURISDICTION It is a basic rule in procedure that the jurisdiction of the Court over the
subject matter as well as the concomitant nature of an action is
determined by law and the allegations of the complaint, and is unaffected
by the pleas or theories raised by the defendant in his answer or motion
to dismiss.

2018 SPOUSES YBIOSA vs. DRILON (G.R. No. 212866, CANCELLATION The DAR Secretary has the jurisdiction to cancel CLOAs and EPs.
April 23, 2018)
JURISDICTION

2019 SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CANCELLATION All cases involving the cancellation of registered emancipation patents,
AGRARIAN REFORM vs. HEIRS OF ABUCAY (G.R. certificates of land ownership awards, and other titles issued under any
No. 186432, 186964. March 12, 2019)
JURISDICTION agrarian reform program are now within the exclusive original jurisdiction
of the Department of Agrarian Reform Secretary. He or she takes
jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of titles issued under any
agrarian reform program, whether registered with the Land Registration
Authority or not.

The petition for cancellation shall be filed before the Office of the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator, which would then undertake the
case build-up before forwarding it to the Department of Agrarian Reform
Secretary for decision.
2019 FARMER-BENEFICIARIES BELONGING TO THE CANCELLATION Jurisdiction over the subject matter is conferred by law;
SAMAHANG MAGBUBUKID NG
BAGUMBONG,JALAJALA,* RIZAL,** REPRESENTED
BY THEIR PRESIDENT, TORIBIO M. MALABANAN
JURISDICTION DAR Secretary has the jurisdiction to cancel and/or nullify CLOA and EP
vs. HEIRS OF JULIANA MARONILLA, titles; and
 REPRESENTED BY ATTY. RAMON M. MARONILLA.
G.R. No. 229983, July 29, 2019. DARAB Adjudicator to acquire jurisdiction, the controversy must relate to
an agrarian dispute between the landowners and tenants in whose favor
the EPs and CLOAs have been issued by the DAR Secretary.

2019 JURISDICTION OF THE DARAB AND This Court in Valencia distinguished two (2) modes of appeal that may be
Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. vs. Paulino Reyes, G.R. No.
152797, G.R. No.189315, G.R. No. 200684
DAR SECRETARY taken from the decisions, resolutions, and final orders of the Department
[September 18, 2019]. of Agrarian Reform depending on the subject matter of the case. For
matters falling within the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board, the appeal should be lodged before the Court
of Appeals by way of a petition for review on certiorari under Rule 43 of
the Rules of Court. Otherwise, the case may be elevated to the Office of
the President depending on whether the rules provide for such mode of
appeal.”
“This two-fold jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform has been
delineated through various issuances. The Secretary of Agrarian Reform
has jurisdiction over all matters involving the administrative
implementation of Republic Act No. 6657… Applications for exemption
from coverage under Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657 have been
classified as Agrarian Law Implementation Cases, which fall under the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. Jurisdiction
over agrarian disputes, on the other hand, is lodged before the
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. Agrarian Law
Implementation Cases are not within its jurisdiction.”
2019 AGRARIAN REFORM MATTERS
Dalit v. Spouses Balagtas and Metrobank, G.R. No.
202799, [March 27, 2019]. The DARAB has jurisdiction over “agrarian reform matters” In such cases,
"[a]ll doubts should be resolved in favor of the DAR, since the law has
granted it special and original authority to hear and adjudicate agrarian
matters." One of the modes by which DAR implements the distribution of
agricultural lands under the CARP is through the issuance of a CLOA. A
CLOA is a document evidencing ownership of the land granted or
awarded to the qualified ARB, and contains the restrictions and conditions
of such grant. The issuance of CLOA No. T-2165 in Dalit's favor thus
confirms his right to retain possession over the portion of the Disputed Lot
identified thereunder, such possession being an attribute of ownership
granted in his favor. In this case, it protected the rights of a CLOA-grantee
when the tenant demanded he vacate the subject property
 the case is within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. The DARAB's jurisdiction
CRC 1447, Inc., vs. Rosalinda Calbatea, et al., G.R.
2020 No. 237102, [March 4, 2020]
is not limited to agrarian disputes where tenancy and leasehold
AGRARIAN REFORM MATTERS agreement issues between the parties are raised. There is nothing under
Section 1(a), Rule II of the 2009 DARAB Rules of Procedure which limits
the jurisdiction of the DARAB only to agricultural lands under the
administration and disposition of the DAR and the Land Bank. Thus, all
cases involving agrarian matters, which include issues on the
management, cultivation, or use of all agricultural lands covered by the
CARL, are within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. The subject property
undoubtedly involves the use of an agricultural land, which is the subject
of the implementation of the CARP. Hence, the case falls squarely within
the jurisdictional ambit of the DARAB.
EXISTENCE OF TENANCY
2015 CALUZOR v. Llanillo , July 1, 2015, G.R. No.
155580 WHO IS A TENANT? Agricultural tenancy is not presumed. It is established only by adducing
evidence showing that all the essential requisites of the tenancy
relationship concur.

Who is a tenant?

Unless a person has established his status as a De Jure tenant, he is not

entitled to security of tenure or to be covered by the Land Reform
Program of the Government under existing tenancy laws.

2015 Manuel Jusayan, Alfredo Jusayan, And Michael AGRICULTURAL LEASE AND CIVIL It can be gleaned that in both civil law lease of an agricultural land and
Jusayan vs. LAW LEASE agricultural lease, the lessor gives to the lessee the use and possession
Jorge Sombilla, G.R. No. 163928 January
21, 2015
of the land for a price certain. Although the purpose of the civil law lease
and the agricultural lease may be agricultural cultivation and production,
the distinctive attribute that sets a civil law lease apart from an agricultural
lease is the personal cultivation by the lessee. An agricultural lessee
cultivates by himself and with the aid of those of his immediate farm
household. Conversely, even when the lessee is in possession of the
leased agricultural land and paying a consideration for it but is not
personally cultivating the land, he or she is a civil law lessee.
2015 Manuel Jusayan, Alfredo Jusayan, And Michael DIFFERENCE OF TENANCY AND Agency vis a vis tenancy
Jusayan vs. Jorge Sombilla, G.R. No. 163928, AGENCY
January 21, 2015
Civil lease vis a vis agricultural leasehold
DIFFERENCE OF CIVIL LESSEE AND
AGRICULTURAL LESSEE A tenant is not required to be physically present in the land at all hours of
 the day and night provided that he lives close enough to the land to be
PERSONAL CULTIVATION cultivated.

Cultivation is not limited to the plowing and harrowing of the land, but
includes the various phases of farm labor

the jurisdiction of a court is determined by the statute in force at the time

of the commencement of an action

July 15, 2019, G.R. No. 207152 IMPLIED TENANCY Time and again, this Court has ruled that cultivation of an agricultural land will not ipso
facto make one a de jure tenant. Independent and concrete evidence is necessary to prove
HEIRS OF PABLITO ARELLANO, NAMELY, ELENA personal cultivation, sharing of harvest, and consent of the landowner. Also, while implied
ARELLANO, REYNANTE ARELLANO, AND RUBY
No implied tenancy when there is tenancy is recognized in this jurisdiction, for it to arise, it is also necessary that all the
ARELLANO, Petitioner express tenancy with other person essential requisites of tenancy must be proven to be present, to wit:
vs.
MARIA TOLENTINO, Respondent (1) [T]he parties are the landowner and the tenant;

(2) [T]he subject matter is agricultural land;

(3) [T]here is consent between the parties to the relationship;

(4) [T]he purpose the relationship is to bring about agricultural production;

(5) [T]here is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and

(6) [T]he harvest is shared between landowner and tenant or agricultural lessee. 22

The continuance of Timoteo's tenancy rights over the subject land being established, the CA
correctly concluded that there can be no implied tenancy when there is another express
tenancy on the same landholding.

The mere fact that Pablito is the one who "physically" cultivates the subject land does not, by
PERSONAL CULTIVATION itself, make him the lawful tenant thereof.

SHARING ARRANGEMENT
Such receipts cannot sufficiently and persuasively prove that Pablito and the Songcos have a
definite sharing arrangement in their supposed tenancy relationship. Neither would such
receipts sufficiently prove that the Songcos consented to have a tenancy relationship with
Pablito. At most, such receipts could only prove the fact of delivery of shares to the Songcos,
but as to whether such shares were recognized to be delivered under the terms of an
arrangement between Pablito and the Songcos, or whether the same were delivered merely
on behalf of Timoteo under the terms of their existing leasehold agreements, such receipts
are clearly insufficient.
2015 Caluzor vs.Llanillo and the Heirs of the late Lorenzo ELEMENTS OF TENANCY Agricultural tenancy is not presumed. It is established only by adducing
Llanillo, and Mold Ex Realty Corporation, G.R. No. evidence showing that all the essential requisites
155580, July 1, 2015
of the tenancy relationship concur, namely:
(a) the parties are the landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee;
(b) the subject matter of the relationship is an agricultural land;
(c) there is consent between the parties to the relationship;
(d) the purpose of the relationship is to bring about agricultural
production;
(e) there is personal cultivation on the part of the tenant or agricultural
lessee; and
(f) the harvest is shared between the landowner and tenant or agricultural
lessee.1

2018 J.V. Lagon Realty Corp., V. Heirs of Leocadia Vda. De TENANCY CANNOT BE PRESUMED The existence of a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed, and claims
Terre, G.R. No. 219670, June 27, 2018 that one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to security of tenure.

2001 Felizardo Vs. Fernandez G.R. No. 137509. August 15, IMPLIED TENANCY Although petitioners did not expressly give their consent to a leasehold
2001 relation with respondent, in our view petitioners consented to the tenancy
(ALLOWING THE SUCCESSOR TO albeit impliedly by allowing respondent to cultivate the landholding in
CULTIVATE AND PAY RENTALS FOR question and by receiving from him the landowner’s share of the harvest
15 YEARS) over a considerable length of time.

2008 Filipinas Life Assurance Company (Now Ayala Life

AGENCY APPARENT AUTHORITY OF Filipinas Life cannot profess ignorance of Valle’s acts. Even if Valle’s
Assurance, Inc.) Vs.
AGEN OF THE LAND OWNER representations were beyond his authority as a debit/insurance agent,
Clemente N. Pedroso Et.Al, G.R. No. 159489,
February 4, 2008
Filipinas Life thru Alcantara and Apetrior expressly and knowingly ratified
Valle’s acts. It cannot even be denied that Filipinas Life benefited from the
investments deposited by Valle in the account of Filipinas Life. In our
considered view, Filipinas Life had clothed Valle with apparent authority;
hence, it is now estopped to deny said authority. Innocent third persons
should not be prejudiced if the principal failed to adopt the needed
measures to prevent misrepresentation, much more so if the principal
ratified his agent’s acts beyond the latter’s authority. The act of the agent
is considered that of the principal itself. Qui per aliumfacit per
seipsumfacerevidetur. "He who does a thing by an agent is considered as
doing it himself
2010 WELFREDO CENEZE vs FELICIANA RAMOS (G.R. TENANCY IS NOT PURELY A In any case, the fact alone of working on a landholding does not give rise
No. 172287 January 15, 2010) FACTUAL RELATIONSHIP to a presumption of the existence of agricultural tenancy. Substantial
 evidence requires more than a mere scintilla of evidence in order that the
fact of sharing can be established; there must be concrete evidence on
record adequate enough to prove the element of sharing. To prove
sharing of harvests, a receipt or any other evidence must be presented,
because self-serving statements are inadequate.

Tenancy is not purely a factual relationship dependent on what the

alleged tenant does upon the land; it is also a legal relationship.

2010 Ceneze Vs. Ramos, GR No. 172287, January 15, WORKING ON THE LANDHOLDING The fact alone of working on a landholding does not give rise to a
2010 DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO TENANCY presumption of the existence of agricultural tenancy. To prove sharing of
harvests, a receipt or any other evidence must be presented, because
selfserving statements are inadequate. In this case, petitioner failed to
present a receipt for respondents share in the harvest, or any other solid
evidence proving that there was a sharing of harvest.
2013 Heirs of Florentino Quilo, et al, vs.DBP-DAGUPAN CONSENT Independent and concrete evidence is needed to prove consent of the
BRANCH et al., G.R. No.184369, October 23, 2013 landowner.68 Although petitioners presented the Affidavits of Obillo and
SHARING OF HARVEST Bulatao, as well as the DAR Notice of Conference 69 dated 12 September
1975, these documents merely established that Quilo occupied and
MERE CULTIVATION cultivated the land.70 Specifically, the Notice of Conference and the
affidavits only showed that first, Quilo filed a Complaint against the
spouses Oliveros regarding the land he was cultivating; and second, the
affidavits confirmed merely that Quilo had been planting on the land.
These documents in no way confirm that his presence on the land was
based on a tenancy relationship that the spouses Oliveros had agreed to.
2015 Irene D. Ofilada,vs. Spouses Ruben Andal And SHARING OF HARVEST The fact alone of working on another’s landholding does not raise a
Miraflor Andal, G.R. No. 192270, January 26, 2015 presumption of the existence of agricultural tenancy. For tenancy to be
proven, all indispensable elements must be established, the absence of
one or more requisites will not make the alleged tenant a de facto one.
These are: 1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; 2) the subject
is agricultural land; 3) there is consent by the landowner; 4) the purpose
is agricultural production; 5) there is personal cultivation; and 6) there is
sharing of the harvests.46chan

Anent the proof of sharing of harvest, what the spouses Andal merely
presented was a single receipt dated July 27, 2005 representing Irene’s
‘share’ in the harvest. This even militates against the spouses Andal’s
claim of tenancy considering that they did not present the receipts for the
 alleged sharing system prior to 2005 or from 1997, the year when Irene
purchased the land. Notably, the receipt they submitted is dated July 27,
2005 or just a few months before the filing of the complaint. To the
Court’s mind, such act of the spouses Andal to give Irene a share is a
mere afterthought, the same having been done during the time that Irene
was already making serious demands for them to account for the produce
of the lands and vacate the properties. Be that as it may, the Court
stresses “that it is not unusual for a landowner to receive the produce of
the land from a caretaker who sows thereon. The fact of receipt, without
an agreed system of sharing, does not ipso facto create a
tenancy.”47chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

In sum, the Court holds that absent any tenurial relationship between
them, the spouses Andal’s possession of Irene’s properties was by mere
tolerance of the latter. The action to dispossess the spouses Andal
therefrom is therefore a clear case of summary action for ejectment
cognizable by the regular courts.
1974 Gabriel Vs. Pangilinan 58 Scra 590 PERSONAL CULTIVATION CIVIL
LESSEE VS. AGRICULTURAL LESSEE
G.R. No. L-27797 August 26, 1974

TRINIDAD GABRIEL, plaintiff-appellee,

vs.
EUSEBIO PANGILINAN,

1988 MEANING OF CULTIVATION

COCONUT COOPERATIVE MARKETING
ASSOCIATION, INC. (COCOMA), Petitioner, v.
COURT OF APPEALS, PEDRO COSICO,
HERMOGENES COSICO and LUCAS
COSICO, Respondents. [G.R. No. L-46281-83.
August 19, 1988.]
2015 Manuel Jusayan, Alfredo Jusayan, And Michael CULTIVATION IS NOT LIMITED TO Cultivation is not limited to the plowing and harrowing of the land, but
Jusayan vs.Jorge Sombilla, G.R. No. 163928, THE PLOWING AND HARROWING OF includes the various phases of farm labor such as the maintenance,
January 21, 2015
THE LAND repair and weeding of dikes, paddies and irrigation canals in the
.
landholding. Moreover, it covers attending to the care of the growing
plants,23 and grown plants like fruit trees that require watering, fertilizing,
uprooting weeds, turning the soil, fumigating to eliminate plant pests 24 and
all other activities designed to promote the growth and care of the plants
 or trees and husbanding the earth, by general industry, so that it may
bring forth more products or fruits.25 In Tarona v. Court of Appeals,26 this
Court ruled that a tenant is not required to be physically present in the
land at all hours of the day and night provided that he lives close enough
to the land to be cultivated to make it physically possible for him to
cultivate it with some degree of constancy.
Irene D. Ofilada vs. Spouses Ruben Andal And INTENT Evidence is necessary to prove the allegation of tenancy. “The principal
Miraflor Andal, G.R. No. 192270, January 26, 2015 factor in determining whether a tenancy relationship exists is intent.
Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the
alleged tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal relationship.

Celso Verde vs.Victor E. Macapagal,et al, G.R. No. TEMPORARY INCAPACITY OF To be sure, Section 27(2) of Rep. Act No. 3844 permits the agricultural
151342, June 23, 2005 TENANT lessee, in case of illness or temporary incapacity, to avail himself of the
services of laborers, "incapacity" being any cause or circumstance which
prevents the lessee from fulfilling his contractual and other obligations
under the Code.22 To our mind, petitioner’s lack of means to own a
carabao during the agricultural years in question constitutes incapacity
requiring him to employ dela Cruz.1avvphi1.zw+
2004 Eugenio Bautista, Romeo Cruz And Carmencita B. HOME LOT Tenants are entitled to home lots located at a convenient and suitable
Cruz Vs. Susana Mag-Isa Vda. De Villena, G.R. No. place within the landholder’s property, where they can construct and
152564, September 13, 2004
maintain their houses.35 These home lots will be considered as part of the
tenants’ leasehold.36
The right to a home lot is provided under the following provision of RA
1199,37 as amended by RA 2263:38
"Sec. 22. Rights of the Tenant.
xxx xxx xxx
(3) The tenant shall have the right to demand for a home lot suitable for
dwelling with an area of not more than 3 per cent of the area of his
landholding provided that it does not exceed one thousand square meters
and that it shall be located at a convenient and suitable place within the
land of the landholder to be designated by the latter where the tenant
shall construct his dwelling and may raise vegetables, poultry, pigs and
other animals and engage in minor industries, the products of which shall
accrue to the tenant exclusively. The Tenant's dwelling shall not be
removed from the lot already assigned to him by the landholder, except
as provided in section twenty-six39 unless there is a severance of the
tenancy relationship between them as provided under section nine, 40 or
unless the tenant is ejected for cause, and only after the expiration of
 forty-five days following such severance of relationship or dismissal for
cause."41

2016 HEIRS OF EXEQUIEL HAGORILES v. ROMEO TENANCY Existence of tenancy relations

HERNAEZ et. Al , G.R. No. 199628, April 20, 2016
HOMELOT Agricultural tenant's entitlement to homelot ( n the event that the respondents
are found not to be entitled to possess their present home lots, they can demand
from their landholders to designate another location as their home lot. The
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT landholder’s obligation to provide home lots to his tenants continues for so long as
the tenancy relations exist and has not yet been severed.)

Validity of Compromise Agreement

The landholder’s obligation to provide home lots to his tenants continues

for so long as the tenancy relations exist and has not yet been severed.

DAR Memorandum Circular No. 23, series of 1978 ONLY ONE TENANT CAN
(DAR Administrative Order No. 12, series of 1991 CONSTRUCT HOUSE WITHIN THE In light of the foregoing, it appears that a
DAR OPINION NO. 11-00, August 24, 2000 tenant, together with his immediate farm household,
HOMELOT
is entitled to just one homelot. Thus, strictly
speaking, the privilege of having a homelot may not
be extended to any member of his family
considering that the law apparently allows only one
homelot for each tenant.
The reason for the prohibition is that the
construction of separate houses by the
child/children of the ARB-tenant may substantially
reduce the area of the landowner's landholding. This
practice is not sanctioned under R.A. No. 3844, as
amended, P.D. No. 27 and R.A. No. 6657, for it
would be prejudicial to the landowner who would be
facing the realities in the future where the children
and relatives of the ARB-tenant may settle and
establish their permanent dwellings on the
 landholdings of the landowner.
The only possible exception here is when the
dwelling to be established by the member of the
immediate household of the tenant-beneficiary is
within the 1,000 meter area as provided by law, and,
the establishment thereof is with the consent of the
landowner.

1969 De Los Reyes vs. Espineli, at. al., AGRICULTURAL LESSEE VS.
G.R. No. L-28280-81, November 28, 1969 AGRICULTURAL LABORER

2010 Adriano vs.Tanco, G.R.No. 168164, Jul 05, 2010 MERE POSSESSION DOES
NOT Moreover, petitioner's allegations of continued possession and cultivation
AMOUNT TO TENANCY
do not support his cause. It is settled that mere occupation or cultivation
of an agricultural land does not automatically convert a tiller or farm
worker into an agricultural tenant recognized under agrarian laws.[30] It
is essential that, together with the other requisites of tenancy relationship,
the agricultural tenant must prove that he transmitted the landowner's
share of the harvest.[31]
2015 ANTONIO PAGARIGAN VS. ANGELITA YAGUE AND PERSONAL CULTIVATION/ Occupancy and cultivation of an agricultural land, no matter how long, will
SHIRLEY ASUNCION G.R. No. 195203 [Formerly OCCUPANCY NO MATTER HOW not ipso facto make one a de jure tenant.
UDK No. 14435], April 20, 2015.
LONG DOES NOT MAKE ONE A
TENANT Independent and concrete evidence is necessary to prove personal
cultivation, sharing of harvest, or consent of the landowner.

INSTITUTION OF TENANT
2015 Ismael V. Crisostomo vs. Martin P. Victoria, G.R. No. A LESSEE CANNOT INSTITUTE A This court has settled that tenancy relations cannot be an expedient
175098, August 26, 2015 TENANT artifice for vesting in the tenant rights over the landholding which far
exceed those of the landowner. It cannot be a means for vesting a tenant
with security of tenure, such that he or she is effectively the landowner.

Even while agrarian reform laws are pieces of social legislation,

landowners are equally entitled to protection. In Calderon v. Dela Cruz:20

It is true that RA 3844 is a social legislation designed to promote

 economic and social stability and must be interpreted liberally to give full
force and effect to its clear intent. This liberality in interpretation, however,
should not accrue in favor of actual tillers of the land, the tenant- farmers,
but should extend to landowners as well. . . . The landowners deserve as
much consideration as the tenants themselves in order not to create an
economic dislocation, where tenants are solely favored but the
landowners become impoverished.21 (Emphasis supplied, citation omitted)
There is nothing in this case to indicate that Hipolito exercised rights and
prerogatives that accrue to the landowner and which could imply that he
was in such a situation where he could exercise a landowner's
competencies. Hipolito was not clothed with authority to "allow"
respondent to be the tenant himself. Hipolito, as lessee, was entitled to
possession of the disputed portion, and legally so. He was, in this sense,
a "legal possessor." However, his capacities ended here. There was
nothing that authorized him to enter into a tenancy relation with another.
2015 Ismael V. Crisostomo vs. Martin P. Victoria, G.R. No. INSTITUTION OF A TENANT IS A For the right to hire a tenant is basically a personal right of a landowner,
175098, August 26, 2015 PERSONAL RIGHT except as may he provided by law

Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, does not automatically authorize a

civil law lessee to employ a tenant without the consent of the landowner

The requisites for tenancy, the core of which is the element of consent

Who is a tenant

2014 RICARDO V. QUINTOS, Petitioner, vs. INSTITUTION OF TENANT, PERSONAL The burden of proof rests on the one claiming to be a tenant to prove his
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM RIGHT affirmative allegation by substantial evidence. His failure to show in a
ADJUDICATION BOARD AND KANLURANG
MINDORO FARMER'S COOPERATIVE,
satisfactory manner the facts upon which he bases his claim would put
INC., Respondents. G.R. No. 185838, February 10, BURDEN OF PROOF the opposite party under no obligation to prove his exception or defense.
2014
The right to hire a tenant is basically a personal right of a landowner,
except as may be provided by law. Hence, the consent of the landowner
should be secured prior to the installation of tenants.

It is settled that a mortgagee does not become the owner of the

mortgaged property until he has foreclosed the mortgage and, thereafter,
purchased the property at the foreclosure sale.
 QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE
2010 WelfredoCenezevs FelicianaRamos, G.R. No. 172287 SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE To prove a tenancy relationship, the requisite quantum of evidence is
January 15, 2010 substantial evidence, or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind
might accept as adequate to support a conclusion
1994 Cuaño vs. Court of Appeals. 237 SCRA 122, 137-138, CERTIFICATIONS ARE PROVISIONAL
It is well-settled that the findings of or certifications issued by the
September 26, 1994, per Feliciano, J. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, or his authorized representative, in a given
locality concerning the presence or absence of a tenancy relationship
between the contending parties is merely preliminary or provisional and is
not binding upon the courts.
2013 Mario Reyes vs Heirs of Pablo Floro, G.R. No. MARO CERTIFICATION IS NOT The MARO certification is merely preliminary and does not bind the courts
200713, December 11, 2013 CONCLUSIVE as conclusive evidence that Reyes is a lessee who cultivates the land for
purposes of agricultural production. In Bautista v. Araneta,39 we held that
certifications issued by administrative agencies or officers that a certain
person is a tenant are merely provisional and not conclusive on the
courts. Here, the certification from Bautista has little evidentiary value,
without any corroborative evidence. The certification was not notarized
and Bautista was not even presented as a witness. Similarly, Reyes was
not included as a legitimate and properly registered agricultural tenant in
the supposed Deed of Absolute Sale with Agricultural Tenants Conformity
which Bautista executed in favor of Zenaida.
BURDEN OF PROOF
2014 ECE Realty And Development Inc. vs. MERE ALLEGATION IS NOT The basic rule is that mere allegation is not evidence and is not
Rachel G. Mandap, G.R. No. 196182, September 1, EVIDENCE equivalent to proof
2014

2013 Rogelio Dantis vs. Julio Maghinang, Jr., G.R. No. BURDEN OF PROOF he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the burden of proof
191696,April 10, 2013

2017 BP Oil And Chemicals International Philippines, Inc vs MERE ALLEGATION IS NOT It is basic that whoever alleges a fact has the burden of proving it
Total Distribution & Logistic Systems, Inc., G.R. No. EVIDENCE because a mere allegation is not evidence
214406, February 6, 2017
2015 Manuel Jusayan, Alfredo Jusayan, And Michael BURDEN OF PROOF It is elementary that he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the
Jusayan vs.Jorge Sombilla, G.R. No. 163928, burden of proof
 January 21, 2015

2018 J.V. LAGON REALTY CORP. vs HEIRS OF TENANCY The existence of a tenancy relationship cannot be presumed, and claims
LEOCADIA VDA. DE TERRE (G.R. No. 219670, June that one is a tenant do not automatically give rise to security of tenure
27, 2018)
BURDEN OF PROOF
It is elementary that one who makes an affirmative allegation of an issue
CERTIFICATIONS ARE MERELY has the burden of proving the same; and in the case of the plaintiff in a
PROVISIONAL civil case, the burden of proof never parts.

Absence of harvest sharing belies claim of tenancy relationship.

Mere occupation or cultivation of an agricultural land does not

automatically convert a tiller or farm worker into an agricultural tenant
recognized under agrarian laws.

To prove such sharing of harvests, a receipt or any other evidence must

be presented

Certifications of administrative agencies and officers declaring the

existence of a tenancy relation are merely provisional. They are
persuasive but not binding on the courts, which must make their own
findings

2010 VICENTE ADRIANO vs. ALICE TANCO ET AL., July BURDEN OF PROOF It is elementary that he who alleges the affirmative of the issue has the
5, 2010 burden of proof. And if the petitioner upon whom rests the burden of
proving his cause of action fails to show in a satisfactory manner the facts
upon which he bases his claim, the respondents are under no obligation
to prove their exception or defense.

SECURITY OF TENURE/ GROUNDS FOR EJECTMENT

1993 Remigio Isidro vs. The Hon. Court of Appeals Agricultural lessees, being entitled to security of tenure, may be ejected
(Seventh Division) And Natividad Gutierrez, G.R. No. TENANT MAY ONLY BE EJECTED from their landholding only on the grounds provided by law. 25 These
L-105586 December 15, 1993
BASED ON THE LISTED GROUNDS grounds – the existence of which is to be proven by the agricultural lessor
in a particular case26 – are enumerated in Section 36 of Republic Act No.
(RA) 3844,27 otherwise known as the "Agricultural Land Reform Code,"
which read as follows:
 however, on the amount of rental arrearages to be paid considering that
an action to enforce any cause of action under RA 3844 shall be barred if
not commenced within three (3) years after it accrued.44 Accordingly,
respondents are held liable to pay petitioner only the pertinent rental
arrearages reckoned from the last three (3) cropping years prior to the
filing of the petition before the Office of the PARAD
1993 G.R. No. 97788 May 11, 1993 “3RD PARTY DISPOSSESSION THE
TENANT/ JURISDICTION
TEOFILA DE LUNA, petitioner,
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, CASIANO DE LUNA and
FLAVIANO DE LUNA, respondents.

2009 CASTILLO v. TOLENTINO, G.R. No. 181525, March Section 32 of R.A. No. 3844 specifically requires notice to and consent of
4, 2009 OBLIGATIONS OF A TENANT WITH
RESPECT TO CONSTRUCTION OF the agricultural lessor before the agricultural lessee may embark upon the
IMPROVEMENTS ON THE construction of a permanent irrigation system. It is only when the former
LANDHOLDING refuses to bear the expenses of construction that the latter may choose to
shoulder the same. More importantly, any change in the use of tillable
land in the leasehold, e.g. through the construction of a sizeable water
reservoir, impacts upon the agricultural lessor's share in the harvest,
which is the only consideration he receives under the agrarian law. This
being the case, before the agricultural lessee may use the leasehold for a
purpose other than what had been agreed upon, the consent of the
agricultural lessor must be obtained, lest he be dispossessed of his
leasehold.

The law (Sec. 32 of R.A. No. 3844) does not give blanket authority to the
agricultural lessee to construct an irrigation system at anytime and for any
reason; instead, it presupposes primarily that the same is necessary.

2009 IMPLIED OBLIGATION OF A TENANT The fact that CASTILLO was convicted by final judgment of an offense
against TOLENTINO's son, George, demonstrates how relations between
the two have deteriorated. While R.A. No. 3844 authorizes termination by
the agricultural lessee of the lease for a crime committed by the
agricultural lessor against the former or any member of his immediate
farm household, the same privilege is not granted to the agricultural
 lessor. Yet, this does not mean that the courts should not take into
account the circumstance that the agricultural lessee committed a crime
against the agricultural lessor or any member of his immediate family. By
committing a crime against TOLENTINO's son, CASTILLO violated his
obligation to his lessor to act with justice, give everyone his due, and
observe honesty and good faith, an obligation that is deemed included in
his leasehold agreement. Provisions of existing laws form part of and are
read into every contract without need for the parties expressly making
reference to them.

2009 VIOLATION OF OBLIGATION OF A In sum, we hold that the construction of the reservoir constitutes a
TENANT — GROUND FOR violation of Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844, an unauthorized use of the
DISPOSSESSION landholding for a purpose other than what had been agreed upon, and a
violation of the leasehold contract between CASTILLO and TOLENTINO,
for which the former is hereby penalized with permanent dispossession of
his leasehold.
2013 Ernesto L. Natividad vs.Fernando Mariano et. al., G.R. NON-PAYMENT OF LEASE RENTAL ““The agricultural lessee’s failure to pay the lease rentals, in order to
No. 179643, June 3, 2013 TO BE DELIBERATE, MUST LAST FOR warrant his dispossession of the landholding, must be wilful and
PERIOD OF 2 YEARS deliberate and must have lasted at least two (2) years. The term
Demand necessary
"deliberate" is characterized by or results from slow, careful, thorough
calculation and consideration of effects and consequences, while the term
"willful" is defined, as one governed by will without yielding to reason or
without regard to reason. Mere failure of an agricultural lessee to pay the
agricultural lessor's share does not necessarily give the latter the right to
eject the former absent a deliberate intent on the part of the agricultural
lessee to pay.”

2013 Ernesto L. Natividad vs.Fernando Mariano et. al., G.R. DEMAND NECESSARY Our review of the records shows that Ernesto did not present any
No. 179643, June 3, 2013 evidence, such as the affidavit of the person or persons present at that
time, to prove that he demanded from the respondents the payment of the
lease rentals. We, therefore, cannot accord any merit to his claim that he
made such demands. His allegation, absent any supporting evidence, is
nothing more than a hollow claim under the rule that he who alleges a fact
has the burden of proving it as mere allegation is not evidence.54 Thus,
Ernesto should be deemed to have made his demand only at the time he
filed the petition for ejectment before the PARAD. At this point, the
respondents were not yet in delay55 and could not be deemed to have
 failed in the payment of their lease rentals.
2014 EUFROCINA NIEVES, as represented by her NON-PAYMENT OF LEASE RENTAL To eject the agricultural lessee for failure to pay the leasehold rentals
attorney-in-fact, LAZARO VILLAROSA, under item 6 (non-payment of lease), jurisprudence instructs that the
JR., Petitioner, vs. ERNESTO DULDULAO and
FELIPE PAJARILLO, Respondents, G.R. No. 190276;
BURDEN OF PROOF same must be wilful and deliberate in order to warrant the agricultural
April 2, 2014. lessee’s dispossession of the land that he tills.

Bare allegations, unsubstantiated by evidence, are not equivalent to

proof.

2015 Ismael vs.Crisostomo vs. Martin P. Victoria, G.R. No. INSTITUTION OF A SUBLESEE There is nothing in this case to indicate that Hipolito exercised rights and
175098, August 26, 2015 prerogatives that accrue to the landowner and which could imply that he
was in such a situation where he could exercise a landowner's
competencies. Hipolito was not clothed with authority to "allow"
respondent to be the tenant himself. Hipolito, as lessee, was entitled to
possession of the disputed portion, and legally so. He was, in this sense,
a "legal possessor." However, his capacities ended here. There was
nothing that authorized him to enter into a tenancy relation with another.
Ferrer vs. Carganillo, et al., G.R. No. 170956, May SUBLEASING In this case, Domingo subleased his agricultural landholding to Sergio. It
12,2010. is prohibited, except in the case of illness or temporary incapacity where
he may employ laborers. Domingo does not claim illness or temporary
incapacity in his Answer. Therefore, we hereby declare the dispossession
of Domingo and Sergio from the subject agricultural land of the
leaseholder. viz:

The confluence of evidence shows that Felisa has clearly and

convincingly established her allegation that Domingo subleased his
landholding to Sergio, to wit:

a) The investigation conducted by MARO Legal Officer Estimada shows

that Domingo admitted that the cultivation and possession of the subject
landholding was subleased to Sergio as he was then applying for work
abroad.30

b) In her complaint, Felisa stressed that in one of her visits to the subject
landholding prior to the filing of the said complaint, she discovered that
Sergio, the sublessee, was in actual possession and cultivation of the
landholding in question.31 Petitioner further contended that Domingo
subleased the said agricultural leasehold to Sergio for the amount of
 ₱15,000.00.32

c) The Katulagan or Agreement establishes that indeed Domingo was

indebted to Sergio in the amount of ₱15,000.00.

d) The affidavit of Clarion, a resident of the municipality where the subject

landholding lies, further corroborates the said facts when she narrated the
series of events leading up to Sergio’s possession of said agricultural
land:

Should the above issue or controversy be brought to the proper forum

for its adjudication such as the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator(PARAD), the burden of proof to establish the violation of the
tenenacy law by the tenant which warrants the ejectment and termination
of the tenenacy rest upon the landlord or landowner.

2012 Juan Galope vs Cresencia Bugarin, Represented by EMPLOYMENT OF FARM WORKERS We have held that the employment of farm laborers to perform some
Celso Rabang, G.R. No. 185669 February 1, aspects of work does not preclude the existence of an agricultural
2012
leasehold relationship, provided that an agricultural lessee does not leave
the entire process of cultivation in the hands of hired helpers. Indeed,
while the law explicitly requires the agricultural lessee and his immediate
family to work on the land, we have nevertheless declared that the hiring
of farm laborers by the tenant on a temporary, occasional, or emergency
basis does not negate the existence of the element of "personal
cultivation" essential in a tenancy or agricultural leasehold
relationship.29 There is no showing that petitioner has left the entire
process of cultivating the land to Allingag. In fact, respondent has
admitted that petitioner still farms the land.30
1981 G.R. No. L-47533. October 27, 1981.]
PERSONAL CULTIVATION BY THE
LANDOWNER HAS ALREADY BEEN
FORTUNATO AISPORNA, Petitioner, v. COURT OF
APPEALS, AVELINO DE LA CRUZ and BENIGNO
ELIMINATED
DE LA CRUZ, Respondents.
2006 (Vda. De Brigino vs. Ramos, G.R. No. RECEIPTS NOT NECESSARY between In cases where the tenant and the landowner are family members,
130260, February 6, 2006) RELATIVES the issuance of receipts by the landowner is not the usual practice
 Rivera vs. Santiago 410 SCRA 113 RECEIPT OF SHARES DOES NOT the Supreme Court stressed that it is not unusual for a
MEAN IMPLIED TENANCY landowner to receive the produce of the land from a caretaker
who sows thereon.
De Jesus v. Moldex Realty, 563 Phil. 625, 630 RECEIP WITHOUT AGREED SHARING The fact of receipt, without an agreed system of sharing, does
(2007).
SYSTEM not ipso facto create a tenancy2.
DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION
2015 CALUZOR v. Llanillo , July 1, 2015, G.R. No. 155580 DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION If tenanted land is converted, the dispossessed tenant is entitled to
disturbance compensation

2010 BIENVENIDO T. BUADA, et. Al Petitioners, vs. DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION In all cases of petitions for conversions resulting in the displacement of
CEMENT CENTER, INC., Respondent., G.R. No. farmer-beneficiaries, such beneficiaries shall be entitled to a disturbance
180374; January 22, 2010
compensation, which should not be less than five (5) times the average of
the annual gross value of the harvest on their actual landholdings during
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER the last 5 preceding calendar years. In addition, the DAR shall exert all
efforts to see to it that free homelots and assured employment for
displaced beneficiaries are provided by the applicant/developer.

Voluntary surrender, as a mode of extinguishment of tenancy relations,

does not require any court authorization considering that it involves the
tenant's own volition

A.O NO. 01 AND A.O. NO. 02 SERIES OF 1990 DETERMINATION OF DISTURBANCE

COMPENSATION
O.P CASE NO. 98-G-8430. Dec 18, 1998 FIXING THE DISTURBANCE
COMPENSATION IS LODGE TO THE
DARAB
Bunye vs. Aquino GR No. 138979, Oct 9, 2000 IF GROSS HARVEST CANNOT BE 75sqm us commensurate disturbance compensation to tenant who was
DETERMINED as the basis of the disposed of 2,500 sqm tillage by virtue of conversion of the land.
computation of the disturbance
compensation, the DARAB can fix the
DC
DAR A.O NO. 01-99 RULES AND REGULATIONS AMOUNT OF DISTURBANCE Maybe cash or kind such as free housing, homelot, employment and
ON CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS TO COMPENSATION other benefits paid by the landowner or developer to the affected tenant,
NON-AGRICULTURAL USES
farmworker or occupants, amount agreed upon or not less than 5 times
the average gross harvest of the tenanted land for the 5 preceding
2
De Jesus v. Moldex Realty, 563 Phil. 625, 630 (2007).
 calendar years

If there is disagreement as to the amount, either of the party may bring

the issue to the DARAB

SUCCESSION OF TENANCY
2002 Milestone Realty And Co., Inc. v. Court Of Appeals ORDER OF PREFERRENCE Thus, applying Sec. 9 of RA 3844, Delia Razon Peña is the first in the
G.R. No. 135999. April 19, 2002. order of preference to succeed the tenancy rights of her husband
because the lessor, Carolina, failed to exercise her right of choice within
one-month period from the time of Anacleto’s death
Milestone Realty and Co., INC. and William L. Perez Should the lessor fail to exercise his choice within one month from the
vs. Hon. Court of Appeals, Delia Razon Peña and death of the tenant, the priority shall be in accordance with the
Raymundo Eugenio, G.R. No. 135999, April 19, 2002
aforementioned order. In Manuel vs. Court of Appeals,21 we ruled that:
Agricultural leasehold relationship is not extinguished by the death or
incapacity of the parties. In case the agricultural lessee dies or is
incapacitated, the leasehold relation shall continue between the
agricultural lessor and any of the legal heirs of the agricultural lessee who
can cultivate the landholding personally, in the order of preference
provided under Section 9 of Republic Act 3844, as chosen by the lessor
within one month from such death or permanent incapacity. Since
petitioner Rodolfo Manuel failed to exercise his right of choice within the
statutory period, Edwardo's widow Enriqueta, who is first in the order of
preference and who continued working on the landholding upon her
husband's death, succeeded him as agricultural lessee. Thus, Enriqueta
is subrogated to the rights of her husband and could exercise every right
Eduardo had as agricultural lessee, including the rights of pre-emption
and redemption.

2019 HEIRS OF PABLITO ARELLANO, NAMELY, ELENA UPON THE DEATH OF THE Upon the death of the originally instituted tenant, his/her legal heirs shall
ARELLANO, REYNANTE ARELLANO, AND RUBY ORIGINAL OWNER succeed to his/her tenancy rights;
ARELLANO vs. MARIA TOLENTINO G.R. No.
207152, July 15, 2019.
Cultivation of an agricultural land will not ipso facto make one a de
jure tenant;

Independent and concrete evidence is necessary to prove personal

cultivation, sharing of harvest, and consent of the landowner; and

Being a lawful agricultural lessee or tenant, therefore, the same is entitled

 to security of tenure. In fact, not even death can extinguish his/her
agricultural leasehold relation with the lessor or landowner.

2017 PHILCONTRUST RESOURCES INC. v. Carlos TENANCY SECURITY OF TENURE Even if the land ceases to be an agricultural land, the owner must respect
Santiago et.al, July 26, 2017, G.R. No. 174670 the status of the tenants or occupants of the land as well as the
ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCESS relationship governing them. Plaintiffs have vested rights over the
properties in question. It is said that rights are vested when the right of
enjoyment, present or prospective, has become the property of some
person as present interest. They cannot avoid responsibility by simply
saying that no tenancy relationship existed between them as the subject
property is no longer classified as agricultural.

In administrative proceedings, a fair and reasonable opportunity to

explain one's side suffices to meet the requirements of due process

It is axiomatic that the subject matter jurisdiction of a quasi-judicial body

such as the DARAB is determined by the material allegations of the
complaint before it and the character of the reliefs prayed for, irrespective
of whether the complainant is entitled to any or all such reliefs.

"To be heard" does not mean only verbal arguments in court; one may be
heard also thru pleadings. Where opportunity to be heard, either through
oral arguments or pleadings, is accorded, there is no denial of procedural
due process.

EXTINGUISHMENT OF TENANCY RELATIONS

1969 Teodoro Vs. Macaraeg, 27 Scra 7 (1969) ABANDONMENT Abandonment of the landholding without the knowledge of the agricultural
lessor Abandonment has been invariably construed two essential
elements: 1) intention to abandon and 2) physical act or acts of
abandonment. The primary elements of abandonment are the intention to
 abandon and the external act by which intention is carried into effect.

1998 Barrameda vs.Oca Et Al Ca-Gr No. 07164-Sp ABANDONMENT

The gauge in the determination of whether petitioner-appellant has
PolicarpioNisnisanet. al vs. CAet al G.R No. 126425, abandoned or surrendered the subject landholding, is the simultaneous
August 12, 1998
and subsequent acts indicative of her intention to do so. There is no such
thing as presumptive voluntary surrender of abandonment by implication,
and most certainly, not from vague and doubtful evidence. If there should
be a waiver of right, public policy demand that the same be clearly and
convincingly established by competent and sufficient evidence.

G.R. No.177374 July 2, 2014 Abandonment farmber benef going If ever DAR Regional Director, Region I issued an Order dated January
abroad 30, 1991, to the effect that the respondents-appellants have a better right
MARIANO JOSE, FELICISIMO JOSE, deceased, as beneficiaries over the subject landholding, this said official issuance of
substituted by his children MARIANO JOSE, CAMILO
JOSE, TIBURCIA JOSE, FERMINA JOSE, and
a lesser officer in the bureaucratic totempole could not overrule nor nullify
VICTORIA JOSE, Petitioners, the acts performed earlier by the head of agency or the Secretary of the
vs. Department of Agrarian Reform unless the cancellation/revocation is
ERNESTO M. NOVIDA, RODOLFO PALA YLA Y, JR., initiated by the Secretary himself. For the Emancipation Patents dated
ALEX M. BELARMINO, RODRIGO LIBED, December 7, 1990 were issued earlier to the farmer-beneficiaries. And
LEONARDO L. LIBED, BERNARDO B. BELARMINO,
BENJAMIN G. ACOSTA, MODESTO A. ORLANDA,
with the same token, that the enactment of our agrarian reform laws is
W ARLITO B. MEJIA, MAMERTO B. BELARMINO, principally intended to make the small farmers more independent, self-
MARCELO 0. DELFIN and HEIRS OF LUCINO A. reliant and responsible citizens and a source of a genuine strength in our
ESTEBAN, represented by CRESENCIA M. VDA. DE democratic society x x x. Clearly, those who renounce their citizenship
ESTEBAN, Respondents. should yield to those rights and privileges intended for those with
undivided loyalty and unquestioned nationalism to the Filipino nation
2005 G.R. No. 145568 November 17, 2005 EXTINGUISHMENT OF TENANCY
RELATIONS

HEIRS OF ENRIQUE TAN, SR., namely, NORMA

TAN, JEANETTE TAN, JULIETA TAN, ROMMEL
TAN, and ENRIQUE TAN, JR., All represented by
ROMMEL TAN, Petitioners,

vs.

REYNALDA POLLESCAS, Respondent.

2010 G.R. No. 180374 January 22, 2010 VOLUNTARY SURRENDER Moreover, it was not shown why petitioners as tenant-farmers would voluntarily give up their
sole source of livelihood. There was likewise no showing that the money was indeed
BIENVENIDO T. BUADA, ISAIAS B. QUINTO, advantageous to petitioners’ families as to allow them to pursue other sources of livelihood.
NEMESIO BAUTISTA, ORLANDO R. BAUTISTA, To stress, tenancy relations cannot be bargained away except for the strong reasons
FREDDIE R. BAUTISTA, CARLITO O. BUADA, provided by law which must be convincingly shown by evidence in line with the State's policy
GERARDO O. BUADA, ARMANDO M. OLIVA, of achieving a dignified existence for the small farmers free from pernicious institutional
ROGELIO F. RAPAJON, EUGENIO F. restraints and practices.22
FLORES, Petitioners,
vs. In view of the foregoing, we find the evidence on record and respondent's arguments
CEMENT CENTER, INC., Respondent insufficient to overcome the rights of petitioners as provided in the Constitution and agrarian
statutes. The alleged voluntary surrender of petitioners of their tenancy rights for the sum of
₱3,000.00 each could not constitute as "voluntary surrender" within the contemplation of law.

1978 Talavera vs CA, G.R. No. 77830 VOLUNTARY SURRENDER

Jacinto vs. CA, G.R. No. 33567, 1978
2015 OFILADA V. ANDAL G.R. No. 192270, January 26, SECURITY OF TENURE While a tenancy relationship cannot be extinguished by the sale,
2015 alienation, or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding, the
same may nevertheless be terminated due to circumstances more
advantageous to the tenant and his/her family.

REDEMPTION
2016 Estrella v. Francisco G.R. No. 209384, June 27, 2016 REDEMPTION Right of redemption (180-day period/ filing with the DARAB tolls the
period/tender of payment or consignation)
SUBROGATION
In case the lessor alienates the land, the transferee is subrogated to the
rights and substituted to the obligations of the lessor-transferor

While we endeavor to protect the rights of agricultural lessees, we must

be mindful not to do so at the expense of trampling upon the landowners'
rights which are likewise protected by law.
2018 EDITHA B. ALBOR, Petitioner, vs. COURT OF CERTIORARI Certiorari is not and cannot be made a substitute for an appeal where the
APPEALS, NERY A MACASIL joined by her husband latter remedy is available but was lost through fault or negligence. Where
RUDY MACASIL and NORMA BELUSO, joined by her
husband NOLI BELUSO, Respondents. G.R. No.
REDEMPTION the rules prescribe a particular remedy for the vindication of rights, such
196598 January 17, 2018 remedy should be availed of. Accordingly, adoption of an improper
remedy already warrants outright dismissal of the petition.

The requirements for perfecting an appeal within the reglementary period

specified in the law must be strictly followed as they are considered
indispensable interdictions against needless delays.

The full amount of the redemption price should be consigned in court

INDEFEASIBILITY OF CLOA
2011 JULIANS.LEBRUDOANDREYNALDOL.LEBRUDO,V CLOA AS EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP A Certificate of Land Ownership or CLOA is a document evidencing
S.REMEDIOSLOYOLA (G.R. No. 181370. March 19, ownership of the land granted or awarded to the beneficiary by DAR, and
2011)
contains the restrictions and conditions provided for in RA 6657 and other
applicable laws. Section 27 of RA 6657, as amended by RA 9700, which
provides for the transferability of awarded lands,

2010 VDA. DE AGUILAR vs SPOUSES ALFARO (G.R. No. INDEFEASIBILITY OF CLOA A Torrens title is evidence of indefeasible title to property in favor of the
164402, July 5, 2010) person in whose name the title appears. It is conclusive evidence with
respect to the ownership of the land described therein.

2017 DELA CRUZ v. DOMINGO G.R. No. 210592, CLT DOES NOT VEST OWNERSHIP a certificate of land transfer does not vest ownership in the holder thereof
November 22, 2017
EP, EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP It is the emancipation patent which constitutes conclusive authority for the
issuance of an Original Certificate of Transfer, or a Transfer Certificate of
Title, in the name of the grantee

Without sufficient proof of ownership of the land such as EP, the

petitioner has no cause of action

Carriedo vs DAR, G.R. No. 176549, October 10, 2016 EMANCIPATION PATENTS, THE “We agree with the DAR. A Certificate of Land Ownership Award or
CERTIFICATES OF LAND OWNERSHIP CLOA is a document evidencing ownership of the land granted or
AWARD, AND OTHER TITLES ISSUED awarded to the beneficiary by the DAR, and contains the restrictions and
UNDER ANY AGRARIAN REFORM conditions provided for in the CARL and otl1er applicable laws.33
PROGRAM SHALL BE INDEFEASIBLE Section 24 of the CARL, as amended,34 reads:
Sec. 24. Award to Beneficiaries. - The rights and responsibilities of the
 beneficiaries shall commence from their receipt of a duly registered
emancipation patent or certificate of land ownership award and their
actual physical possession of the awarded land. Such award shall be
completed in not more than one hundred eighty (180) days from the date
of registration of the title in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines: Provided, That the emancipation patents, the certificates
of land ownership award, and other titles issued under any agrarian
reform program shall be indefeasible and imprescriptible after one
(1) year from its registration with the Office of the Registry of Deeds,
subject to the conditions, limitations and qualifications of this Act, the
property registration decree, and other pertinent laws. The emancipation
patents or the certificates of land ownership award being titles
brought under the operation of the torrens system, are conferred
with the same indefeasibility and security afforded to all titles under
the said system, as provided for by Presidential Decree No. 1529, as
amended by Republic Act No. 6732. (Emphasis supplied.)

Esperanza Berboso vs Victoria Cabral, G.R. No. In Bumagat, et al. v. Arribay,29 the Court reiterated the rule
204617, July 10, 2017 that:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
Certificates of title issued pursuant to emancipation patents acquire the
same protection accorded to other titles, and become indefeasible and
incontrovertible upon the expiration of one year from the date of the
issuance of the order for the issuance of the patent Lands so titled may
no longer be the subject matter of a cadastral proceeding; nor can they
be decreed to other individuals. The rule in this jurisdiction, regarding
public land patents and the character of the certificate of title that may be
issued by virtue thereof, is that where land is granted by the government
to a private individual, the corresponding patent therefor is recorded, and
the certificate of title is issued to the grantee; thereafter, the land is
automatically brought within the operation of the Land Registration Act.30
As such, upon expiration of one year from its issuance, the certificate
of title shall become irrevocable and indefeasible like a certificate issued
in a registration proceeding.31 Therefore, TCT Nos. 263885(M) and
263886(M) issued in favor of petitioner and her children as heirs of
Alejandro are indefeasible and binding upon the whole world unless it is
nullified by a court of competent jurisdiction in a direct proceeding for
cancellation of title.32 Thus, We find that the petition to cancel EP Nos.
445829 and 445830 is a collateral attack to the validity of TCT Nos.
263885(M) and 263886(M); as such, the same should not be allowed.
2019 VIVENCIO DALIT, PETITIONER, V. SPOUSES CLOA AS EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP CARL covers all private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture
ROLANDO E. BALAGTAS, SR. AND CARMELITA G. regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised
BALAGTAS, ROLANDO G. BALAGTAS, JR.,
CLARINA G. BALAGTAS, CARLOTA G. BALAGTAS,
thereon.
CARMELA G. BALAGTAS, SOFRONIO
SARIENTE[*] AND METROPOLITAN BANK AND A CLOA is a document evidencing ownership of the land granted or
TRUST COMPANY, RESPONDENTS, GR No. awarded to the qualified ARB, and contains the restrictions and conditions
202799, March 27, 2019
of such grant.

Until duly cancelled in accordance with the prescribed procedure, CLOAs

issued by the DAR shall remain valid and subsisting and enjoy the same
respect accorded to those issued through other modes of acquisition of
title.

Samuel Estribillo, et.Al, vs. As we held through Justice J.B.L. Reyes in Lahora v. Dayanghirang,
Department of Agrarian Reform and Hacienda Maria, Jr.26 :
Inc, G.R. No. 159674, June 30, 2006
The rule in this jurisdiction, regarding public land patents and the
character of the certificate of title that may be issued by virtue thereof, is
that where land is granted by the government to a private individual, the
corresponding patent therefor is recorded, and the certificate of title is
issued to the grantee; thereafter, the land is automatically brought within
the operation of the Land Registration Act, the title issued to the grantee
becoming entitled to all the safeguards provided in Section 38 of the said
Act. In other words, upon expiration of one year from its issuance, the
certificate of title shall become irrevocable and indefeasible like a
certificate issued in a registration proceeding. (Emphasis supplied.)

The respondents were able to prove that they have a superior right over
the subject property as against the petitioners.1âwphi1 It is undisputed
that the subject property is indeed covered by OCT No. M-4559, which is
registered in the name of Dionisio, the respondents’ predecessor-in-
interest. Between the petitioners’ unsubstantiated and self-serving claim
that the subject property was inherited byCarmelita from her father and
OCT No. M-4559 registered in Dionisio’s name, the latter must prevail.
The respondents’ title over the subject property is evidence of their
ownership thereof. That a certificate of title serves as evidence of an
indefeasible and incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person
whose name appears therein and that a person who has a Torrens title
 over a land is entitled to the possession thereof are fundamental
principles observed in this jurisdiction.25
Numeriano P. Abobon vs. CERTIFICATE OF TITLE SERVES AS certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible and
Felicitas AbataAbobon and GelimaAbataAbobon, G.R. EVIDENCE OF AN INDEFEASIBLE incontrovertible title to the property in favor of the person whose name
No. 155830, August 15, 2012
AND INCONTROVERTIBLE TITLE TO appears therein.12 The certificate of title thus becomes the best proof of
THE PROPERTY IN FAVOR OF THE ownership of a parcel of land;13 hence, anyone who deals with property
PERSON WHOSE NAME APPEARS registered under the Torrens system may rely on the title and need not go
THEREIN beyond the title

2017 Berboso v. Cabral, July 10, 2017 G.R. No. 204617 RES JUDICATA Rule 45 petition is limited to questions of law, and the factual findings of
the lower courts are, as a rule, conclusive on this Court, exception:
BURDEN OF PROOF conflicting findings of tribunals; a misapprehension of facts.

COLLATERAL ATTACK Principle of res judicata

INDEFEASIBILITY OF CLOA The party who alleges an affirmative fact has the burden of proving it
because mere allegation of the fact is not evidence of it.

Collateral attack to the validity of the certificate of title

Indefeasibility of CLOA/EP

2018 DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, QUEZON RETENTION RIGHTS OF L.O. In no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares.
CITY & PABLO MENDOZA vs. ROMEO C.
CARRIEDO (G.R. No.176549. October 10, 2018)
LACHES The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or
contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner: Provided, however, That in
CLOA AS EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP case the area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted, the
tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a
beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or
comparable features.

The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is

subject to qualification by the legislature

Laches is defined as the failure or neglect for an unreasonable and

unexplained length of time, to do that which by exercising due diligence
could or should have been done earlier
 Certificate of Land Ownership Award or CLOA is a document evidencing
ownership of the land granted or awarded to the beneficiary by the DAR,
and contains the restrictions and conditions provided for in the CARL and
otl1er applicable law. (ON MR)

In case of multiple or series of transfers/sales, the first five (5) hectares

sold/conveyed without DAR clearance and the corresponding titles issued
by the Register of Deeds (ROD) in the name of the transferee shall, under
the principle of estoppel, be considered valid and shall be treated as the
transferor/s' retained area but in no case shall the transferee exceed the
five-hectare landholding ceiling pursuant to Sections 6, 70 and 73(a) of
R.A. No. 6657. (ON MR)

In case of conflict between a statute and an administrative order, the

former must prevail

2019 POLO PLANTATION AGRARIAN REFORM CONTEMPT (Contempt) Department officials' act of installing farmer-beneficiaries in
MULTIPURPOSE COOPERATIVE (POPARMUCO), landholding did not constitute an open defiance and disobedience to
REPRESENTED BY SILANDO GOMEZ AND ELIAS
RAMOS, PETITIONER, v. RODOLFO T. INSON,
INDEFEASIBILITY OF CLOA Court's order.
CESO III, AS REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF THE
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, REGION The court's contempt power should be exercised with restraint and for a
VII - CEBU CITY, RESPONDENT, G.R. No. 189162, preservative, and not vindictive, purpose. "Only in cases of clear and
January 30, 2019 contumacious refusal to obey should the power be exercised."

A certificate of title serves as evidence of an indefeasible title. The title

becomes incontrovertible after expiration of the one (1)-year period from
the issuance of the registration decree, upon which it was based.

2017 CASTRO v. MENDOZA Sr. Et. Al, GR No. 212778; REDEMPTION Right of redemption
April 26, 2017

Even a Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) does not vest ownership in its
CLT DOES NOT VEST OWNERSHIP holder. In Dela Cruz v. Quiazon,78 we held that a CLT under Presidential
Decree No. 2779(P.D. No. 27) merely evinces that its grantee is qualified
to avail himself of the statutory mechanism for the acquisition of
ownership of the land tilled by him as provided under P.D. No. 27. 80 It is
not a muniment of title that vests in the farmer/grantee absolute
ownership of his tillage.81 It is only after compliance with the conditions
which entitle a farmer/grantee to an emancipation patent that he acquires
 the vested right of absolute ownership in the landholding—a right which
then would have become fixed and established, and no longer open to
doubt or controversy.

2013 Heirs OfLorenzoBuensucesovs.Lovy Perez, G.R. No. CLT DOES NOT VEST OWNERSHIP Under R.A. No. 665727 in relation with P.D. No. 2728 and E.O. No.
173926, March 6, 2013 228,29 the title to the landholding shall be issued to the tenant-farmer only
upon the satisfaction of the following requirements: (1) payment in full of
the just compensation for the landholding, duly determined by final
judgment of the proper court; (2) possession of the qualifications of a
farmer-beneficiary under the law; (3) full-pledged membership of the
farmer-beneficiary in a duly recognized farmers’ cooperative; and (4)
actual cultivation of the landholding

COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM

2011 HACIENDA LUISITA, INCORPORATED V. AUTHORITY OF THE PARC/ STOCK Under Sec. 31 of RA 6657, as implemented by DAO 10, the authority to
PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM DISTRIBUTION approve the plan for stock distribution of the corporate landowner belongs
COUNCIL(PARC)(G.R. No. 171101. July 5, 2011)
to PARC; RA 6657 or other executive issuances on agrarian reform do
not explicitly vest the PARC with the power to revoke/recall an approved
SDP. Such power or authority, however, is deemed possessed by PARC
under the principle of necessary implication.

2015 DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, through its CARP IMPLEMENTATION An agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular
PROVINCIAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER OF farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands
DAVAO CITY, and THE MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN
REFORM OFFICER OF CALINAN, DAVAO CITY
they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the
vs.WOODLAND AGRO-DEVELOPMENT, INC. G.R. fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the
No. 188174 June 29, 2015. just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and
reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into
account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject
to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the
State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further
provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.

2017 DILLENA v ALCARAZ (G.R. No. 204045, December

14, 2017) Republic Act No. 7881 came into being, which expressly
FISHPONDS EXCLUDED FROM CARP exempted/excluded fishponds and prawn farms from the coverage of the
COVERAGE CARL. In effect, cases involving fishponds and prawn farms are no longer
considered agrarian disputes as to make the case fall within the
 jurisdiction of the DARAB or its Adjudicators.

The operation of fishponds is no longer considered an agricultural activity,

and a parcel of land devoted to fishpond operation is no longer an
agricultural land.

2019 ELFLEDA, ALBERT, NAPOLEON, EDEN, CARP COVERAGE Coverage under the CARP is the general rule, therefore, the applicant
SEVERIANO, CELIA AND LEO, ALL SURNAMED bears the burden of proving that the property is exempt.
MARCELO, REPRESENTED BY SPOUSES
SEVERINO** [DECEASED] AND CELIA C.
MARCELO, Petitioners, VS. SAMAHANG The authority of the DAR to approve conversion of agricultural lands
MAGSASAKA NG BARANGAY SAN MARIANO, covered by R.A. No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses may be exercised from
REPRESENTED BY GODOFREDO ERMITA, GR the date of its effectivity, on June 15, 1988.
No. 205618, September 16, 2019
Tax declaration is not conclusive of the nature of the property for zoning
purposes as it is the classification made by the local government that
prevails.

2017 HEIRS OF AGUSTO SALAS VS. CABUNGCAL (G.R. CARP COVERAGE Republic Act No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
No. 191545. MARCH 29, 2017) generally covers all public and private agricultural lands

2016 CABRAL v. ADOLFO , August 31, 2016 ,G.R. No.

198160 OLT COVERAGE Only landholdings under established tenancy and primarily devoted to
rice or corn farming are brought under the OLT program and issued a
STEPS BEFORE ISSUANCE OF EP CLT.

ADMINISTRATIVE DUE PROCES Issuance of a CLT merely evinces that the grantee thereof is qualified to
avail of the statutory mechanism for the acquisition of ownership of the
land tilled by him, as provided under P.D. No. 27. The CLT is not a
muniment of title that vests in the tenant-farmer absolute ownership of his
tillage.

There are several steps to be undertaken before an EP can be issued.

Lack of notice violates the essential requirements of administrative due

process of law, and that the enactment of P.D. No. 27 is not a statutory
notice to all owners of agricultural lands devoted to rice or com
production.
 Mere issuance of an EP does not put the ownership of the agrarian
reform beneficiary beyond attack and scrutiny. EPs may be cancelled for
violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations.

Grounds for cancellation of registered EPs includes land which is found to

be exempt/excluded from P.D. No. 27.

2019 GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM vs. CARP EXEMPTION Lands foreclosed by the Government Service Insurance System, a
MUNICIPAL AGRARIAN REFORM OFFICER government financial institution, are subject to agrarian reform and are
ROMERICO DATOY G.R. No. 232863, July 24, 2019
not among the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law's exclusive list of
exemptions and exclusions.

2015 ONG V. IMPERIAL July 15, 2015, G.R. No. 197127 CARP EXEMPTION We have unequivocally held that "to be exempt from CARP, all that is
needed is one valid reclassification of the land from agricultural to non-
agricultural by a duly authorized government agency before June 15,
1988, when the CARL took effect.

2019 WILFREDO CABUGUAS, RENATO CABUGUAS, DISQUALIFICATION OF AWARDEE The burden of proving the ineligibility or disqualification of the awardee
ALEJANDRO "TABOY" CANETE AND ELEAZAR rests upon the person who avers it through clear and satisfactory proof or
MORTOS,Petitioners, vs. GALLANT S. TAN
NERY, represented by KATHERINE TAN NERY-
COLLATERAL ATTACK substantial evidence as required by law. Thus, it is incumbent upon
TOLEDO, Respondent, G.R. No. 219915 April 3, 2019 petitioners to prove that respondent does not deserve the government
grant.

The issue of the validity of title, i.e., whether it was fraudulently issued,
can only be raised in an action expressly instituted for that purpose. The
validity of the CLOA cannot be attacked collaterally.

The Supreme Court may, whenever necessary to resolve factual issues,

delegate the reception of the evidence on such issues to any of its
members or to an appropriate court, agency or office.

2013 HEIRS OF LORENZO BUENSUCESO vs. LOVY TRANSFER OF AWARDED LANDS Lands acquired under P.D. No. 27 do not revert to the landowner," and
PEREZ, March 6, 2013. this is true even if the CLT is cancelled. The land must be transferred
back to the government and the old landowner could not, by himself,
institute another person as the new tenant-beneficiary.

2017 ALFONSO DIGAN v. Malines, G.R. No. 183004, TRANSFER OF AWARDED LANDS In fine, the general rule is that any transfer of ownership over tenanted
December 6, 2017
 rice and/or corn lands after 21 October 1972 to persons other than the
heirs of the landowner, via hereditary succession, is prohibited. However,
ABANDONMENT when the conveyance was made in favor of the actual tenant-tiller
thereon, such sale is valid

For abandonment to exist, the following requisites must concur: (1) a

clear intent to abandon; and (2) an external act showing such intent.39
What is critical in abandonment is intent which must be shown to be
deliberate and clear. The intent must be established by the factual failure
to work on the landholding absent any valid reason as well as a clear
intent, which is shown as a separate element.

Julian S. Lebrudo and Reynaldo L. Lebrudo vs. WAIVER OF RIGHTS OF FARMER SEC. 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. – Lands acquired by
Remedios Loyola, G.R. No. 181370, March 9, 2011 BENEFICIARY beneficiaries under this ACT may not be sold, transferred or
conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the
AND government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a
period of ten (10) years: Provided, however, That the children or the
TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from the
LANDS government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of the
availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to the Barangay Agrarian
Reform Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the land is situated.
The Provincial Agrarian Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM), as herein
provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice thereof by the BARC.

In the present case, Lebrudo insists that he is entitled to one-half portion

of the lot awarded to Loyola under the CARP as payment for shouldering
all the expenses for the transfer of the title of the lot from Loyola’s mother,
Cristina Hugo, to Loyola’s name. Lebrudo used the
two SinumpaangSalaysay executed by Loyola alloting to him the one-half
portion of the lot as basis for his claim.

Lebrudo’s assertion must fail. The law expressly prohibits any sale,
transfer or conveyance by farmer-beneficiaries of their land reform rights
within 10 years from the grant by the DAR. The law provides for four
exceptions and Lebrudo does not fall under any of the exceptions.
In Maylem v. Ellano,21 we held that the waiver of rights and interests over
landholdings awarded by the government is invalid for being violative of
agrarian reform laws. Clearly, the waiver and transfer of rights to the lot
as embodied in the SinumpaangSalaysay executed by Loyola is void for
 falling under the 10-year prohibitory period specified in RA 6657.

2018 DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, QUEZON RETENTION RIGHTS OF L.O. In no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares.
CITY & PABLO MENDOZA vs. ROMEO C.
CARRIEDO (G.R. No.176549. October 10, 2018)
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or
contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner: Provided, however, That in
case the area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted, the
tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a
beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or
comparable features.

The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is

subject to qualification by the legislature

In case of multiple or series of transfers/sales, the first five (5) hectares

sold/conveyed without DAR clearance and the corresponding titles issued
by the Register of Deeds (ROD) in the name of the transferee shall, under
the principle of estoppel, be considered valid and shall be treated as the
transferor/s' retained area but in no case shall the transferee exceed the
five-hectare landholding ceiling pursuant to Sections 6, 70 and 73(a) of
R.A. No. 6657. (ON MR)
2017 HEIRS OF NUNEZ vs HEIRS OF VILLANOZA (G.R. Under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the landowner may
No. 218666. April 26, 2017) RETENTION RIGHTS OF L.O. retain a maximum of five (5) hectares of land, but this land must be
compact or contiguous. If the area selected for retention is tenanted, the
tenant-farmer may choose to remain in the area or be a beneficiary in a
comparable area.

G.R. No. 181370 March 9, 2011 SEC 27, R.A. 6657, 10-YEAR G.R. No. 181370 March 9, 2011
PROHIBITORY PERIOD
JULIAN S. LEBRUDO and REYNALDO L. LEBRUDO, JULIAN S. LEBRUDO and REYNALDO L. LEBRUDO, Petitioners, vs.
Petitioners, vs. REMEDIOS LOYOLA, Respond
REMEDIOS LOYOLA, Respond
2018 LBP vs. ALCANTARA G.R. No. 187423, February 28, JUST COMPENSATION SACS are obligated to apply compensation valuation factors
2018.
Until and unless declared invalid in a proper case, the basic formulas
contained in DAR administrative orders partake of the nature of statutes;
hence, courts have the positive legal duty to consider, and not disregard,
their use and application in the determination of just compensation for
agricultural lands covered by R.A. No. 6657
 The basic formulas contained in DAR administrative orders partake of the
nature of statutes; hence, courts have the positive legal duty to consider,
and not disregard, their use and application in the determination of just
compensation for agricultural lands covered by R.A. No. 6657

2018 APO FRUITS CORP vs. LBP and DAR G.R. No. JUST COMPENSATION Until and unless declared invalid in a proper case, the DAR formulas
218020-21, March 21, 2018. INTEREST partake of the nature of statutes, which under the 2009 amendment
became law itself, and thus have in their favor the presumption of legality,
such that courts shall consider, and not disregard, these formulas in the
determination of just compensation for properties covered by the CARP.

Just Compesation. The award of interest is imposed in the nature of

damages for delay in payment which, in effect, makes the obligation on
the part of the government one of forbearance to ensure prompt payment
of the value of the land and limit the opportunity loss of the owner

2017 LANDBANK v SPOUSES CHU (G.R. No. 192345, JUST COMPENSATION Determination of just compensation is fundamentally a judicial function
Mar. 29, 2017) vested in the RTC; the judge must still exercise his discretion within the
bounds of law.

2017 LANDBANK v HEIRS OF MARCOS, SR., (G.R. No. JUST COMPENSATION RTC-SACs are not strictly bound to apply the DAR formula to its minute
175726, March 22, 2017) detail, particularly when faced with situations that do not warrant the
formula's strict application; they may, in the exercise of their discretion,
relax the formula's application to fit the factual situations before them.
They must, however, clearly explain the reason for any deviation from the
factors and formula that the law and the rules have provided

2017 LANDBANK V. PHIL-AGRO INDUSTRIAL CORP., JUST COMPENSATION Legal interest should be reckoned from the issuance dates of the
(G.R. No. 193987, Mar. 13, 2017) LEGAL INTEREST Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs).

2017 Department of Agrarian Reform v. Galle G.R. No. JUST COMPENSATION Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the property
171836 October 2, 2017 sought to be expropriated. The measure is not the taker's gain but the
owner's loss. The compensation, to be just, must be fair not only to the
owner but also to the taker. Even as undervaluation would deprive the
owner of his property without due process, so too would its overvaluation
unduly favor him to the prejudice of the public.
 Eminent domain is an indispensable attribute of sovereignty and inherent
in government. However, such power is not boundless; it is circumscribed
by two constitutional requirements: "first, that there must be just
compensation, and second, that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty
or property without due process of law

2017 LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. HEIRS OF JUST COMPENSATION Just Compensation for parcels of land taken pursuant to the agrarian
LORENZO TAÑADA AND EXPEDITAEBARLE (G.R. reform program as "the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from
No. 170506 January 11, 2017)
its owner by the expropriator." The measure of compensation is not the
taker's gain but the owner's loss. Just compensation means the
equivalent for the value of the property at the time of its taking. It means a
fair and full equivalent value for the loss sustained. All the facts as to the
condition of the property and its surroundings, its improvements and
capabilities should be considered and

It is elementary that rules and regulations issued by administrative bodies

to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce, have the force of
law, and are entitled to great respect. Administrative issuances partake of
the nature of a statute and have in their favor a presumption of legality.
As such, courts cannot ignore administrative issuances especially when,
as in this case, its validity was not put in issue. Unless an administrative
order is declared invalid, courts have no option but to apply the same.

2017 VIVENCIO MATEO ET. AL. VS. DAR (G.R. JUST COMPENSATION In computation of the just compensation to be paid to owners of land
NO.86339. FEBRUARY 15, 2017) subjected to the Agrarian Reform Program, the guidelines prescribed
under Sec. 17 or RA 6657 shall be apply, as well as the formulas and
regulations issued by DAR.

2017 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Heirs of Jose JUST COMPENSATION Although the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial
Tapulado, G.R. No. 199141, March 8, 2017 function, the RTC, sitting as a SAC, must consider the factors mentioned
in Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657.18 The RTC is bound to observe the basic
factors and formula prescribed by the DAR pursuant to Section 17 of R.A.
No. 6657.19 Nonetheless, when the RTC is faced with situations that do
not warrant the strict application of the formula, it may, in the exercise of
its discretion, relax the formula's application to fit the factual situations
before it. In such a case, however, the RTC is duty bound to explain and
justify in clear terms the reason for any deviation from the prescribed
factors and formula.
2017 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Rural Bank of JUST COMPENSATION Settled is the rule that when the agrarian reform process is still
Hermosa (Bataan) Inc. G.R. No. 181953, July 25, incomplete, such as in this case where the just compensation due the
2017.
landowner has yet to be settled, just compensation should be determined
and the process be concluded under RA 6657,"30 as amended

For purposes of determining just compensation, the fair market value of

an expropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the
time of taking," or the time when the landowner was deprived of the use
and benefit of his property, such as when title is transferred in the name
of the Republic of the Philippines (Republic),31 or Certificates of Land
Ownership Award (CLOAs) are issued in favor of the farmer-beneficiaries.

2017 HEIRS OF PABLO FELICIANO, JR., namely: JUST COMPENSATION While the RTC, acting as a Special Agrarian Court (SAC), is not strictly
LOURDES FELICIANO TUDLA, GLORIA FELICIANO
bound by the different formula created by the DAR since the valuation of
CAUDAL, GABRIELA FELICIANO BAUTISTA, TIME OF TAKING
ANGELA FELICIANO LUCAS, DONNA CELESTE property or the determination of just compensation is essentially a judicial
FELICIANO-GATMAITAN, CYNTHIA CELESTE function which is vested with the courts, and not with administrative
FELICIANO, and HECTOR REUBEN FELICIANO, agencies, it must explain and justify terms in clear the reason for any
represented by its assignee, VICTORIA ALDA REYES
ESPIRITU vs.LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES deviation from the prescribed factors and the applicable formula.
G.R. No. 215290 January 11, 2017.

Just compensation must be valued at the time of taking, or the time when
the owner was deprived of the use and benefit of his property, in this
case, when emancipation patents were issued in the names of the farmer
beneficiaries in 1989.45 Hence, the evidence to be presented by the
parties before the RTC for the valuation of the subject land must be
based on the values prevalent on such time of taking for like agricultural
lands.
2019 LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner vs. JUST COMPENSATION The Court thus finds and so holds that the provision of AO No. 2, series of
PRADO VERDE CORPORATION, Respondent G.R. 2009, insofar as it distinguishes the applicability of Sec. 17 of RA [No.]
No. 208004, July 30, 2019
6657, as amended by RA No. 9700, is void and inapplicable in the
determination of just compensation because it is contrary to the spirit of
RA No. 9700 which never made a distinction on the applicability of Sec.
17.

In eminent domain, the determination of just compensation is principally a

judicial function of the Regional Trial Court, acting as a Special Agrarian
 Court.

Out of regard for the DAR's expertise as the concerned implementing

agency, courts should henceforth consider the factors stated in Section
17 of RA 6657, as amended, as translated into the applicable DAR
formulas in their determination of just compensation for the properties
covered by the said law.

It is doctrinal that to be considered as just, the compensation must be fair

and equitable, and the landowners must have received it without any
delay. The requirement of the law is not satisfied by the mere deposit with
any accessible bank.

The delay in the payment of just compensation is a forbearance of

money. As such, it is necessarily entitled to earn interest

2019 LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES PETITIONER, JUST COMPENSATION In agrarian reform proceeding, theLBP performing a governmental
VS. ORLANDO R. BALDOZA AND HEIRS OF function is exempt from the payment of costs of suit.
SPOUSES JAIME R. BALDOZA AND VIOLETA
BALDOZA, NAMELY: VINCENT BALDOZA, JUAN
BALDOZA, CATHERINE BALDOZA, JOAN In agrarian expropriation proceedings, the appointment of commissioners
BALDOZA* AND GIRLIE is discretionary on the part of the court or upon the instance of any of the
BALDOZA, RESPONDENTS. GR No. 221571, July parties.
29, 2019.

2019 LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. HEIRS OF JUST COMPENSATION It is doctrinal that the concept of just compensation contemplates of just
THE ESTATE OF MARIANO AND ANGELA VDA. DE and timely payment (prompt payment). It embraces not only the correct
VENERACION, NAMELY: PORFERIA V. VIDOLA,
ENRIQUETA Q. VENERACION, SONIA VDA. DE
determination of the amount to be paid to the landowner, but also the
VENERACION, REMEDIOS VDA. DE MARASIGAN, payment of the land within a reasonable time from its taking, as otherwise
SOLDELICIA V. FLORES, JOSE Q. VENERACION, compensation cannot be considered "just," for the owner is made to suffer
ROSARIO VDA. DE VENERACION, AND the consequence of being immediately deprived of his land while being
CRISOSTOMO Q. VENERACION, REPRESENTED made to wait for years before actually receiving the amount necessary to
BY THEIR ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, CRISOSTOMO Q.
VENERACION, REPRESENTED BY THEIR
cope with his loss.
ATTORNEY-IN-FACT, CRISOSTOMO Q.
VENERACION G.R. NO. 233401, June 17, 2019.

2019 LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. LUCY JUST COMPENSATION The final determination of just compensation is vested in RTC. RTC,
GRACE AND ELMA GLORIA FRANCO, sitting as SACs may deviate from the basic formula provided by
REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT VICENTE
GUSTILLO, JR. G.R. No. 203242, March 12, 2019.
administrative agencies if it finds, in its discretion, that other factors must
be taken into account in the determination of just compensation.
 Deviation, however, must be grounded on a reasoned explanation based
on the evidence on record. Absent this, the deviation will be considered
as grave abuse of discretion

2019 LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ESPERANZA JUST COMPENSATION The RTCs, sitting as SACs may relax the application of the DAR formula,
BRIONES-BLANCO, ROSARIO R. BRIONES, MARIA if warranted by the circumstances of the case and provided that the court
CELSA BRIONES, EMMA BRIONES-MARCAIDA,
MILAGROS BRIONES-ASPRER, CARMELITA
explains its deviation from the factors or formula from DAR.
BRIONESCABUNDOC, REBECCA
BRIONESBUNALOS, FERDINAND R. BRIONES,
LUNA C. BRIONES, MARILOU
BRIONESCHIONGBIAN, JOSE C. BRIONES, JR.,
MANUEL C. BRIONES II, EVELYN G. BRIONES,
MARIA CELESTINA G. BRIONES, MARIA CRISTITA
G. BRIONES, MARIA ANTONETTE G. BRIONES,
MANUEL ANTONIO G. BRIONES, MARIANO G.
BRIONES, ALLAN G BRIONES and JOCELYN B.
AVILA G.R. No. 213199, March 27, 2019
2019 JMA AGRICULTURAL DEV’T CORPORATION vs JUST COMPENSATION Until and unless declared invalid in a proper case, the Department of
LBP G.R. No. 206026, July 10, 2019 Agrarian Reform (DAR) formulas partake of the nature of statutes, which
under the 2009 amendment became law itself, and thus have in their
favor the presumption of legality, such that courts shall consider, and not
disregard, these formulas in the determination of just compensation for
properties covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP); and The Regional Trial Courts, sitting as Special Agrarian Courts
cannot ignore the compensation formula of DAR.

2019 LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, Petitioner vs. JUST COMPENSATION The determination of just compensation is principally a judicial function of
EUGENIA UY, JOSE UY, RENATO UY, ARISTO UY, the RTC acting as special agrarian court. In the exercise of such judicial
and TERESITA UY-OLVEDA, Respondents, GR No.
221313, Dec. 05, 2019
function, however, the RTC must consider both the guidelines set forth in
RA No. 6657 and the valuation formula under the applicable
Administrative order of the DAR.

The concept of just compensation embraces not only the correct

determination of the amount to be paid to the owners of the land, but also
payment within a reasonable time from its taking.

2019 LANDBANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, PETITIONER JUST COMPENSATION The amount of just compensation is based on prevailing values at the
VS. MA. AURORA [RITA] DEL ROSARIO AND time of taking.
IRENE DEL ROSARIO, RESPONDENTS. GR No.
210105, September 02, 2019
Any new valuation method introduced by the DAR pursuant to RA 9700
 cannot be given retroactive effect as to cover agricultural properties taken
prior to the enactment of said law.

In determining just compensation, courts are duty bound to apply both the
compensation valuation factors enumerated under Section 17 of RA 6657
and the applicable basic formula.

The right to just compensation includes the right to be paid on time.

2019 LBP vs LINA B. NAVARRO G.R. No. 196264, June JUST COMPENSATION Facts stipulated during pre-trial are considered judicial admissions which
06, 2019 are legally binding on the parties making them. Even if placed at a
INTEREST disadvantageous position, a party may not be allowed to rescind them
unilaterally and must assume the consequence of the disadvantage;
JUDICIAL ADMISSIONS
However, the rule on conclusiveness of judicial admission admits of two
exceptions: 1) when it is shown that the admission was made through
palpable mistake; and 2) when it is shown that no such admission was in
fact made;

Fact stipulated is not binding on a declarant if it was proved that it was

made through palpable mistake such as in the case of a clerical
oversight;

The award of interest is imposed in the nature of damages for delay in

payment which, in effect, makes the obligation on the part of the
government one of forbearance to ensure prompt payment of the value of
the land and limit the opportunity loss of the owner.

2016 JOCELYN S. LIMKAICHONG v. LBP, G.R. No. JUST COMPENSATION It only means that, in accordance with settled principles of administrative
158464, August 02, 2016 law, primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR as an administrative agency
to determine in a preliminary manner the reasonable compensation to be
paid for the lands taken under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program, but such determination is subject to challenge in the courts.
2016 LBP VS. EDGARDO L SANTOS/EDGARDO L.
SANTOS VS. LBP G.R. No. 213863 January 27, JUST COMPENSATION The concept of just compensation contemplates of just and timely
2016.
payment. It embraces not only the correct determination of the amount to
be paid to the landowner, but also the payment of the land within a
 reasonable time from its taking, as otherwise, compensation cannot be
considered "just," for the owner is made to suffer the consequence of
being immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for years
before actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss.

2015 LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HEIRS OF JUST COMPENSATION The just compensation for the subject lands should be computed based
JESUS ALSUA (GR. 211351; February 4,2015) on the factors stated in Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended.

2015 SPOUSES NILO MERCADO v. LANDBANK OF JUST COMPENSATION In eminent domain, the determination of just compensation is principally a
THE PHILIPPINES - G.R. No. 196707, June 17, judicial function of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) acting as a Special
2015
Agrarian Court (SAC). In the exercise of such judicial function, however,
the RTC must consider both Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657 (RA
6657 or Comprehensive Land Reform Law of 1988) and the valuation
formula under applicable Administrative Order (A.O.) of the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR).

RTC must consider the guidelines set forth in Section 17 of RA 6657 and
as translated into a formula embodied in DAR A.O. No. 5. However, it
may deviate from these factors/formula if the circumstances warrant or,
as stated in Sta. Romana, "if the situations before it does not warrant its
application." In such a case, the RTC, as held in Yatco, must clearly
explain the reason for deviating from the aforesaid factors or formula.

RULES OF PROCEDURE
2016 Spouses Edmond Lee and Helen Huang vs. Land RIGHT TO APPEAL NOT A MATTER It bears to stress that the right to appeal is a statutory right and the one
Bank Of The Philippines, G.R. No. 218867, February OF RIGHT who seeks to avail that right must comply with the statute or rules.38
17, 2016
2013 Boardwalk Business Ventures, Inc vs. Elvira A. RIGHT TO APPEAL NOT A MATTER "The right to appeal is neither a natural right nor is it a component of due
Villareal, G.R. No. 181182, April 10, 2013 OF RIGHT process. It is a mere statutory privilege, and may be exercised only in the
manner and in accordance with the provisions of law."32 This being so,
x xx an appealing party must strictly comply with the requisites laid down
in the Rules of Court. Deviations from the Rules cannot be tolerated. The
rationale for this strict attitude is not difficult to appreciate as the Rules
are designed to facilitate the orderly disposition of appealed cases. In an
age where courts are bedeviled by clogged dockets, the Rules need to be
followed by appellants with greater fidelity. Their observance cannot be
left to the whims and caprices of appellants. x x x33
In this case, petitioner must comply with the following requirements laid
down in Rule 42 of the Rules of Court:
 At this point, it must be emphasized that since petitioner’s right of appeal
is a mere statutory privilege, it was bound to a strict observance of the
periods of appeal, which requirements are not merely mandatory, but
jurisdictional.
In light of the above conclusions, the Court finds no need to further
discuss the other issues raised by the parties.
Heirs Of Fermin Aranias. FORUM SHOPPING Forum shopping is the institution of two or more actions or proceedings
Intestate Estate Of Magdalena R. Sangalang, G.R. involving the same parties for the same cause of action,
No. 193208, December 13, 2017
either simultaneously or successively, on the supposition that one or the
other court would make a favorable disposition. Forum shopping may be
resorted to by any party against whom an adverse judgment or order has
been issued in one forum, in an attempt to seek a favorable opinion in
another, other than by appeal or a special civil action for certiorari. Forum
shopping trifles with the courts, abuses their processes, degrades the
administration of justice and congest court dockets. What is critical is the
vexation brought upon the courts and the litigants by a party who asks
different courts to rule on the same or related causes and grant the same
or substantially the same reliefs and in the process creates the possibility
of conflicting decisions being rendered by the different fora upon the
same issues. Willful and deliberate violation of the rule against forum
shopping is a ground for summary dismissal of the case; it may also
constitute direct contempt.
To determine whether a party violated the rule against forum shopping,
the most important factor to ask is whether the elements of litis
pendentia are present, or whether a final judgment in one case will
amount to res judicata in another; otherwise stated, the test for
determining forum shopping is whether in the two (or more) cases
pending, there is identity of parties, rights or causes of action, and reliefs
sought.
Litis pendentia as a ground for the dismissal of a civil action refers to that
situation wherein another action is pending between the same parties for
the same cause of action, such that the second action becomes
unnecessary and vexatious. The underlying principle of litis pendentia is
the theory that a party is not allowed to vex another more than once
regarding the same subject matter and for the same cause of action. This
theory is founded on the public policy that the same subject matter should
not be the subject of controversy in courts more than once, in order that
possible conflicting judgments may be avoided for the sake of the stability
of the rights and status of persons.
 The requisites of litis pendentia are: (a) the identity of parties, or at least
such as representing the same interests in both actions; (b) the identity
ofrights asserted and relief prayed for, the relief being founded on the
same facts; and (c) the identity of the two cases such that judgment in
one, regardless of which party is successful, would amount to res
judicata in the other.25

2014 Narciso Zapanta et. al RULES OF PROCEDURE EXIST FOR A Time and again, we held that rules of procedure exist for a noble purpose,
vs. Co King Ki, G.R. No. 191694, December 3, 2014 NOBLE PURPOSE, and to disregard such rules, in the guise of liberal construction, would be
to defeat such purpose. Procedural rules are not to be disdained as mere
technicalities. They may not be ignored to suit the convenience of a party.
Adjective law ensures the effective enforcement of substantive rights
through the orderly and speedy administration of justice. Rules are not
intended to hamper litigants or complicate litigation; they help provide a
vital system of justice where suitors may be heard following judicial
procedure and in the correct forum. Public order and our system of justice
are well served by a conscientious observance by the parties of the
procedural rules.28
2013 RAYMUNDO CODERIAS, as represented by his RULES OF PROCEDURE Litigants should have the amplest opportunity for a proper and just
Attorney-In-Fact, MARLON M. disposition of their cause – free, as much as possible, from the
CODERIAS, Petitioner, vs. ESTATE OF JUAN
CHIOCO, represented by its Administrator, DR. RAUL
constraints of procedural technicalities. In the interest of its equity
R. CARAG, Respondent. G.R. No. 180476, June 26, jurisdiction, the Court may disregard procedural lapses so that a case
2013 may be resolved on its merits.

Rules of procedure should promote, not defeat, substantial justice.

Hence, the Court may opt to apply the Rules liberally to resolve
substantial issues raised by the parties.

City of Dagupan vs.Ester F. Maramba, G.R. No. RULES OF PROCEDURE ARE MERE We said that the general aim of procedural law is to facilitate the
174411, 2, 2014 TOOLS TO FACILITATE ATTAINMENT application of justice to the rival claims of contending parties, bearing in
OF JUSTICE mind that procedural rules are created not to hinder or delay but to
facilitate and promote the administration of justice. In rendering decisions,
courts must not be too dogmatic. A complete view must be taken in order
to render a just and equitable judgment. It is far better to dispose of a
case on the merits, which is a primordial end, than on technicality that
may result in injustice.
The rules of procedure are mere tools designed to facilitate the
attainment of justice. Their strictand rigid application especially on
 technical matters, which tends to frustrate rather than promote substantial
justice, must be avoided. Even the Revised Rules of Court envision this
liberality. Technicality, when it deserts its proper office as an aid to justice
and becomes its great hindrance and chief enemy, deserves scant
consideration from the courts. (Citations omitted.)73

Dr. Joseph L. Malixi, Dr. Emelita Q. Firmacion, TECHNICAL RULES SERVE A Technical rules serve a purpose. They are not made to discourage
Iviarietta Mendoza, Aurora Agustin, Nora Aguilar, Ma. PURPOSE. litigants from pursuing their case nor are they fabricated out of thin air.
Theresa M. Befetel, And Myrna Nisayvs. Dr. Glory V.
Baltazar, November 22, 2017, G.R. No. 208224
Every section in the Rules of Court and every issuance of this Court with
respect to procedural rules are promulgated with the objective of a more
efficient judicial system.

2019 AMONG THE ENDS OF MOTION FOR Among the ends to which a motion for reconsideration is addressed, one is precisel
VALEN CIA (BUKIDNON) FARMERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION, INC., REPRESENTED BY
RECONSIDERATION its THE BOARD
ruling OF
is erroneous and improper, contrary to the law or the evidence and in doin
DIRECTORS OF FARMERS COOPERATIVE MARKETING ASSOCIATION (FACOMA) AS TRUSTEES, HEREIN REPRESENTED BY
DAVID M. PORTICOS, BOARD CHAIRMAN, Petitioner
of necessity upon the issues passed upon by the court. If a motion for reconsiderati
vs. issues, the consequence would be that after a decision is rendered, the losing party
only M.
HEIRS OF AMANTE P. CABOTAJE, NAMELY: ESTHER M. CABOTAJE, AMANTE M. CABOTAJE, JR., JULINDA motions for reopening and new trial.
CABOTAJE,
FERNANDO M. CABOTAJE, CHRISTINA IMELDA M. CABOTAJE-NELAM, ALL HEREIN REPRESENTED BY ESTHER M.
CABOTAJE, G.R. No. 219984, April 3, 2019

2019 LGU STA CRUZ DAVAO DEL SUR vs PROVINCIAL INJUCTION The Court stresses that procedural rules are not to be belittled or
OFFICE OF DAR, DIGOS CITY, DAVAO DEL SUR dismissed simply because their non-observance may have resulted in
G.R. NO. 204232, October 16, 2019.
PROCEDURAL RULES prejudice to a party’s substantive rights. Like all rules, they are required to
be followed except only for the most persuasive of reasons.

With the exclusion of the lower courts, this Court and the CA has
concurrent jurisdiction to issue an injunctive writ as against the
Department of Agrarian Reform in the implementation of the CARL.
However, such concurrence does not give the petitioner unrestricted
freedom of choice of court forum consistent with the principle of hierarchy
of courts.

2018 ANTIG vs. ANTIPUESTO (G.R. No. 192396, Jan. 17, INJUNCTION The SAC has no jurisdiction over the subject petition for injunction and,
2018) correspondingly, has no authority to issue the subject injunction.

2018 HEIRS OF RAMON ARCE, SR. vs DAR G. R. No. SC NOT A TRIER OF FACTS; As a general rule, factual issues are not within the province of SC.
228503, July 25, 2018. EXCEPTION However, if the factual findings of the government agency and the CA are
 conflicting, or the evidence that was misapprehended was of such nature
as to compel a contrary conclusion if properly appreciated, the reviewing
court may delve into the records and examine for itself the questioned
findings.

2018 ROBUSTOM AGRI. CORP vs DAR G.R. No. IMPORT OF 30 of RA No. 9700 Section 30 of RA No. 9700 did not vest any kind of jurisdiction over any
221484, November 19, 2018. kind of case unto the regular courts.
NOTICE OF COVERAGE
RA No. 9700 did not intend to fix June 30, 2014 as an absolute deadline
for the completion and cessation of all land acquisition and distribution
proceedings; the law rather sets the said date as the final date when such
proceedings may be initiated by the DAR

A proceeding for compulsory land acquisition and distribution is deemed

commenced by the issuance of a notice of coverage.

A notice of coverage is a document that aims to inform the landowner that

his land has been determined by the DAR, on the basis of the latter's
preliminary identification, to be under the coverage of the agrarian reform
program.

2017 HEIRS OF FERMIN ARANIA, G.R. No. 193208 , ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT Extrinsic fraud refers to any fraudulent act of the prevailing party in
December 13, 2017 litigation committed outside of the trial of the case, whereby the defeated
FORUM SHOPPING party is prevented from fully exhibiting his side of the case by fraud or
deception practiced on him by his opponent, such as by keeping him
IMMUTABILITY OF JUDGMENT away from court; by giving him a false promise of a compromise; or where
the defendant never had the knowledge of the suit, being kept in
ignorance by the acts of the plaintiff; or where an attorney fraudulently or
without authority connives at his defeat.

"after the trial court has lost jurisdiction, the motion for execution pending
appeal may be filed in the appellate court." As a corollary proposition, a
challenge to a writ of execution pending appeal issued by the trial court
should be brought before the appellate court after the former has lost
jurisdiction over the case.

2017 LBP v. DALAUTA, August 8, 2017 G.R. No. 190004 JURISDICTION OF SAC The jurisdiction of the Regional Trial Courts is not any less "original and
exclusive" because the question is first passed upon by the DAR, as the
 PRECRIPTIVE PERIOD OF FILING judicial proceedings are not a continuation of the administrative
PETITION FOR DETERMINATION OF determination. For that matter, the law may provide that the decision of
JUST COMPENSATION the DAR is final and unappealable.

It would be well to emphasize that the taking of property under R.A. No.
6657 is an exercise of the power of eminent domain by the State. The
valuation of property or determination of just compensation in eminent
domain proceedings is essentially a judicial function which is vested with
the courts and not with administrative agencies.

On prescription. Period of filing original action for determination of just

compensation to the RTC no longer 15 days but 10 years

MATEO v. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN JURISDICTION On jurisdiction and the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies:
REFORM, G.R. No. 186339 Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657, in part, provides that the DAR is vested with
EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE ''primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters"
REMEDIES and "exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of agrarian reform" except those falling under the
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources. Section 57, on the other hand,
confers "special" and "original and exclusive" jurisdiction to the SAC over
all petitions of landowners for the determination of just compensation

2017 HEIRS OF ELIZA Q. ZOLETA VS LBP and DARAB CERTIORARI DARAB possesses no power to issue writs of certiorari
G.R. No. 205128 August 09, 2017

2016 SPOUSES RAMON and LIGAYA GONZALES v. EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE However, it must be clarified that the aforementioned doctrine is not
MARMAINE REALTY CORPORATION, represented REMEDIES; EXCEPTION absolute as it is subject to certain exceptions; one of which is when the
by MARIANO MANALO , G.R. No. 214241, January
13, 2016
question involved is purely legal and will ultimately have to be decided
by the courts of justice.

2016 MALABANAN v. HEIRS OF ALFREDO LEGAL STANDING that farmer-beneficiaries who are not approved awardees of CARP have
RESTRIVERA, G.R. No. 185312, December 01, 2016 no legal standing to question the exclusion of an agricultural land from
CARP coverage. This pronouncement is anchored on the rule that any
person seeking legal relief must have a real or present substantial
interest, as opposed to mere expectancy; or a future, contingent,
subordinate, or consequential interest in the matter under litigation
2016 LBP VS. EDGARDO L SANTOS/EDGARDO L. GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION Grave abuse of discretion connotes an arbitrary or despotic exercise of
SANTOS VS. LBP G.R. No. 213863 January 27, power due to passion, prejudice or personal hostility; or the whimsical,
2016.
RES JUDICATA arbitrary, or capricious exercise of power that amounts to an evasion or
refusal to perform a positive duty enjoined by law or to act at all in
contemplation of law. For an act to be struck down as having been done
with grave abuse of discretion, the abuse must be patent and gross;

Obiter dictum refers to an opinion expressed upon some question of law

that was not necessary in the determination of the case before it. It is a
remark made, or opinion expressed, by a judge, in his decision upon a
cause by the way, that is, incidentally or collaterally, and not directly upon
the question before him, or upon a point not necessarily involved in the
determination of the cause, or introduced by way of illustration, or analogy
or argument. It lacks the force of an adjudication, being a mere
expression of an opinion with no binding force for purposes
of res judicata;

SPOUSES CONRADO ANTONIO and AVELYN Res judicata by conclusiveness of But where there is identity of parties in the first and second cases,
ANTONIO vs. judgment but no identity of causes of action, the first judgment is conclusive only as
JULITA SAYMAN VDA. DE MONJE, substituted by
her heirs, namely: ANGELINA MONJE-VILLAMOR,
to those matters actually and directly controverted and determined and
LUZVISMINDA MONJE-CORTEL, MARRIETA not as to matters merely involved therein. This is the concept of res
MONJE-ORTICO, LEOPOLDO MONJE, judicata known as "conclusiveness of judgment." Stated differently, any
CONCEPCION SAYMAN-MONJE, and ROLINDA right, fact or matter in issue directly adjudicated or necessarily involved in
MONJE-CALO, G.R. No. 149624, September 29, the determination of an action before a competent court in which
2010
judgment is rendered on the merits is conclusively settled by the
judgment therein and cannot again be litigated between the parties and
their privies whether or not the claim, demand, purpose, or subject matter
of the two actions is the same.

Stated differently, conclusiveness of judgment finds application when a

fact or question has been squarely put in issue, judicially passed upon,
and adjudged in a former suit by a court of competent jurisdiction. The
fact or question settled by final judgment or order binds the parties to that
action (and persons in privity with them or their successors-in-interest),
and continues to bind them while the judgment or order remains standing
and unreversed by proper authority on a timely motion or petition; the
conclusively-settled fact or question cannot again be litigated in any future
 or other action between the same parties or their privies and successors-
in-interest, in the same or in any other court of concurrent jurisdiction,
either for the same or for a different cause of action. Thus, only the
identities of parties and issues are required for the operation of the
principle of conclusiveness of judgment.

2015 SECRETARY OF DAR V. NEMESIO DUMAGPI REAL PARTY IN INTEREST As the lead agency mandated to implement the government's agrarian
REPRESENTED BY NELSON DUMAGPI (G.R. No. reform program, the DAR is the real party in interest, since at issue is the
195412. February 4, 2015)
JURISDICTION validity of its actions comprising the determination of the qualified
agrarian reform beneficiaries and the issuance of CLOAs and titles to
VOID JUDGMENT them. Since, therefore, the implementation of agrarian law is within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary, and issues concerning the
issuance of the subject titles can only be raised to the DAR Secretary, the
RTC has no jurisdiction to decide Civil Case No.3985, and its judgment
therein is of necessity void and can never become final.

Implementation of agrarian law is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the

DAR Secretary, and issues concerning the issuance of the subject titles
can only be raised to the DAR Secretary.

A void judgment for want of jurisdiction is no judgment at all. It cannot be

the source of any right nor the creator of any obligation. All acts
performed pursuant to it and all claims emanating from it have no legal
effect. Hence, it can never become final and any writ of execution based
on it is void.

2015 Monico Ligtas v. People Of The Philippines G.R. No. FINDINGS OF THE DARAB, The uncontested declaration of the Department of Agrarian Reform
200751, August 17, 2015 CONCLUSIVE TO RTC Adjudication Board that Monico Ligtas was a tenant negates a finding of
theft beyond reasonable doubt. Tenants having rights to the harvest
RES JUDICATA cannot be deemed to have taken their own produce.

Only questions of law are allowed in a petition for review under Rule 45 of
the Rules of Court, Exception.

Res judicata

2016 Cabral vs. Adolfo et. al, G.R. No. 198160, August 31, FINDINGS OF FACTS The PARAD and the DARAB, by reason of their official mandate and
2016 functions have acquired expertise in specific matters within their
 jurisdiction, and their findings deserve full respect. Without justifiable
reason, their factual findings ought not to be altered, modified, or
reversed.
2014 Jose et.al, vs. Novida et. al., G.R.No.177374, July 2, FACTUAL FINDINGS ON GROUNDS
2014 OF CANCELLATION OF E.P This Court finds that no special and important reasons exist to warrant a
thorough review of the assailed CA Decision.1âwphi1 Quite the contrary,
the Court is satisfied with and can simply rely on the findings of the
DARAB Urdaneta, DARAB Quezon City, and the CA - as well as the very
admissions of the petitioners themselves - to the effect that respondents
fulfilled all the requirements under the agrarian laws in order to become
entitled to their EPs; that Felicisimo voluntarily surrendered and
abandoned the subject property in favor of his creditors, who took over
the land and tilled the same until 1987; that Felicisimo migrated to the
U.S.A. and became a naturalized American citizen; that in 1991,
respondents were illegally dispossessed of their landholdings through
force and intimidation by the petitioners after Felicisimo returned from
abroad; and that as between petitioners and respondents, the latter are
legally entitled to the subject property. These identical findings are not
only entitled to great respect, but even finality. For petitioners to question
these identical findings is to raise a question of fact.44

2015 Heirs of TimbangDaromimbangDimaampao, et. al vs. DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FINAL In Denso (Phils.), Inc. v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 12 we expounded on
Atty. Abdullah Alug, et. al G.R. No. 198223, February JUDGMENT AND INTERLOCUTORY the differences between a "final judgment" and an "interlocutory order," to
18, 2015
ORDER wit:
x x x A final judgment or order is one that finally disposes of a case,
leaving nothing more to be done by the Court in respect thereto, e.g., an
adjudication on the merits which, on the basis of the evidence presented
at the trial, declares categorically what the rights and obligations of the
parties are and which party is in the right; or a judgment or order that
dismisses an action on the ground, for instance, of res judicata or
prescription. Once rendered, the task of the Court is ended, as far as
deciding the controversy or determining the rights and liabilities of the
litigants is concerned. Nothing more remains to be done by the Court
except to await the parties' next move x xx and ultimately, of course, to
cause the execution of the judgment once it becomes "final" or, to use the
established and more distinctive term, "final and executory."
xxxx
 Conversely, an order that does not finally dispose of the case, and does
not end the Court's task of adjudicating the parties' contentions and
determining their rights and liabilities as regards each other, but obviously
indicates that other things remain to be done by the Court, is
"interlocutory," e.g., an order denying a motion to dismiss under Rule 16
of the Rules x xx Unlike a "final" judgment or order, which is appealable,
as above pointed out, an "interlocutory" order may not be questioned on
appeal except only as part of an appeal that may eventually be taken
from the final judgment rendered in the case.13

2015 Jose Romulo L.FRanciscovs.Loyola Plans NOTICE TO COUNSEL NOTICE TO Case law instructs that when a client is represented by counsel, notice to
Consolidated Inc., Jesusa Concepcion and Gerardo B. CLIENT counsel is notice to client.
Mozon, G.R. No. 194134, February 1, 2016

2014 Absolute Management Corporation vs. Metropolitan LAWYER NOT REQUIRED TO Citing this Honorable Court’s rulings in the cases of Land Bank of the
Bank And Trust Company, G.R. No. 190277, July 23, PRESENT WRITTEN AUTHORIZATION Philippines vs. Pamintuan Development Co.x x x and Cebu Stevedoring
2014
Co. vs. Ramoletex x x[,] the CA highlighted the established principles that
a lawyer is not required to present a written authorization from a client
such that even the absence of a formal notice of entry of appearance will
not even invalidate the acts performed by counsel in the client’s name
2022 JOSE OCA, ISABELO OCA, RODOLFO O. GUTLAY, ACTIVE PARTICIPATION OF A PARTY that a party may be barred by estoppel by laches from invoking this plea
and JOSE ABRAZALDOvs.COURT OF APPEALS for the first time on appeal for the purpose of annulling everything done in
and SERGIO O. ABALOS, G.R. No. 144817, March 7,
2002 ESTOPPEL the case with the active participation of said party invoking the plea. 17 We
defined laches as "failure or neglect for an unreasonable and
unexplained length of time, to do that which, by exercising due diligence,
could or should have been done earlier. It is negligence or omission to
assert a right within a reasonable time, warranting presumption that the
party entitled to assert it has abandoned it or has declined to assert it." 18
2015 Ligaya Mendoza And Adelia Mendoza vs. The CLIENT IS BOUND BY THE ACTION OF furthermore, it is a well-settled principle in this jurisdiction that a client is
Honorable Court of Appeals (Eight Division), COUNSEL bound by the action of his counsel in the conduct of the case and cannot
Honorable Judge Liberato C. Cortez And
BangkoKabayan (Formerly Ibaan Rural Bank, INC.,)
be heard to complain that the result might have been different had he ·
G.R. No. 182814, July 15, 2015 proceeded differently.23 Every counsel has the implied authority to do all
acts which are necessary or, at least, incidental to the prosecution and
management of the suit in behalf of his client. And, any act performed by ·
counsel within the scope of his general and implied authority is, in the
eyes of law, regarded as the act of the client himself and consequently,
 the mistake or negligence of the client's counsel may result in the
rendition of unfavorable judgment against him. 24To rule otherwise would
result to a situation that every defeated party, in order to salvage his
case, would just have to claim neglect or mistake on the part of his
counsel as a ground for reversing an adverse judgment. There would be
no end to litigation if this were allowed as every shortcoming of counsel
could be the subject of challenge of his client through another counsel
who, if he is also found wanting, would likewise be disowned by the same
client through another counsel, and so on ad infinitum. This would render
court proceedings indefinite, tentative and subject to reopening at any
time by the mere subterfuge of replacing counsel.25
2015 Same case COUNSEL NEED NO SPA TO APPEAR As a rule where a party appears by attorney in an action or proceeding in
BEFORE COURTS a court of record, all notices or orders required to be given therein must
be given to the attorney of record. Accordingly, notices to counsel should
be properly sent to his address of record, and, unless the counsel files a
notice o f change of address, his official address remains to be that his
address of
Record.17
There is no question that in this case, petitioners' counsel was able to
receive a copy of the judgment, as evidenced by the Certification 18 issued
by the Postmaster General. As borne by the Certification, the said copy of
the judgment was duly delivered to the address on record of the
petitioners' counsel at 2/F LPC Mansion, 122 L.P. Leviste St., Salcedo
Village, Makati City and was received by Daniel Soriano, the security
guard on 15 March 2002.
While petitioners impliedly admitted the fact that the security guard in the
building where their counsel's office is located received the copy of the
judgment, they argued, however, that such receipt is not valid under the
law,. a contention which pulled the rug from under their feet exposing the
utter frailty of their position. In Balgami v. Court of Appeals, 19 the Court
instructed the counsels to device a system to ensure that official
communications would be promptly received by them, lest, they will be
chargeable with negligence, thus:

G.R. No. 165155 FORMAL SUBSTITUTION IS NOT Since respondents failed to correct their error (they did not amend the
NECESSARY WHEN HEIRS erroneous caption of their complaint to include the real parties-in-interest),
REGIONAL AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION VOLUNTARILY PARTICIPATED they cannot be insulated from the confusion which it engendered in the
BOARD, Office of the Regional Adjudicator, San
Fernando, Pampanga, CECILIA MANIEGO, JOSE
proceedings below. But at any rate, notwithstanding the erroneous
 caption and the absence of a formal substitution of parties, jurisdiction
BAUTISTA, ELIZA PACHECO, JUANITO FAJARDO, was acquired over the heirs of Avelino and Pedro who voluntarily
MARIO PACHECO, MARIANO MANANGHAYA as participated in the proceedings below. This Court has ruled that formal
heir of Antonio Mananghaya, MARCIANO
NATIVIDAD, ROBERTO BERNARDO in his personal
substitution of parties is not necessary when the heirs themselves
capacity EDILBERTO NATIVIDAD, as heir of Ismael voluntarily appeared, participated, and presented evidence during the
Natividad, JEFFREY DIAZ as BENIGNO CABINGAO, proceedings.41
MARIO GALVEZ, DELFIN SACDALAN, as heir of
Avelino Santos, Petitioners,1
vs.
COURT OF APPEALS, VERONICA R. GONZALES,
DEOGRACIAS REYES, LEONARDO REYES,
ISABELITA BALATBAT, MANUELA REYES,
WILHELMINA ALMERO, ARTURO REYES,
EPIFANIO REYES, GLORIA REYES, MARIO REYES,
TERESITA BALATBAT, LYDIA BALATBAT,
FERNANDO BALATBAT, VICENTE BALATBAT,
GILBERTO REYES, RENE REYES, EMILIA DUNGO,
BRENDA CANCIO, VICTOR REYES, and EDGARDO
REYES, represented by VERONICA R. GONZALES,
for herself and as attorney-in-fact, Respondents.

G.R. No. 155488 December 6, 2006 SERVICE OF SUMMONS Petitioner's bare allegation that the statement in the "Officer's
PRESUMPTION OF REGULARITY Return that she was personally served summons is inaccurate" is not
sufficient. A process server's certificate of service is prima facie evidence
of the facts as set out in the certificate. 35 Between the claim of non-receipt
ERLINDA R. VELAYO-FONG, petitioner,
of summons by a party against the assertion of an official whose duty is to
vs.
send notices, the latter assertion is fortified by the presumption that
official duty has been regularly performed. 36 To overcome the
SPOUSES RAYMOND and MARIA HEDY VELAYO, presumption of regularity of performance of official functions in favor of
respondents. such Officer's Return, the evidence against it must be clear and
convincing. Petitioner having been unable to come forward with the
requisite quantum of proof to the contrary, the presumption of regularity of
performance on the part of the process server stands.
SIMEON TRINIDAD PIEDAD (deceased) survived Execution of judgment Thus, the prevailing party may move for the execution of a final
and assumed by his heirs, namely: ELISEO PIEDAD and executory judgment as a matter of right within five (5) years from the
(deceased)*, JOEL PIEDAD, PUBLIO PIEDAD, JR.,
GLORIA PIEDAD, LOT PIEDAD, ABEL PIEDAD, ALI
entry of judgment. If no motion is filed within this period, the judgment is
PIEDAD, and LEE PIEDAD vs. converted to a mere right of action and can only be enforced by instituting
CANDELARIA LINEHAN BOBILLES and MARIANO a complaint for the revival of judgment within 10 years from finality of
BOBILLES, G.R. No. 208614, November 7, 2017 judgment.
 Presumption of regularity To successfully overcome such presumption of regularity, case law
demands that the evidence against it must be clear and convincing;
absent the requisite quantum of proof to the contrary, the presumption
stands deserving of faith and credit. 51 In this case, the burden of proof to
discharge such presumption lay with petitioner Yap. 52
SUSAN A. YAP vs. ELIZABETH LAGTAPON, G.R.
No. 196347, January 23, 2017

PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT/GROUNDS

2015 Alberto T. Lasala, Previously Doing Business Under GRAVE ABUSE OF DISCRETION NOT In a petition for annulment based on lack of jurisdiction, the petitioner
The Style Psf Security Agency, Petitioner, v. The A GROUND FOR ANNULMENT OF cannot rely on jurisdictional defect due to grave abuse of discretion, but
National Food Authority, Respondent. G.R. No.
171582, August 19, 2015
JUDGMENT on absolute lack of jurisdiction. As we have already held, the
concept of lack of jurisdiction as a ground to annul a judgment does
not embrace grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction.37 In Republic v. G Holdings,38 we
explained:cralawlawlibrary

Jurisdiction is not the same as the exercise of jurisdiction. As

distinguished from the exercise of jurisdiction, jurisdiction is the authority
to decide a cause, and not the decision rendered therein. Where there is
jurisdiction over the person and the subject matter, the decision on
all other questions arising in the case is but an exercise of the
jurisdiction. And the errors which the court may commit in the
exercise of jurisdiction are merely errors of judgment which are the
proper subject of an appeal.39 (emphasis supplied)chanrobleslaw

In other words, the lack of jurisdiction envisioned under Rule 47 is

the total absence of jurisdiction over the person of a party or over the
subject matter. When the court has validly acquired its jurisdiction,
annulment through lack of jurisdiction is not available when the court's
subsequent grave abuse of discretion operated to oust it of its jurisdiction.
2014 Pinausukan Seafood House, Roxas Bouley Ard, Inc. ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT Lack of jurisdiction on the part of the trial court in rendering the judgment
vs.Far East Bank & Trust Company, Now Bank of The or final order is either lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature
Philippine Islands And Hector I. Galura G.R. No. of the action, or lack of jurisdiction over the person of the petitioner. The
159926, January 20, 2014 former is a matter of substantive law because statutory law defines the
jurisdiction of the courts over the subject matter or nature of the action.
The latter is a matter of procedural law, for it involves the service of
summons or other process on the petitioner.
Yu vs. Yu, GR No. 200072, January 30,2017 ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT
ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT Annulment of judgment may only be resorted to if the ordinary remedies
Alberto T. Lasala, Previously Doing Business Under of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other appropriate remedies, are
The Style Psf Security Agency vs. THE NATIONAL
FOOD AUTHORITY, G.R. No. 171582, August 19,
no longer available without the petitioner's fault.
2015
Thus, the petitioner must be able to provide a plausible explanation for
not resorting first to the more common remedies enumerated under the
Rules. As annulment is an equitable remedy, it cannot be used to
compensate litigants who lost their case because of their negligence or
because they slept on their rights. This safeguard has been put in place
to address the concern that defeated litigants would use and abuse Rule
47 to avoid or delay an already final and executory judgment.29
Heirs Of Fermin Aranias. ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT Dare Adventure Farm Corporation v. Court of Appeals 20 provides an
Intestate Estate Of Magdalena R. Sangalang, G.R. extensive discussion on the extraordinary remedy of annulment of
No. 193208, December 13, 2017
judgment:
A petition for annulment of judgment is a remedy in equity so exceptional
in nature that it may be availed of only when other remedies are wanting,
and only if the judgment, final order or final resolution sought to be
annulled was rendered by a court lacking jurisdiction or through extrinsic
fraud. Yet, the remedy, being exceptional in character, is not allowed to
be so easily and readily abused by parties aggrieved by the final
judgments, orders or resolutions. The Court has thus instituted
safeguards by limiting the grounds for the annulment to lack of
jurisdiction and extrinsic fraud, and by prescribing in Section 1 of
Rule 47 of the Rules of Court that the petitioner should show that the
ordinary remedies of new trial, appeal, petition for relief or other
appropriate remedies are no longer available through no fault of the
petitioner. A petition for annulment that ignores or disregards any of the
safeguards cannot prosper.
The attitude of judicial reluctance towards the annulment of a judgment,
final order or final resolution is understandable, for the remedy disregards
the time-honored doctrine of immutability and unalterability of final
judgments, a solid cornerstone in the dispensation of justice by the
 courts. The doctrine of immutability and unalterability serves a two-fold
purpose, namely: (a) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and
thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and
(b) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors,
which is precisely why the courts exist. As to the first, a judgment that has
acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and is no longer to
be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct an
erroneous conclusion of fact or of law, and whether the modification is
made by the court that rendered the decision or by the highest court of
the land. As to the latter, controversies cannot drag on indefinitely
because fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice
demand that the rights and obligations of every litigant must not hang in
suspense for an indefinite period of time.21 (emphasis supplied and
citations omitted)

Green Acres Holdings, Inc. vs Victoria P. Cabral, Et COLLATERAL ATTACK In Sps. Sarmiento v. Court of Appeals, 38 this Court explained when an
Al, G.R. No. 175542, June 5, 2013 action is a direct attack on a title and when it is collateral:
An action is deemed an attack on a title when the object of the action or
proceeding is to nullify the title, and thus challenge the judgment pursuant
to which the title was decreed. The attack is direct when the object of the
action is to annul or set aside such judgment, or enjoin its enforcement.
On the other hand, the attack is indirect or collateral when, in an action to
obtain a different relief, an attack on the judgment is nevertheless made
as an incident thereof.39

Pinausukan Seafood House, Roxas Bouley Ard, Inc. ANNULMENT OF JUDGMENT The attitude of judicial reluctance towards the annulment of a judgment,
vs.Far East Bank & Trust Company, Now Bank Of The final order or final resolution is understandable, for the remedy disregards
Philippine Islands And Hector I. Galura, G.R. No.
159926, January 20, 2014
the time-honored doctrine of immutability and unalterability of final
judgments, a solid corner stone in the dispensation of justice by the
courts. The doctrine of immutability and unalterability serves a two-fold
purpose, namely: (a) to avoid delay in the administration of justice and
thus, procedurally, to make orderly the discharge of judicial business; and
(b) to put an end to judicial controversies, at the risk of occasional errors,
which is precisely why the courts exist. As to the first, a judgment that has
acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and is no longer to
be modified in any respect even if the modification is meant to correct an
erroneous conclusion of fact or of law, and whether the modification is
made by the court that rendered the decision or by the highest court of
 the land. As to the latter, controversies cannot drag on indefinitely
because fundamental considerations of public policy and sound practice
demand that the rights and obligations of every litigant must not hang in
suspense for an indefinite period of time.
The objective of the remedy of annulment of judgment or final order is to
undo or set aside the judgment or final order, and thereby grant to the
petitioner an opportunity to prosecute his cause or to ventilate his
defense. If the ground relied upon is lack of jurisdiction, the entire
proceedings are set aside without prejudice to the original action being
refiled in the proper court.28 If the judgment or final order or resolution is
set aside on the ground of extrinsic fraud, the CA may on motion order
the trial court to try the case as if a timely motion for new trial had been
granted therein.29 The remedy is by no means an appeal whereby the
correctness of the assailed judgment or final order is in issue; hence, the
CA is not called upon to address each error allegedly committed by the
trial court.3

Virginia Y. Gochanet. al vs. Charles Mancao, G.R. No. PARTY NOT IMPLEADED DOES NOT Extrinsic fraud has to be definitively established by the claimant as mere
182314, November 13, 2013. Amount to extrinsic fraud allegation does not instantly warrant the annulment of a final
judgment.39 Eiincumbitprobotio qui dicit, non qui negat. He who asserts,
not he who denies, must prove.40 Unfortunately, respondent failed to
discharge the burden.
Mark Anthony V. Zabal, Thiting Estoso Jacosalem, LOCUS STANDI Mark Anthony V. Zabal, Thiting Estoso Jacosalem, And Odon S. Bandiola
And Odon S. Bandiola V. Rodrigo R. Duterte, V. Rodrigo R. Duterte, President Of The Republic Of The Philippines;
President Of The Republic Of The Philippines;
Salvador C. Medialdea, Executive Secretary; And
Salvador C. Medialdea, Executive Secretary; And Eduardo M. Año,
Eduardo M. Año, [Secretary] Of The Department Of [Secretary] Of The Department Of Interior And Local Government G.R.
Interior And Local Government G.R. No. 238467, No. 238467, February 12, 2019
February 12, 2019

ANDY ANG vs. SEVERINO PACUNIO, TERESITA P. PARTY IN INTEREST ANDY ANG vs. SEVERINO PACUNIO, TERESITA P. TORRALBA,
TORRALBA, SUSANA LOBERANES, SUSANA LOBERANES, CHRISTOPHER N. PACUNIO, and PEDRITO P.
CHRISTOPHER N. PACUNIO, and PEDRITO P.
AZARCON, represented by their attorney-in-fact,
AZARCON, represented by their attorney-in-fact, GALILEO P.
GALILEO P. TORRALBA, G.R. No. 208928, July 8, TORRALBA, G.R. No. 208928, July 8, 2015.
2015.
G.R. No. 202611, November 23, 2015 - ABNER PETITION FOR ANNULMENT OF "In a petition for annulment of judgment based on lack of
MANGUBAT, Petitioner, v. BELEN MORGA-SEVA, JUDGMENT jurisdiction, petitioner must show not merely an abuse of jurisdictional
Respondent.
discretion but an absolute lack of jurisdiction. Lack of jurisdiction means
absence of or no jurisdiction, that is, the court should not have taken
cognizance of the petition because the law does not vest it with
JURISDICTION OVER THE SUBJECT jurisdiction over the subject matter. Jurisdiction over the nature of the
MATTER action or subject matter is conferred by law." 44 The RTC's jurisdiction over
petitions for revival of judgment had already been upheld by the Court. 45 It
was held that "[a]n action for revival of judgment may be filed either 'in the
same court where said judgment was rendered or in the place where the
ERROR IN THE EXERCISE OF plaintiff or defendant resides, or in any other place designated by the
JURISDICTION statutes which treat of the venue of actions in general.'" 46 Here, the
Complaint for revival of judgment was filed in the same court (RTC-Pili
Camarines Sur, Branch 31) which rendered the August 27, 1985 Decision
in Civil Case No. P-279. Undoubtedly, the RTC has jurisdiction over the
action. There is therefore no valid ground for the Petition for Annulment of
Final Order that Abner filed with the CA.

To the mind of the Court, Abner's flawed arguments emanate from his
misconception of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter or nature of
the action as a ground for annulment. As aptly observed by the CA, he
has confused lack of jurisdiction with error in the exercise of
jurisdiction, viz.:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary

It is settled that once jurisdiction has been acquired, it is not lost

until the court shall have disposed of the case in its entirety. [Abner's]
predecessor having elected to enforce the compromise agreement, the
RTC is still vested with jurisdiction until compliance therewith has been
fully enforced.

PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT/GROUNDS

City of Dagupan, vs.Ester F. Maramba, G.R. No. PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM Courts may set aside final and executory judgments provided that any of
174411, July 2, 2014 JUDGMENT the grounds for their grant are present.
 The presence of "fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence" must
be assessed from the circumstances of the case.

Excusable negligence as a ground for a petition for relief requires that the
negligence be so gross "that ordinary diligence and prudence could not
have guarded against it."76 This excusable negligence must also be
imputable to the party-litigant and not to his or her counsel whose
negligence binds his or her client.77 The binding effect of counsel’s
negligence ensures against the resulting uncertainty and tentativeness of
proceedings if clients were allowed to merely disown their counsels’
conduct.78

G.R. No. 199283 June 9, 2014 PETITION FOR RELIEF FROM

JUDGMEMENT In this case, a motion for reconsideration of the order denying the petition
JULIET VITUG MADARANG and ROMEO for relief from judgment is the plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the
BARTOLOME, represented by his attorneys-in-fact
and acting in their personal capacities, RODOLFO
ordinary course of law. Petitioners failed to avail themselves of this
and RUBY BARTOLOME, Petitioners, remedy. Thus, the Court of Appeals correctly dismissed petitioners’
vs. petition for certiorari.
SPOUSES JESUS D. MORALES and CAROLINA N.
MORALES
A petition for relief from judgment is an equitable remedy and is allowed
only in exceptional cases.36 It is not available if other remedies exist, such
as a motion for new trial or appeal.37

To set aside a judgment through a petition for relief, the negligence must
be so gross "that ordinary diligence and prudence could not have guarded
against."38 This is to prevent parties from "reviv[ing] the right to appeal
[already] lost through inexcusable negligence.

City of Dagupanvs.Ester F. Maramba, G.R. No. PETITION FOR RELIEF IS Rule 38 of the Rules of Court allows for the remedy called a petition for
174411, July 2, 2014 EXCEPTIONAL REMEDY relief from judgment. This isan equitable remedy "allowed in exceptional
cases when there is no other available or adequate remedy" 75 that will
allow for substantive justice.
Section 1 of Rule 38 provides for the grounds that warrant the filing of a
petition under Rule 38:
SECTION 1. Petition for relief from judgment, order, or other proceedings.
– When a judgment or final order is entered, or any other proceeding is
 thereafter taken against a party in any court through fraud, accident,
mistake, or excusable negligence, he may file a petition in such court and
in the same case praying that the judgment, order or proceeding be set
aside. (Emphasis supplied)
Courts may set aside final and executory judgments provided that any of
the grounds for their grant are present.

City of Dagupanvs.Ester F. Maramba, G.R. No. FRAUD AS A GROUND FOR PETITION The presence of "fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence" must
174411, July 2, 2014 FOR RELIEF be assessed from the circumstances of the case.
Excusable negligence as a ground for a petition for relief requires that the
negligence be so gross "that ordinary diligence and prudence could not
have guarded against it."76 This excusable negligence must also be
imputable to the party-litigant and not to his or her counsel whose
negligence binds his or her client.77 The binding effect of counsel’s
negligence ensures against the resulting uncertainty and tentativeness of
proceedings if clients were allowed to merely disown their counsels’
conduct.78
Nevertheless, this court has relaxed this rule on several occasions such
as: "(1) where [the] reckless or gross negligence of counsel deprives the
client of due process of law; (2) when[the rule’s] application will result in
outright deprivation of the client’s liberty or property; or (3) where the
interests of justice so require."79 Certainly, excusable negligence must be
proven.
Fraud as a ground for a petition for relief from judgment pertains to
extrinsic or collateral fraud.80 This court explained this type of fraud as
follows:
Where fraud is the ground, the fraud must be extrinsic or collateral. The
extrinsic or collateral fraud that invalidates a final judgment must be such
that it prevented the unsuccessful party from fully and fairly presenting his
case or defense and the losing party from having an adversarial trial of
the issue. There is extrinsic fraud when a party is prevented from fully
presenting his case to the court as when the lawyer connives to defeat or
corruptly sells out his client’s interest. Extrinsic fraud can be committed by
a counsel against his client when the latter is prevented from presenting
his case to the court. (Citations omitted)81

City of Dagupan, vs. MISTAKE AS A GROUND FOR On the other hand, mistake as used in Rule 38 means mistake of fact and
Ester F. Maramba, G.R. No. 174411, July 2, 2014 PETITION FOR RELIEF not mistake of law.82 A wrong choice in legal strategy or mode of
 procedure will not be considered a mistake for purposes of granting a
petition for relief from judgment. 83 Mistake as a ground also "does not
apply and was never intended to apply to a judicial error which the court
might have committed in the trial [since] such error may be corrected by
means of an appeal."84
Mistake can be of such nature as tocause substantial injustice to one of
the parties. It may be so palpable that it borders on extrinsic fraud.
Petitioner city recounted the "mistakes, negligence, incompetence and
suspicious acts/omissions"85 of city legal officer Atty. Roy S. Laforteza in
the affidavit of merit signed by then Mayor, Benjamin S. Lim:

Yusuke Fukuzumi vs Sanritsu Great International PETITION FOR RELIEF Such relief will not be granted to a party who seeks to be relieved
Corporation, et. al, G.R. No. 140630, August 12, 2004 from the effects of the judgment when the loss of the remedy of law was
due to his own negligence, or a mistaken mode of procedure for that
matter; otherwise, the petition for relief will be tantamount to reviving the
right of appeal which has already been lost either because of inexcusable
negligence or due to a mistake of procedure by counsel.

G.R. No. 179643 June 3, 2013 MISTAKE- NEGLIGENCE A reading of Section 4 shows that four grounds justify the grant of the
petition for relief from judgment, namely: fraud, accident, mistake and
ERNESTO L. NATIVIDAD, Petitioner, IGNORANCE COUPLED WITH excusable negligence. The same provision also presents two periods that
vs.
FERNANDO MARIANO, ANDRES MARIANO and
FINANCIAL CONSTRAINTS IF NOT must be observed for such grant – 90 days and six months.
DOROTEO GARCIA, Respondents. OUTRIGHT POVERTY - TAKEN
ALTOGETHER CONSTITUTES A In their first and second petitions, the respondents invoked the ground of
JUSTIFIABLE GROUND FOR THE excusable negligence. They alleged that they failed to appear before the
GRANT OF PETITION FOR RELIEF. PARAD due to their inexperience and ignorance of agrarian reform laws
and of the DARAB Rules of Procedure, as well as indigence. These
circumstances – their averred ignorance coupled with financial constraints
if not outright poverty - taken altogether sufficiently convince us that the
respondents’ negligence is more than excusable and constitutes a
justifiable ground for the grant of their petition for relief.

We are also convinced that the respondents complied with the twin period
requirement set by Section 4, Rule IX of the 1994 DARAB Rules of
Procedure. First, the records show that the respondents received a copy
of the PARAD’s October 27, 1999 decision on December 10, 1999, at the
earliest; they filed their first petition on May 4, 2000 or five months after.
Second, following our above discussion that the respondents had
 sufficiently shown grounds for the grant of their petition, we perforce
count the 90-day period from the respondents’ discovery of their
excusable negligence. We construe this date as the time when the
respondents discovered the adverse consequence of their failure to
answer, seek reconsideration or appeal the PARAD’s decision, which was
when they were evicted from the subject property on June 9, 200049 or 35
days before they filed their first petition. Clearly, the respondents filed
their petition well within 6 months from their notice of the PARAD’s
decision and within 90 days from the discovery of their excusable
negligence.

COMPROMISE AGREEMENT
Heirs Of Exequiel et. al vs. Romeo Hernaez, et. al, VALIDITY OF COMPROMISE Parties to a suit may enter into a compromise agreement to avoid
G.R. No. 199628, April 20, 2016 AGREEMENT litigation or put an end to one already commenced.25 A compromise
agreement intended to resolve a matter already under litigation is a
judicial
compromise, which has the force and effect of a judgment of the
court. However, no execution of the compromise agreement may be
issued unless the agreement receives the approval of the court
where the litigation is pending and compliance with the terms of the
agreement is decreed

Felipe O. Magbanua, Et. Al vs. COMPROMISE AGREEMENT A compromise agreement is a contract whereby the parties make
Rizalino Uy,G.R. No. 161003 May 6, 2005 reciprocal concessions in order to resolve their differences and thus avoid
or put an end to a lawsuit.11 They adjust their difficulties in the manner
`
they have agreed upon, disregarding the possible gain in litigation and
keeping in mind that such gain is balanced by the danger of
losing.12 Verily, the compromise may be either extrajudicial (to prevent
litigation) or judicial (to end a litigation).13
A compromise must not be contrary to law, morals, good customs and
public policy; and must have been freely and intelligently executed by and
between the parties.14 To have the force of law between the parties,15 it
must comply with the requisites and principles of contracts.16 Upon the
parties, it has the effect and the authority of res judicata, once entered
into.17
MAYOR MARCIAL VARGAS and ENGR. RAYMUNDO DEL Writ of execution/ grounds for quashal And equally settled is the rule that when a judgment is final and executory, it becomes
ROSARIO vs. FORTUNATO CAJUCOM, G.R. No. 171095 immutable and unalterable. It may no longer be modified in any respect, except to correct
44

June 22, 2015

clerical errors or to make nunc pro tunc entries, or when it is a void judgment. Outside of
45

these exceptions, the court which rendered judgment only has the ministerial duty to issue a
writ of execution. A decision that has attained finality becomes the law of the case
46

regardless of any claim that it is erroneous.

47

ESTATE OF THE LATE ENCARNACION VDA. DE Subsequent transfers OF AWARDED The law is clear and leaves no room for doubt. Upon the promulgation of
PANLILIO, represented by GEORGE LAND valid only to qualified farmer- Presidential Decree No. 27 on October 21, 1972, petitioner was DEEMED OWNER
LIZARES, Petitioner, v. GONZALO DIZON, of the land in question. As of that date, he was declared emancipated from the
RICARDO GUINTU, ROGELIO MUNOZ, ELISEO
beneficiaries bondage of the soil. As such, he gained the rights to possess, cultivate, and enjoy
GUINTU, ROBERTO DIZON, EDILBERTO the landholding for himself. Those rights over that particular property were
CATU, HERMINIGILDO FLORES, CIPRIANO granted by the government to him and to no other. To insure his continued
DIZON, JUANARIO MANIAGO, GORGONIO possession and enjoyment of the property, he could not, under the law, make
CANLAS, ANTONIO LISING, CARLOS PINEDA, any valid form of transfer except to the government or by hereditary succession,
RENATO GOZUN, ALFREDO MERCADO, to his successors.71
BIENVENIDO MACHADA, and the REGIONAL
DIRECTOR of the DEPARTMENT OF In addition, the prohibition was expanded not only to cover the title issued to the
AGRARIAN REFORM, REGION III, G.R. NO. tenant-farmer but also the rights and interests of the farmer in the land while he
148777 : October 18, 2007 is still paying the amortizations on it. A contrary ruling would make the farmer an
"easy prey to those who would like to tempt [him/her] with cash in exchange for
inchoate title over the same," and PD 27 could be easily circumvented and the
title shall eventually be acquired by non-tillers of the soil. 72

Anent the contravention of the prohibition under PD 27, we ruled in Siacor v.

Gigantana73 and more recently in Caliwag-Carmona v. Court of Appeals, 74 that
sales or transfers of lands made in violation of PD 27 and EO 228 in favor of
persons other than the Government by other legal means or to the farmer's
successor by hereditary succession are null and void. The prohibition even
extends to the surrender of the land to the former landowner. The sales or
transfers are void ab initio, being contrary to law and public policy under Art. 5 of
the Civil Code that "acts executed against the provisions of mandatory or
prohibiting laws shall be void x x x." In this regard, the DAR is duty-bound to
take appropriate measures to annul the illegal transfers and recover the land
unlawfully conveyed to non-qualified persons for disposition to qualified
beneficiaries. In the case at bar, the alleged transfers made by some if not all of
respondents Gonzalo Dizon, et al. (G.R. No. 148777) of lands covered by PD 27
to non-qualified persons are illegal and null and void.

JAMES REBURIANO and URBANO REBURIANO vs. No appeal shall be taken from a denial
HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS AND PEPSI
COLA BOTTLING COMPANY OF THE PHILIPPINES
of motion to quash writ
INC., respondents, G.R. No. 102965 January 21, 1999
ELIZA ZUNIGA-SANTOS,* represented by her Failure to state a cause of action
Attorney-in Fact, NYMPHA Z. SALES vs.
MARIA DIVINA GRACIA SANTOS-GRAN** and
REGISTER OF DEEDS OF MARIKINA CITY, G.R. No.
197380, October 8, 2014.

JUAN SEVILLA SALAS, JR., v. EDEN VILLENA The registered owner in the title is the The phrase “married to” is merely descriptive of the civil status of the registered
AGUILA, G.R. No. 202370, September 23, 2013 owner.
proper party

TAWANG MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE vs. SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY IN What cannot be legally done directly cannot be done indirectly. This rule is basic
LA TRINIDAD WATER DISTRICT G.R. No. COMPROMISE AGREEMENT and, to a reasonable mind, does not need explanation. Indeed, if acts that cannot be
166471 March 22, 2011 legally done directly can be done indirectly, then all laws would be illusory.

FIL-ESTATE PROPERTIES, INC.,

PETITIONER, VS. PAULINO REYES,
DANILO BAON, PACITA D. VADURIA,
JULIE MONTOYA, MERCEDES RAMOS,
GERONIMO DERAIN, FELICIANO D.
BAON, PACIFICO DERAIN, EUTERIO
SEVILLA, MAMERTO B. ESPINELI,
CARMELITA GRAVADOS, AVELINO E.
PASTOR, ANTONIO BUHAY, TIRZO
GULFAN, JR., FELIX SOBREMONTE,
ERNESTO SOBREMONTE, BEN PILIIN,
PASCUAL V. DISTREZA, JACINTO P.
BACALAG, ADELAIDA BAYANI, ELMERT
BAYANI, EGLESIA SOBREMONTE,
NICASIO TINAUGISAN, VICENTE
VILLALUNA, MEYNARDO VILLALUNA,
LEOPOLDO DE JOYA, LENIE DE JOYA,
LIBERATO DE JOYA, CRESENCIANA DE
JOYA, FRESCO CATAPANG, ROSITA
CATAPANG, DOMINGO P. LIMBOC,
VIRGILIO A. LIMBOC, VICENTE LIMBOC,
MARIO H. PERNO, LAZARITO CABRAL,
CARLITO CAPACIA, RESPONDENTS.

[G.R. No. 189315]

PAULINO REYES, DANILO BAON,

PACITA D. VADURIA, JULIE MONTOYA,
BENIGNO BAON, BEATRIZ DERAIN,
MARILOU SEVILLA, MAMERTO B.
ESPINELLI, CARMELITA GRANADOS,
ANTONIO BUHAY, FELIX SOBREMONTE,
NICASIO TINAMISAN, CRESCENCIANA
DE JOYA, FRESCO CATAPANG, SONNY
CATAPANG, MARIO H. PERNO,
CARLITO CAPACIA, AQUILINA
BAUTISTA, FELECITO BARCELON, LUIS
MANGI, BAYANI ORIONDO, BASILISA
DERAIN, GUILLERMO BAUTISTA,
BEATRIZ SEVILLA, NICOLAS ASAHAN,
ROSITA MERCADO, LAMBERTO
BAUTISTA, REXIE DINGLES, JOSE
QUIROZ, PETITIONERS, VS. FIL-ESTATE
PROPERTIES, INC., RESPONDENT.

[G.R. No. 200684]

NOLITO G. DEL MUNDO, GABRIEL A.

MAULLON, MARIA L. TENORIO, NOEL G.
DEL MUNDO, RACQUEL DEL MUNDO-
REDUCA, TEODORICO D. AGUSTIN,
REPRESENTED BY THEIR ATTORNEY-
IN-FACT, NOMER G. DEL MUNDO,
PETITIONERS, VS. THE MANILA
SOUTHCOAST DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION, INC., RESPONDENT.
G.R. No. 152797, September 18, 2019
SPOUSES ROBERTO AND G.R. NO. 219431 Validity of Compromise Agreement The compromise, to be binding, must be shown to have been voluntarily, freely and
BEATRIZ GARCIA, PETITIONERS, VS. intelligently executed by the parties, who had full knowledge of the judgment. 25 In
SPOUSES ARNEL CRICELA SORIANO, consonance with the law on contracts, the compromise must not be contrary to law,
RESPONDENTS, G.R. No. 219431, August 24, morals, good customs and public policy.
2020
As provided by the law on contracts, a valid compromise must have the following
elements: (1) the consent of the parties to the compromise, (2) an object certain that
is the subject matter of the compromise, and (3) the cause of the obligation that is
established.
Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 2016 Landowner refused to accept lease REVISED RULES AND REGULATIONS GOVERNING LEASE RENTAL
rentals PAYMENTS WHICH THE LANDOWNER-LESSOR REFUSES TO ACCEPT OR
FAILS TO RECEIVE
Reynaldo Bejasa and Erlinda Bejasa vs. Court Independent evidence of payment of “There must be other independent piece of evidence such as receipts signed by the
of Appeals, et., al., G.R. No. 108941 lease rentals landowner, acknowledging the receipt of lease rentals from petitioner-appellant.”
Vda. De Brigino vs. Ramos, G.R. No. 130260, EXCEPTION In cases where the tenant and the landowner are family members, the issuance of
February 6, 2006 receipts by the landowner is not the usual practice.