Agra Written Output

7/27/2019 Agra Written Output

1/9

This rule could easily be applicable to vast track of lands which are privately owned. However, theproportion to be owned by tenant farmers in lands which do not go as largely as 5 or 3 hectares or

more, is not provided for.

In comparison to this provision where there is more or less a concrete rule; that he may own as

much area as desired only that the land area would not go beyond 7 hectares.

AGRARIAN REFORM LAW

LAND VALUATION

CRUZ, Juan Miguel

GALANZA, Frances Ann

MENDOZA, Kelsey Olivar

LAND VALUATION as appreciated in Presidential Decree no. 27 and Executive Order no. 228

Defining Land Valuation

Land valuation deals with the process of determining the proper [and just] compensation

for the land taken from the land owners.

It also identifies the accepted modes of payment and the remedies available to the land

owners in cases wherein the valuation for the lands are too low.

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 27(Promulgated on October 21, 1972)

DECREEING THE EMANCIPATIONOF TENANTS FROM THE BONDAGE OF THE SOIL, TRANSFERRING TO

THEM THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND THEY TILL AND PROVIDING THE INSTRUMENTS AND

MECHANISM THEREFOR

(Excerpts)

This shall apply to tenant farmers of private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn

under a system of sharecrop or lease-tenancy, whether classified as landed estate or not x x x

The Department of Agrarian Reform, through its Secretary, is hereby empowered to promulgate

rules and regulations for the implementation of this Decree.

Provided that

The tenant farmer, whether in land classified as landed estate or not, shall be deemed

ownerof a portion constituting a family-size farm

of five (5) hectares if not irrigated;

three (3) hectares if irrigated;

In all cases, the landowner may retain an area of not more than seven (7) hectares if

such landowner is cultivating such area or will now cultivate it;


2/9

Note however that the phrase average harvest of (3) normal crop years can cause slight confusion to

the common man. The phrase can be taken as, the average harvest of every year for 3 years totaled or

the average harvest of 3 years all together.

At current times, 15 years may be too long of a leeway to pay for the value of the land. As the value

of a land would usually increase every year, especially with the developments an area wouldundertake, the full payment of the land value after 15 years would likely seem to defeat the concept

of just compensation. The owner of the land should benefit as much as possible if not equally as the

tenant-farmers.

Process of Land Valuation as to cost of land

determining the cost of the land to be transferred to the tenant -farmer the value of

the land shall be equivalent to (2 1/2) times the average harvest of (3) normal crop years

immediately preceding the promulgation of this Decree;

(ex. Average harvest of 3 normal crop years is P150,000.00 x 2.5. Then, the value of the

land would be P375,000.00)

The total cost of the land, (including interest at (6)% per annum), shall be paid by the

tenant in (15) years of (15) equal annual amortizations

(ex. [(P375,000 000 + 6% interest per annum) / 15)]

In cases of the default of payment of the tenant owners

In case of default, the amortization due shall be paid by the farmers' cooperative in

which the defaulting tenant-farmer is a member, with the cooperative having a right of

recourse against him;

The government shall guaranty such amortizations with shares of stock in government-

owned and government-controlled corporations;

(To serve as security for the landowners and to prevent as much as possible, judicial

proceedings for collection)

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 228July 17, 1987

DECLARING FULL LAND OWNERSHIP TO QUALIFIED FARMER BENEFICIARIES COVERED BY

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27: DETERMINING THE VALUE OF REMAINING UNVALUED RICE AND

CORN LANDS SUBJECT TO P.D. NO. 27; AND PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER OF PAYMENT BY THE

FARMER BENEFICIARY AND MODE OF COMPENSATION TO THE LANDOWNER

Provides that

All qualified farmer beneficiaries are now deemed full owners (as of October 21, 1972) of the

land they acquired by virtue of Presidential Decree No. 27.

Also


3/9

Here, the Executive order provides for another formula for the determination of land value. However, the

formula is for the specific use of the valuation of rice and corn land. And instead of the variables being theaverage harvest, it provided for a computation per average gross production per hectare of land. This we find

more efficient compared to the earlier formula as the later may bring about slight confusions while the former

is more constant and concrete.

The valuation of rice and corn lands covered by P.D. No. 27 shall be based on the

average gross production to be

- determined by the Barangay Committee on Land Production in accordance with

Department Memorandum Circular No. 26

- and related issuances and regulations of the Department of Agrarian Reform.

The average gross production per hectare shall be

- multiplied (2.5), the product of which shall be multiplied by P35.00 (the government

support price for one cavan of 50 kilos of palay)

- or P31.00 (the government support price for one cavan of 50 kilos of corn),

The amount arrived at shall be the value of the rice and corn land for the purpose of

determining its cost to the farmer and compensation to the landowner.

Other provisions on the payment of compensation

Lease rentals paid to the landowner by the farmer beneficiary after October 21, 1972,

shall be considered as advance payment for the land

dispute with the land owner regarding the amount of lease rental the Department

of Agrarian Reform and the Barangay Committee on Land Production concerned shall

resolve the dispute within thirty (30) days from its submission

In the event a party questions in court the resolution of the dispute, the landowner's

compensation claim shall still be processed for payment and the proceeds shall be held

in trust by the Trust Department of the Land Bank pending the resolution of the dispute

before the court

AUTHORITY OF THE DAR TO REVALUE PROPERTY - Section 16 (d)

- In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative

proceedings to determine the compensation for the land requiring the landowner, theLBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the

land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice.

- After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision.

The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.


4/9

Section IV D of DAR Adm. Order No. 2, series 2009 (Valuation)

1.

The compensation for lands covered under R.A. No. 9700 shall be:

a) the amount determined in accordance with the criteria provided for in Section 7

of the said law and existing guidelines on land valuation; or

b) the value based on the order of the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) or the

regular court, which has become final and executory.

The specific guidelines governing the valuation of lands under voluntary offer to sell

(VOS) or compulsory acquisition (CA) pursuant to R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No.

9700 are provided in CARP-LAD Annex A of this Order.

2.

All previously acquired lands wherein valuation is subject to challenge by landowners

shall be completed and finally resolved pursuant to Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657, as

amended.

Claims over tenanted rice and corn lands under P.D. No. 27 and Executive Order (E.O.)

No. 228 whether submitted or not to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and not yet

approved for payment shall be valued under R.A. No. 6657, as amended.

Landholdings covered by P.D. No. 27 and falling under Phase I of R.A. No. 9700 - shall be

valued under R.A. No. 9700.

3.

In cases of rejection, landowners may withdraw the original value of the landholding as

determined by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and Land Bank of the

Philippines (LBP) per Memorandum of Valuation (MOV) and subsequently deposited in

their names, subject to their submission of the requirements for payment. ATESCc

When the LO later accepts the original value or as recomputed by the LBP based on

existing valuation guidelines, mere filing of a manifestation by the LO as regards the

acceptance of the original value or a joint manifestation by the LO and the LBP on the

recomputed value with the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) shall automatically

terminate the just compensation case pending thereat.

4.

Landowners, other than banks and financial institutions, who voluntarily offer their landsfor sale, shall be entitled to an additional five percent (5%) cash payment.

5.

For landholdings conveyed after the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 - the LBP shall consider

the transferor as the payee.


5/9

Payment must be released to the LO-transferee if the LO-transferor issues a Special Power

of Attorney (SPA) or Deed of Assignment in favor of the former.

6.

In the determination of the Annual Gross Production (AGP), Selling Price (SP) and Cost of

Operation (CO) to be used in the land valuation - the audited financial statement filedwith the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) shall be obtained by the DARMO from the LO

fifteen (15) days prior to the date of field investigation.

If the landowner fails to submit the same, the DAR and LBP may adopt applicable

industry data or, in the absence thereof, conduct an industry study on the specific crop.

7.

Small portions or patches within the covered landholdings which are determined to be

less productive than the bigger portion during the conduct of joint field investigation

shall be valued based on the current use of the adjacent portions, provided that said

small portions or patches shall not exceed 10% of the productive area.

Small portions or patches of landholdings above 18 percent slope, undeveloped and of

no use to the landowner shall be valued as idle provided it shall not exceed 10% of the

covered landholding.


6/9

LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES,

vs.

HON. ELI G. C. NATIVIDAD, JOSE R. CAGUIAT represented by Attorneys-in-fact JOSE T.

BARTOLOME and VICTORIO MANGALINDAN

Facts:Private respondents filed a petition for the determination of just compensation for their

agricultural lands which were acquired by the government pursuant to Presidential Decree No.

27 (PD 27). The court rendered the assailed Decision where the judgment was made in favor of

the petitioners ordering the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the Land Bank of the

Philippines (LBP) to pay these petitioners THIRTY PESOS (P30.00) per square meter, as the just

compensation due for payment for same lands of petitioners.

DAR and Land Bank filed separate motions for reconsideration which were denied 1996 for

being pro forma as the same did not contain a notice of hearing. Land Bank consequently

failed to file a timely appeal and the assailed Decision became final and executory. Land Bank

argues that the failure of its counsel to include a notice of hearing due to pressure of workconstitutes excusable negligence and does not make the motion for reconsideration pro forma.

Land Bank assails that the private respondents should have sought the reconsideration of the

DARs valuation of their properties thus failing to exhaust administrative remedies when they filed

a petition for the determination of just compensation directly with the trial court. Land Bank also

insists that the trial court erred in declaring that PD 27 and EO 228 are mere guidelines in the

determination of just compensation.

Issue: W/N P.D. 27 and/or E.O 228 is/are the proper basis in computing the just compensation for

the land herein

Held/Ratio: No.

Procedural rules are designed to facilitate the adjudication of cases. Every case must be

prosecuted in accordance with the prescribed procedure to ensure an orderly and speedy

administration of justice. Contrary to allegations of petitioner, private respondents wrote a letter

to the DAR Secretary objecting to the land valuation summary and requesting a conference for

the purpose of fixing just compensation. The letter, however, was left unanswered. This prompted

them to file petition directly with the trial. There is nothing contradictory between the D ARs

primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and exclusive original

jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, which includes the

determination of questions of just compensation. Primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR todetermine in a preliminary manner the just compensation for the lands taken under the agrarian

reform program.

Land Banks contention that the property was acquired for purposes of agrarian reform on

October 21, 1972, the time of the effectivity of PD 27, ergo just compensation should be based

on the value of the property as of that time and not at the time of possession in 1993, is

erroneous. Under the factual circumstances of this case, the agrarian reform process is still


7/9

incomplete as the just compensation to be paid to private respondents has yet to be settled .

Considering the passage of RA 6657 before the completion of this process, the just

compensation should be determined and the process concluded under the said law. Indeed,

RA 6657 is the applicable law, with PD 27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect.

It would certainly be inequitable to determine just compensation based on the guidelines

provided by PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DARs failure to determine the just compensationfor a considerable length of time. That just compensation should be determined in accordance

with RA 6657, and not PD 27 or EO 228, is especially imperative considering that just

compensation should be the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the

expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full and ample.

JOSEFINA S. LUBRICA vs. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES, G.R. No. 170220. November 20, 2006.

FACTS:

Petitioner Josefina S. Lubrica is the assignee of Federico C. Suntay over certain parcels of

agricultural land located at Sta. Lucia, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro. In 1972, a portion

of the said propert was placed under the land reform program pursuant to Presidential

Decree No. 27 (1972) and Executive Order No. 228 (1987). The land was thereafter

subdivided and distributed to farmer beneficiaries. The Department of Agrarian Reform

(DAR) and the LBP fixed the value of the land at P5,056,833.54 which amount was

deposited in cash and bonds in favor of Lubrica.

Petitioners Nenita Suntay-Taedo and Emilio A.M. Suntay III inherited from FedericoSuntay a parcel of agricultural land located at Balansay, Mamburao, Occidental

consisting of two lots.

Petitioners rejected the valuation of their properties, hence the Office of the Provincial

Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) conducted summary administrative proceedings

for determination of just compensation.

The PARAD fixed the preliminary just compensation but they were still not satisfied.

LBP filed two separate petitions for judicial determination of just compensation before

the Regional Trial Court of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

Petitioners filed separate Motions to Deposit the Preliminary Valuation Under Section

16(e) of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657 (1988)[9]and Ad Cautelam Answer praying among

others that LBP deposit the preliminary compensation determined by the PARAD.
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn9http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2006/november2006/170220.htm#_ftn9


8/9

HELD:

Petitioners were deprived of their properties without payment of just compensation

which, under the law, is a prerequisite before the property can be taken away from its

owners. The transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government are

conditioned upon the receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or

deposit by the DAR of the compensation with an accessible bank. Until then, title

remains with the landowner.

Section 18 of R.A. No. 6657 - the LBP shall compensate the landowner in such amount as

may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and the LBP or as may be finally

determined by the court as the just compensation for the land.

In determining just compensation - the cost of the acquisition of the land, the current

value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the

owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment made by government assessors shall be

considered. The social and economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the

farmworkers and by the government to the property as well as the nonpayment of taxesor loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land shall be

considered as additional factors to determine its valuation.

Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines et. al., versus Secretary of Agrarian Reform ,

GR. No. 79310 , July 14, 1989 (175 SCRA 343)

FACTS:

The Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform offers bonds or shares for the

lands of the petitioners being subjected to appropriation.

Petitioners are inclined to receive monetary value for their land being appropriated.

Contends that in appropriation proceedings, just compensation in the form of cash shall

be given to the owners of the land.

Issue:

W/N the contention of the petitioners tenable

Held:

No. The SC held that the DAR has the discretion to make such offer.In Sec.16 of RA 6657,

DAR may propose payment through bonds or shares alongside with cash in exchange for a

land being appropriated. SC furthermore noted the revolutionary character of CARP law

where payments is not always required to be made :fully in money


9/9

Land Bank vs. CA and Pedro Yap (GR No. 118712, Oct. 6, 1995)

LBP appropriated the land owned by the private respondent.

It opened a trust accounts in favor of the Pedro Yap in lieu of depositing cash

or bonds.

Pedro Yap contends that the TCT of his land was cancelled and named in favor offarmer beneficiaries even even before the full payment of just compensation.

Issue:

W/N opening of trust accounts in favor of Mr. Yap constitute just compensation.

Held:

No. The Supreme Court noted that in Sec 16 of RA 6657, it expressly states that just

compensation shall be in a form of money or a bond. Nowhere it appears nor can be inferred

that the payment can be made in other form (pertains to trust accounts). Also,cancellation of

the landowners TCT shall only be valid after the full payment of just compensation.

Authority of the DAR Adjudication Board over land valuation cases. Article XIX of the 2009 DARAB

Rules of Procedure

First, its the duty of the Adjudication Board to see to it that the LBP and the DAR in their

land valuation proceedings have complied with the administrative orders and other

issuances of the Secretary of the DAR and LBP.

Second, once the determination of the just compensation has been done, a notice of

hearing shall be issued wherein the landowner, LBP and DAR officials will deliberate.

The party who disagrees may contest the same with the Special Agrarian Court.

If there will be no contest on the hearing, the decision shall be final and executory.

Agra Written Output

Documents

Transcript of Agra Written Output