G.R. No. 200454, October 22, 2014
HOLY TRINITY REALTY & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. VICTORIO DELA CRUZ, LORENZO MANALAYSAY, RICARDO MARCELO, JR. AND LEONCIO DE GUZMAN, Respondents.
D E C I S I O N
TCT No. Name of Tenant/Successor Area (sq. m.) T-73006 Susana Surio 186 T-73007 Cipriano Surio 150 T-73008 Alfonso Espiritu 300 T-73009 Agustin Surio 300 T-73010 Aurelio Surio 264 T-73011 Pacifico Eugenio 300 T-73012 Godofredo Alcoriza 300 T-73013 Lorenza Angeles 300
Ramon Manalad 300 Toribio M. Hernandez 300 Emerciana Montealegre 300 Pedro Manalad 300 T-73015 Celerino Ramos 300 T-73016 Cecilia L. Martin 300 T-73017 Pablo dela Cruz
T-73018 Aurelio dela Cruz 300 T-73019 Julita Leoncio 300 Anicia L. de Guzman T-73020 Ramon Centeno 300 T-73021 Miguel Centeno 300 TOTAL 4,500
TCT No. Area (sq. m.) 81618 50,000 81619 50,000 81620 50,000 81621 54,810 73022 2,401 73023 839 TOTAL 208,050 MUNICIPAL RESOLUTION NO. 16-98
A RESOLUTION RE-CLASSIFYING AS RESIDENTIAL LOTS THE FOUR (4) PARCELS OF LAND SEPARATELY COVERED BY TCT NO. 81618, TCT NO. 81619, TCT NO.81620 AND TCT NO. 81621 CONTAINING AN AREA OF 50,000 SQ MTS, 50,000 SQ. MTS, 50,000 SQ M (sic) AND 54,810 SQ M (sic) RESPECTIVELY ALL LOCATED AT DAKILA, MALOLOS, BULACAN REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE HOLY TRINITY REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
WHEREAS, Ms. Jennifer M. Romero, Auditor Representative of Holy Trinity Realty and Development Corporation in [her] letter to the Sangguniang Bayan made a request for re-classification of four parcel(s) of land registered in the name of Holy Trinity and Development Corporation under TCT NO. 81618, TCT NO. 81619, TCT NO.81620 AND TCT NO. 81621 with an area of 50,000 sq. m., 50,000 sq. m., 50,000 sq. m. AND 54,810 sq. m. respectively all located at Dakila, Malolos, Bulacan.
WHEREAS, after an ocular inspection of the subject lots and matured deliberation, the Sangguniang Bayan found merit in the request for the following reasons, thus:1. The Properties are untenanted;cralawlawlibrary
2. That they are not fitted (sic) for agricultural use for lack of sufficient irrigation;cralawlawlibrary
3. There are improvements already introduce[d] on the property by its owner like construction of subdivision roads;cralawlawlibrary
4. Lack of oppositor to the intend[ed] subdivision project on the properties by its owner;cralawlawlibrary
5. That they are more suitable for residential use considering their location vi[s]-à-vi[s] with (sic) the residential lots in the area.
NOW THEREFORE, on motion of Hon. Romeo L. Maclang as seconded by all Sangguniang Bayan members present,
RESOLVED, as is hereby resolved to re-classify into residential properties four (4) parcels of land separately covered by TCT NO. 81618, TCT NO. 81619, TCT NO.81620 AND TCT NO. 81621 of the Registry of Deeds of Bulacan, containing an area of 50,000 sq. m. respectively, registered in ownership of Holy Trinity and Development Corporation located and adjacent to one another in Barangay Dakila of this Municipality pursuant to the power vested to this Sangguniang [sic] by the Local Government Code of the Philippines.
RESOLVED further that the owner and/or developer of the said property shall provide adequate [illegible] to protect the adjacent lots and its owners from any inconvenience and prejudice caused by the development of the above mentioned property.
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing premises and for the reason indicated therein, this Office resolves to give due course to this instant request. Accordingly, the MARO and PARO concerned are hereby DIRECTED to place within the ambit of PD 27/RA 6657 the following titles TCT Nos. T-81618, T-81619, T-81620, T-81621, T-81622 and T-73023, all situated at Sumapang Matanda, Malolos City, Bulacan, registered in the name of Holy Trinity Realty and Development Corporation for distribution to qualified farmer beneficiary (sic).
Finally, the DAR reserves the right to cancel or withdraw this Order in case of misrepresentation of facts material to its issuance and for violation of pertinent agrarian laws including applicable implementing guidelines or rules and regulations.
TCT No. Emancipation
Beneficiary/ies Area (sqm) T-2007-EP22 00783329 Victorio dela Cruz 50,000 T-2008-EP23 00783330 Lorenzo Manalaysay 50,000 T-2009-EP24 00783331 Ricardo Marcelo, Jr. 50,000 T-2010-EP25cralawred 00783332 Leoncio de Guzman 54,810 T-2011-EP26 00783334 Gonzalo Caspe 2,401 T-2012-EP27 00783333 839
We find merit in the appeal.
Under Section 3 (c) of RA 6657, agricultural lands refer to lands devoted to agriculture as conferred in the said law and not classified as industrial land. Agricultural lands are only those lands which are arable or suitable lands that do not include commercial, industrial and residential lands.
In this case, the subject landholdings are not agricultural lands but rather residential lands. The lands are located in a residential area. Likewise, there are agricultural activities within or near the area. Even today, the areas in question continued (sic) to be developed as a residential community, albeit at a snail’s pace. This can be readily gleaned from the fact that both the City Assessor of Malolos and the Provincial Assessor of Bulacan have considered these lands as residential for taxation purposes.
Based on the foregoing, it is clear that appellant’s landholding cannot in any language be considered as “agricultural lands.” These lots were intended for residential use. They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of Municipal Resolution No. 16-98. The authority of the municipality (now City) of Malolos to issue zoning classification is an exercise of its police power, not the power of eminent domain. Section 20, Chapter 2, Title I of RA 7160 specifically empowers municipal and/or city councils to adopt zoning and subdivision ordinances or regulations within its territorial jurisdiction. A zoning ordinance/resolution prescribes, defines, and apportions a given political subdivision into specific land uses as present and future projection of needs. The power of the local government to convert or reclassify agricultural lands to non-agricultural lands is not subject to the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
It bears stressing that in his Decision dated April 30, 2002, as affirmed by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in its Resolution dated March 17, 2006, Bulacan Provincial Adjudicator Toribio Ilao, Jr., declared that the properties were not tenanted and/or agricultural and that the alleged farmers-occupants are mere squatters thereto. These decision and resolution were not appealed by the farmers-occupants and, as such, it became final and executory. By declaring, in its assailed Order of November 22, 2007, that the properties subject of the suit, were agricultural lands, the DAR Secretary thereby reversed the said DARAB rulings, issued more than a year before, and nullified Resolution No. 16-98 of the Municipal Council of Malolos, approved nine (9) years earlier, on March 4, 1998. Thus, the DAR Secretary acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to excess or lack of jurisdiction.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the appeal is hereby GRANTED. Accordingly, the November 22, 2007 Order and February 22, 2008 Resolution of the Department of Agrarian Reform are hereby REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY OMITTED TO RULE UPON, ALBEIT WITHOUT CITING ANY VALID REASONS, THE VARIOUS INTERRELATED ISSUES PROFFERED IN PETITIONER’S COMMENT RELATIVE TO DAR’S INCLUSION OF THE SUBJECT DAKILA PROPERTY UNDER THE COVERAGE OF THE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW, TO WIT: A.) RESPONDENT-GRANTEES OF EMANCIPATION PATENTS FROM DAR ARE NOT LEGITIMATE TENANTS OF THE DAKILA PROPERTY; B.) THE SALE AND TRANSFER OF TITLES IN THE NAME OF PETITIONER HAVE NOT HERETOFORE BEEN NULLIFIED EITHER BY THE DARAB CENTRAL OFFICE OR THE REGULAR COURTS; C.) THE BONAFIDE TENANTS OF THE DAKILA PROPERTY HAVE VALIDLY SURRENDERED THEIR TENANCY RIGHTS IN FAVOR OF PETITIONER’S PREDECESSOR-IN-INTEREST; D.) THE DAKILA PROPERTY WAS NO LONGER TENANTED AND, FURTHER, WAS NO LONGER SUITABLE TO AGRICULTURE, AT THE TIME OF ITS COVERAGE UNDER AGRARIAN REFORM, ITS ACTUAL USE BEING ALREADY RESIDENTIAL
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS LIKEWISE ERRED IN FAILING TO RULE ON THE ILLEGALITY OF THE MANNER BY WHICH THE DAR CAUSED THE SUMMARY COVERAGE OF THE DAKILA PROPERTY UNDER THE CARP, ITS EXTRA-JUDICIAL CANCELLATION OF PETITIONER’S TITLES WITHOUT DUE PROCESS OF LAW, AND ITS PREMATURE ISSUANCE OF EMANCIPATION PATENTS IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENTS
WHETHER OR NOT THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS ERRONEOUSLY APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF RA 6657 IN RESOLVING THE SUBJECT PETITION, EVEN THOUGH THE DAR PLACED THE SUBJECT DAKILA PROPERTY UNDER THE COVERAGE OF PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27
WHETHER OR NOT HEREIN RESPONDENT’S PETITION FOR REVIEW A QUO OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DISMISSED OUTRIGHT BY THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH SECTION 4, RULE 7 OF THE 1997 REVISED RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE.37
- Did the CA gravely err in limiting its decision to the issue of whether or not the Dakila property was subject to the coverage of Republic Act No. 6657?
- Was the Dakila property agricultural land within the coverage of Republic Act No. 6657 or Presidential Decree No. 27?
- Was the issuance of the EPs pursuant to the August 16, 2006 order of the DAR Regional Office proper?
Section 19. Section 50 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby further amended by adding Section 50-A to read as follows:Section 50-A. Exclusive Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute. – x x x
In cases where regular courts or quasi-judicial bodies have competent jurisdiction, agrarian reform beneficiaries or identified beneficiaries and/or their associations shall have legal standing and interest to intervene concerning their individual or collective rights and/or interests under the CARP.
x x x x
Section 8. Questions that may be decided. – No error which does not affect the jurisdiction over the subject matter or the validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein will be considered unless stated in the assignment of errors, or closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in the brief, save as the court may pass upon plain errors and clerical errors.
In his book, Mr. Justice Florenz D. Regalado commented on this section, thus:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
1. Sec. 8, which is an amendment of the former Sec. 7 of this Rule, now includes some substantial changes in the rules on assignment of errors. The basic procedural rule is that only errors claimed and assigned by a party will be considered by the court, except errors affecting its jurisdiction over the subject matter. To this exception has now been added errors affecting the validity of the judgment appealed from or the proceedings therein.
Also, even if the error complained of by a party is not expressly stated in his assignment of errors but the same is closely related to or dependent on an assigned error and properly argued in his brief, such error may now be considered by the court. These changes are of jurisprudential origin.
2. The procedure in the Supreme Court being generally the same as that in the Court of Appeals, unless otherwise indicated (see Secs. 2 and 4, Rule 56), it has been held that the latter is clothed with ample authority to review matters, even if they are not assigned as errors on appeal, if it finds that their consideration is necessary in arriving at a just decision of the case. Also, an unassigned error closely related to an error properly assigned (PCIB vs. CA, et al., L-34931, Mar. 18, 1988), or upon which the determination of the question raised by error properly assigned is dependent, will be considered by the appellate court notwithstanding the failure to assign it as error (Ortigas, Jr. vs. Lufthansa German Airlines, L-28773, June 30, 1975; Soco vs. Militante, et al., G.R. No. 58961, June 28, 1983).
It may also be observed that under Sec. 8 of this Rule, the appellate court is authorized to consider a plain error, although it was not specifically assigned by the appellant (Dilag vs. Heirs of Resurreccion, 76 Phil. 649), otherwise it would be sacrificing substance for technicalities.44 (Emphasis supplied)
[T]he Court need not belabor the fact that R.A. 6657 or the CARP Law operates distinctly from P.D. 27. R.A. 6657 covers all public and private agricultural land including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture as provided for in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229; while, P.D. 27 covers rice and corn lands. On this score, E.O. 229, which provides for the mechanism of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, specifically states: “(P)residential Decree No. 27, as amended, shall continue to operate with respect to rice and corn lands, covered thereunder. x x x” It cannot be gainsaid, therefore, that R.A. 6657 did not repeal or supersede, in any way, P.D. 27. And whatever provisions of P.D. 27 that are not inconsistent with R.A. 6657 shall be suppletory to the latter, and all rights acquired by the tenant-farmer under P.D. 27 are retained even with the passage of R.A. 6657.48
Section 20. Reclassification of Lands. – (a) A city or municipality may, through an ordinance passed by the sanggunian after conducting public hearings for the purpose, authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition in the following cases: (1) when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the Department of Agriculture or (2) where the land shall have substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes, as determined by the sanggunian concerned: x x x. (Emphasis supplied)
WHEREAS, after an ocular inspection of the subject lots and matured deliberation, the Sangguniang Bayan found merit in the request for the following reasons, thus:1. The properties are untenanted;cralawlawlibrary
2. That they are not fitted [sic] for agricultural use for lack of sufficient irrigation;
3. There are improvements already introduce[d] on the property by its owner like construction of subdivision roads;cralawlawlibrary
4. Lack of oppositor to the intend[ed] subdivision project on the properties by its owner;cralawlawlibrary
5. That they are more suitable for residential use considering their location viz-a-viz (sic) with (sic) the residential lots in the area.58 (Emphasis supplied)
[P]ortion of the property embraced under TCT No. 103697 with an area of 2.5611 hectares more or less, was placed under PD [No.] 27 and subsequently an approved survey plan (Psd-03-020270) has been prepared which was then the basis of the issuance of titles in favor of Felix Surio and Silvino Manalad under EP Nos. 345262 and 342561. On the other hand, the land subject of this controversy was, likewise, subdivided and now covered by an approved plan ASP No. Psd-031410-066532.63
Although this Court will not disregard the evidence presented by petitioners that the land is devoted to rice and corn crops in 1993, when the ocular inspection by the DAR personnel was conducted, it must be noted that around the time of the passage of Presidential Decree No. 27 up to 1978, when the subject property was placed under the coverage of Operation Land Transfer, the available evidence issued and certified by the different government agencies, closer in time to the mentioned time frame will show that respondent’s property has, indeed, been classified as within the residential and commercial zones of Davao City. It cannot escape the notice of this Court that more than a decade before the issuance of the said ocular investigation report stating that the land is devoted to agricultural production, government agencies equipped with the technical expertise to determine the proper classification of the subject land have already determined that the land is part of the residential and commercial zones of Davao City making it suitable for other urban use. Therefore, it is only reasonable to conclude, based on the certification of various executive agencies issued when this controversy arose, that at the time of the passage of Presidential Decree No. 27, respondent’s property was not agricultural.65
The Primer on Agrarian Reform enumerates the steps in transferring the land to the tenant-tiller, thus:a. First step: the identification of tenants, landowners, and the land covered by OLT.Thus, there are several steps to be undertaken before an Emancipation Patent can be issued. x x x.
b. Second step: land survey and sketching of the actual cultivation of the tenant to determine parcel size, boundaries, and possible land use;cralawlawlibrary
c. Third step: the issuance of the Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT). To ensure accuracy and safeguard against falsification, these certificates are processed at the National Computer Center (NCC) at Camp Aguinaldo;cralawlawlibrary
d. Fourth step: valuation of the land covered for amortization computation;cralawlawlibrary
e. Fifth step: amortization payments of tenant-tillers over fifteen (15) year period; and
f. Sixth step: the issuance of the Emancipation Patent.
x x x x
Furthermore, there are several supporting documents which a tenant-farmer must submit before he can receive the Emancipation Patent, such as:a. Application for issuance of Emancipation Patent;cralawlawlibraryMajority of these supporting documents are lacking in this case. Hence, it was improper for the DARAB to order the issuance of the Emancipation Patent in favor of respondent without the required supporting documents and without following the requisite procedure before an Emancipation Patent may be validly issued.75
b. Applicant's (owner's) copy of Certificate of Land Transfer.
c. Certification of the landowner and the Land Bank of the Philippines that the applicant has tendered full payment of the parcel of land as described in the application and as actually tilled by him;cralawlawlibrary
d. Certification by the President of the Samahang Nayon or by the head of farmers' cooperative duly confirmed by the municipal district officer (MDO) of the Ministry of Local Government and Community Development (MLGCD) that the applicant is a full-fledged member of a duly registered farmers' cooperative or a certification to these effect;cralawlawlibrary
e. Copy of the technical (graphical) description of the land parcel applied for prepared by the Bureau of Land Sketching Team (BLST) and approved by the regional director of the Bureau of Lands;cralawlawlibrary
f. Clearance from the MAR field team (MARFT) or the MAR District Office (MARDO) legal officer or trial attorney; or in their absence, a clearance by the MARFT leader to the effect that the land parcel applied for is not subject of adverse claim, duly confirmed by the legal officer or trial attorney of the MAR Regional Office or, in their absence, by the regional director;cralawlawlibrary
g. Xerox copy of Official Receipts or certification by the municipal treasurer showing that the applicant has fully paid or has effected up-to-date payment of the realty taxes due on the land parcel applied for; and
h. Certification by the MARFT leader whether applicant has acquired farm machineries from the MAR and/or from other government agencies.
Section 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. - For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
(a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth in Sections 17, 18 and other pertinent provisions hereof.
(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal delivery or registered mail, the landowners, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the former.
(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the Land Bank of the Philippines shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the Government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.
(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation for the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of 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.
(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.
For a valid implementation of the CAR Program, two notices are required: (1) the Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent to the landowner, the representatives of the BARC, LBP, farmer beneficiaries and other interested parties pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989; and (2) the Notice of Acquisition sent to the landowner under Section 16 of the CARL.
The importance of the first notice, i.e., the Notice of Coverage and the letter of invitation to the conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated. They are steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process. The implementation of the CARL is an exercise of the State’s police power and the power of eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits to the landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, the owners are deprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also a taking under the power of eminent domain. The taking contemplated is not a mere limitation of the use of the land. What is required is the surrender of the title to and physical possession of the said excess and all beneficial rights accruing to the owner in favor of the farmer beneficiary. The Bill of Rights provides that "[n]o person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." The CARL was not intended to take away property without due process of law. The exercise of the power of eminent domain requires that due process be observed in the taking of private property.
x x x x
Clearly then, the notice requirements under the CARL are not confined to the Notice of Acquisition set forth in Section 16 of the law. They also include the Notice of Coverage first laid down in DAR A. O. No. 12, Series of 1989 and subsequently amended in DAR A. O. No. 9, Series of 1990 and DAR A. O. No. 1, Series of 1993. This Notice of Coverage does not merely notify the landowner that his property shall be placed under CARP and that he is entitled to exercise his retention right; it also notifies him, pursuant to DAR A. O. No. 9, Series of 1990, that a public hearing shall be conducted where he and representatives of the concerned sectors of society may attend to discuss the results of the field investigation, the land valuation and other pertinent matters. Under DAR A. O. No. 1, Series of 1993, the Notice of Coverage also informs the landowner that a field investigation of his landholding shall be conducted where he and the other representatives may be present.77 (Emphasis supplied)
x x x. Section 2 of PD 266 states:“After the tenant-farmer shall have fully complied with the requirements for a grant of title under Presidential Decree No. 27, an Emancipation Patent and/or Grant shall be issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform on the basis of a duly approved survey plan.”
On the other hand, paragraphs 8 and 9 of PD 27 reads as follows:chanRoblesvirtualLawlibrary
“For the purpose of determining the cost of the land to be transferred to the tenant-farmer pursuant to this Decree, the value of the land shall be equivalent to two and one-half (2 ½) times the average harvest of three normal crop years immediately preceding the promulgation of this Decree;cralawlawlibrary
“The total cost of the land, including interest at the rate of six (6) per centum per annum, shall be paid by the tenant in fifteen (15) years of fifteen (15) equal annual amortizations[.]”
Although, under the law, tenant farmers are already deemed owners of the land they till, they are still required to pay the cost of the land, including interest, within fifteen years before the title is transferred to them.80 (Emphasis supplied)
1Rollo, pp. 68-85; penned by Associate Justice Apolinario D. Bruselas, Jr., with Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta and Associate Justice Manuel M. Barrios concurring.
2 Id. at 239-243.
3 Id. at 157-161.
4 Id. at 16-18.
5 Id. at 107-135.
6 Id. at 18-19.
7 Id. at. 19.
8 Id. at 136, 138, 140, 142, 144 and 146.
9 Id. at 20.
10 Id. at 153-154.
11 Id. at 155.
12 Id. at 156.
13 Id. at 17.
14 Id. at 69.
15 Entitled Re: Letter-Request of Numeriano Enriquez for Distribution of Lands Covered Under OLT Which Were Allegedly Transferred Illegally In The Name of Holy Trinity Realty and Development Corporation, Located in Dakila, Malolos City, Bulacan.
16Rollo, pp. 157-161.
17 Id. at 161.
18 Section 6. Retention Limits. — x x x x
Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management, contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of the Act shall be null and void; provided, however, that those executed prior to this Act shall be valid only when registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3) months after the effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds shall inform the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) within thirty (30) days of any transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares.
19Rollo, pp. 159-160.
20 Id. at 162-175.
21 Id. at 183-194.
22 Transferred from TCT No. T-81618
23 Transferred from TCT No. T-81619
24 Transferred from TCT No. T-81620
25cralawred Transferred from TCT No. T-81621
26 Transferred from TCT No. T-73022
27 Transferred from TCT No. T-73023
28Rollo, pp. 201-203.
29 Id. at 204-210.
30 Id. at 214-217.
31 Id. at 239-243.
32 Id. at 242-243.
33 Id. at 244-264.
34 Supra, note 1.
35Rollo, pp. 81-84.
36 Id. at p. 87.
37 Id. at 28-29.
38 Yujuico v. Atienza, Jr., G.R. No. 164282, October 12, 2005, 472 SCRA 463, 478; Chua v. Torres, G.R. No. 151900, August 30, 2005, 468 SCRA 358, 365; Shipside Incorporated v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 143377, February 20, 2001, 352 SCRA 334, 346.
39Estares v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 144755, June 8, 2005, 459 SCRA 604, 616; Torres v. Specialized Packaging Development Corporation, G.R. No. 149634, July 6, 2004, 433 SCRA 455, 465.
40Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 170625, October 17, 2008, 569 SCRA 510, 523; Pfizer, Inc. v. Galan, G.R. No. 143389, May 25, 2001, 358 SCRA 240, 247; Hontiveros v. Regional Trial Court, Br. 25, Iloilo City, G.R. No. 125465, June 29, 1999, 309 SCRA 340, 352.
41Hutama-RSEA/Supermax Phils., J.V. v. KCD Builders Corporation, G.R. No. 173181, March 3, 2010, 614 SCRA 153, 161-162; Pajuyo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 146364, June 3, 2004, 430 SCRA 492, 509.
42 An Act Strengthening the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), Extending the Acquisition and Distribution of All Agricultural Lands, Instituting Necessary Reforms, Amending for the Purpose Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 6657,Otherwise Known As The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, As Amended, And Appropriating Funds Therefor.
43 G.R. No. 134406, November 15, 2000, 344 SCRA 706.
44 Id. at 715.
45Carbonilla v. Board of Airlines Representatives, G.R. No. 193247, September 14, 2011, 657 SCRA 775, 798; St. Michael’s Institute v. Santos, G.R. No. 145280, December 4, 2001, 371 SCRA 383, 394; Heirs of Ramon Durano, Sr. v. Uy, G.R. No. 136456, October 24, 2000, 344 SCRA 238, 257.
46Dumo v. Espinas, G.R. No. 141962, January 25, 2006, 480 SCRA 53, 69; Sesbreño v. Central Board of Assessment Appeals, G.R. No. 106588, March 24, 1997, 270 SCRA 360, 370; Servicewide Specialists, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 117728, June 26, 1996, 257 SCRA 643, 653.
47 G.R. No. 109568, August 8, 2002, 387 SCRA 15.
48 Id. at 29.
49Antonio v. Geronimo, G.R. No. 124779, November 29, 2005, 476 SCRA 340,352; Municipality of Parañaque v. V.M. Realty Corporation, G.R. No. 127820, July 20, 1998, 292 SCRA 678, 689.
50 Section 4(d), Republic Act No. 6657.
51Natalia Realty, Inc. v. Department of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 103302, August 12, 1993, 225 SCRA 278, 283.
52 Section 3(c), Republic Act No. 6657.
53 Section 3(b), Republic Act No. 6657.
54 Section 22, Republic Act No. 6657.
55 Section 4, Article III, 1987 Constitution.
56 G.R. No. 86889, December 4, 1990, 192 SCRA 51, 57.
57Rollo, pp. 107, 109, 111, 113, 115, 117, 119, 121, 123, 125, 127, 129, 131, 133, 135
58 Id. at 153-154.
59 Id. at 159.
60Declaring 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 Beneficary And Mode Of Compensation To The Landowner”
61 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Dumlao, G.R. No. 167809, November 27, 2008, 572 SCRA 108, 121; Land Bank of the Philippines v. Natividad, G.R. No. 127198, May 16, 2005, 458 SCRA 441, 452; Paris v. Alfeche, G.R. No. 139083, August 30, 2001, 364 SCRA 110, 122.
62Daez v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 133507, February 17, 2000, 325 SCRA 856, 862.
63Rollo, p. 158.
64 G.R. No. 153817, March 31, 2006, 486 SCRA 326.
65 Id. at 346
66Aniano v. Asturias Chemical Industries, Inc., G.R. No.160420, July 28, 2005, 464 SCRA 526, 539.
67 Rollo, p. 209.
68Ludo & Luym Development Corporation v. Barreto, G.R. No. 147266, September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 391, 403-404.
69 Heirs of Rafael Magpily v. De Jesus, G.R. No. 167748, November 8, 2005, 474 SCRA 366, 374.
70 The Heirs of Jose Juanite v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 138016, January 30, 2002, 375 SCRA 273, 276-277.
71 Dalwampo v. Quinocol Farmers, Farm Workers and Settlers’ Association, G.R. No. 160614, April 25, 2006, 488 SCRA 208, 219.
72 Rollo, p. 212.
73Rollo, p. 43.
74 G.R. No. 172841, December 15, 2010, 638 SCRA 541.
75 Id. at 553-555.
76 G.R. No. 127876, December 17, 1999, 321 SCRA 106.
77 Id. at 133-142.
78 G.R. No. 154286, February 28, 2006, 483 SCRA 507, 519-520.
79 G.R. No. 139083, August 30, 2001, 364 SCRA 110.
80 Id. at 120-121.
81 Section 6, Republic Act No. 6657.
82Danan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132759, October 25, 2005, 474 SCRA 113, 128.
83People v. Duca, G.R. No. 171175, October 9, 2009, 603 SCRA 159,169; Rubio, Jr. v. Paras, G.R. No. 156047, April 12, 2005, 455 SCRA 697, 712; Uy v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109557, November 29, 2000, 346 SCRA 246, 254-255.