1.

LBP vs CA and PASCUAL Again, petitioner LBP rejected the directive of Secretary
Facts: Private respondent Pascual owned three (3) Garilao. Petitioners Executive Vice President, Jesus Diaz,
parcels of land located in Cagayan covered by TCT. The then sent a letter to Secretary Garilao arguing that (a) the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) placed these valuation of just compensation should be determined by
lands under its Operation Land Transfer (OLT) the courts; (b) PARAD could not reverse a previous order
EO 228 - Hence, the formula for computing the Land of the Secretary of the DAR;[15] and, (c) the valuation of
Value (LV) or Price Per Hectare (PPH) of rice and corn lands under EO 228 falls within the exclusive jurisdiction
lands is 2.5 x AGP x GSP = LV or PPH. of the Secretary of the DAR and not of the DARAB.
In compliance with EO 228, the Provincial Agrarian Issue: Who has the authority to determine land valuation.
Reform Officer (PARO) of the DAR in an "Accomplished WON the valuation of just compensation should be
OLT Valuation Form No. 1" dated 2 December 1989 determined by the courts
recommended that the "Average Gross Productivity" Ruling: Thus, petitioners contention that Sec. 12, par. (b),
(AGP) based on "[3] Normal Crop Year" for Parcels 1 and of PD 946 is still in effect cannot be sustained. It seems
2 should be 25 cavans per hectare for unirrigated lowland that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform erred in issuing
rice and 10 cavans per hectare for corn land. Memorandum Circular No. I, Series of 1995, directing the
Meanwhile, the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian DARAB to refrain from hearing valuation cases involving
Reform (SAR) also conducted its own valuation PD 27 lands. For on the contrary, it is the DARAB which
proceedings apart from the PARO. On 10 October 1990 has the authority to determine the initial valuation of
Secretary Benjamin T. Leong of the DAR using the AGP lands involving agrarian reform[30] although such
of 25.66 cavans for unirrigated rice lands and requiring valuation may only be considered preliminary as the final
herein petitioner Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to determination of just compensation is vested in the
pay the amount. On 1 February 1991 petitioner LBP courts
approved the valuation.
After receiving notice of the decision of the PARAD,
private respondent accepted the valuation. However,
when the judgment became final and executory,
petitioner LBP as the financing arm in the operation of
PD 27 and EO 228 refused to pay thus forcing private
respondent to apply for a Writ of Execution with the
PARAD which the latter issued on 24 December 1992.
Still, petitioner LBP declined to comply with the order.
Petitioner LBP remained adamant in its refusal to pay
private respondent. It reiterated its stand that the PARAD
had no jurisdiction to value lands covered by PD 27.
2. GABATIN VS CA [G.R. No. 148223. November virtue of P.D. No. 27. The GSP for one cavan of palay at
25, 2004] that time was at P35. Prescinding from the foregoing
Facts: Petitioners Gabatin were registered owners of discussion, the GSP should be fixed at said rate, which
three parcels of rice land situated in Sariaya, Quezon, was the GSP at the time of the taking of the subject
under separate certificates of titles. properties.
In 1989, the properties, pursuant to the Land Reform
Program of the Government as defined under
Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 and Executive Order
(E.O.) No. 228, were placed by the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) under its Operation Land
Transfer (OLT). The properties were distributed to
deserving farmer beneficiaries through the issuance of
emancipation patents.
Issue : Whether just compensation in kind (palay) at the
time of the taking of the properties shall be appraised at
the price of the commodity at the time of the taking or at
the time it was ordered paid by the SAC?
Ruling: The taking of private lands under the agrarian
reform program partakes of the nature of an
expropriation proceeding. In computing the just
compensation for expropriation proceedings, it is the
value of the land at the time of the taking, not at the time
of the rendition of judgment, which should be taken into
consideration. Then in determining the value of the land
for the payment of just compensation, the time of taking
should be the basis. In the instant case, since the dispute
over the valuation of the land depends on the rate of the
GSP used in the equation, it necessarily follows that the
GSP should be pegged at the time of the taking of the
properties.
In the instant case, the said taking of the properties was
deemed effected on 21 October 1972, when the petitioners
were deprived of ownership over their lands in favor of
qualified beneficiaries, pursuant to E.O. No. 228 and by
3. LBP vs NATIVIDAD Land Bank then filed a Petition for Relief from Order
Facts: On May 14, 1993, private respondents filed a Dated 30 July 1996,[6] citing excusable negligence as its
petition before the trial court for the determination of ground for relief. Attached to the petition for relief were
just compensation for their agricultural lands situated in two affidavits of merit claiming that the failure to include
Arayat, Pampanga, which were acquired by the in the motion for reconsideration a notice of hearing was
government pursuant to PD 27. The petition named as due to accident and/or mistake
respondents the DAR and Land Bank. With leave of The trial court, in its Order of November 18, 1996, denied
court, the petition was amended to implead as co- the petition for relief because Land Bank lost a remedy in
respondents the registered tenants of the land. law due to its own negligence.
The court rendered the assailed Decision the dispositive According to Land Bank, private respondents should have
portion of which reads: sought the reconsideration of the DARs valuation of their
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered in favor of properties. Private respondents thus failed to exhaust
petitioners and against respondents, ordering administrative remedies when they filed a petition for the
respondents, particularly, respondents Department of determination of just compensation directly with the trial
Agrarian Reform and the Land Bank of the Philippines, to court. Land Bank also insists that the trial court erred in
pay these lands owned by petitioners and which are the declaring that PD 27 and Executive Order No. 228 are
subject of acquisition by the State under its land reform mere guidelines in the determination of just
program, the amount of THIRTY PESOS (P30.00) per compensation, and in relying on private respondents
square meter, as the just compensation due for payment evidence of the valuation of the properties at the time of
for same lands of petitioners located at San Vicente (or possession in 1993 and not on Land Banks evidence of
Camba), Arayat, Pampanga. the value thereof as of the time of acquisition in 1972.
Issue: WON there is contradiction between DARs
Respondent Department of Agrarian Reform is also primary jurisdiction and the original and exclusive
ordered to pay petitioners the amount of FIFTY jurisdiction of regional trial courts over just
THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) as Attorneys Fee, and compensation.
to pay the cost of suit. Ruling: There is nothing contradictory between the DARs
DAR and Land Bank filed separate motions for primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian
reconsideration which were denied by the trial court in its reform matters and exclusive original jurisdiction over all
Order[5] dated July 30, 1996 for being pro forma as the matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform,
same did not contain a notice of hearing. Thus, the which includes the determination of questions of just
prescriptive period for filing an appeal was not tolled. compensation, and the original and exclusive jurisdiction
Land Bank consequently failed to file a timely appeal and of regional trial courts over all petitions for the
the assailed Decision became final and executory. determination of just compensation.
Primary jurisdiction is vested in the DAR to determine in
a preliminary manner the just compensation for the lands
taken under the agrarian reform program, but such
determination is subject to challenge before the courts.
Section 17 of RA 6657, provides the guideposts for the determination of just
compensation:
Sec. 17. Determination of Just Compensation.In determining just
compensation, the cost of 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 farm-workers and by the Government to the property
as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from any government
financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional
factors to determine its valuation.
Meneses vs DAR Thereafter, in an Order dated June 22, 1994, the RTC
dismissed the complaint for lack of cause of action.
Facts: According to the RTC, the determination of just
Petitioners were co-owners pro-indiviso of an irrigated compensation must first be filed with the DAR and not the
rice land in Barangay Batasan, San Miguel, Bulacan, Special Agrarian Court.
measuring 60.8544 hectares and registered in the name On October 5, 1994, petitioners filed a complaint for
of their grandparents, the spouses Ramon Meneses and determination and payment of just compensation with the
Carmen Rodriguez-Meneses. On October 21, 1972, the DARAB. The DARAB, however, dismissed the complaint
property was distributed to farmer-beneficiaries by virtue on the ground that it has no jurisdiction to hear and
of Presidential Decree No. 27 (P.D. No. 27). decide valuation cases covered by P.D. No. 27, as the
On July 16, 1993, petitioners filed with the Regional Trial same is within the exclusive administrative powers of the
Court (RTC) of Bulacan, Branch 13, a complaint for Office of the Secretary.
determination and payment of just compensation.
Petitioners alleged that from the time the land was Issue: W/n PD 27 or RA 6657 is applicable in this case
distributed to farmer-beneficiaries in 1972 up to the time
of the filing of the complaint, no payment or rentals has Held:
been made, and titles have already been issued to the
farmer-beneficiaries. Petitioners also alleged that the fair Under the circumstances of this case, the Court deems it
market value of the property is P6,000,000.00 more equitable to apply the ruling in the Natividad case.
The DAR Secretary, on the other hand, alleged that the In said case, the Court applied the provisions of R.A. No.
valuation of the property was pursuant to the Operation 6657 in computing just compensation for property
Land Transfer under P.D. No. 27 and the reckoning date expropriated under P.D. No. 27, stating, viz.:
should be at the time of the taking of the property, i.e.,
October 21, 1972. Land Bank's contention that the property was
Lastly, the DAR claimed that the filing of the case is acquired for purposes of agrarian reform on
premature since there is no valuation yet made by the October 21, 1972, the time of the effectivity of PD
DAR based on E.O. No. 228, and petitioners must 27, ergo just compensation should be based on
cooperate with the DAR by submitting all the necessary the value of the property as of that time and not at
papers for proper valuation and expeditious payment of the time of possession in 1993, is likewise
the land. The DAR also claimed that it must first erroneous. In Office of the President, Malacañang,
determine the valuation before resort to the court can be Manila v. Court of Appeals, we ruled that the
made. seizure of the landholding did not take place on
the date of effectivity of PD 27 but would take land, location along the highway, market value,
effect on the payment of just compensation. assessor's value and the volume and value of its
produce. This Court is convinced that the trial
Under the factual circumstances of this case, court correctly determined the amount of just
the agrarian reform process is still incomplete compensation due private respondents in
as the just compensation to be paid private accordance with, and guided by, RA 6657 and
respondents has yet to be settled. Considering existing jurisprudence.
the passage of Republic Act No. 6657 (RA
6657) before the completion of this process, As previously noted, the property was expropriated under
the just compensation should be determined the Operation Land Transfer scheme of P.D. No. 27 way
and the process concluded under the said law. back in 1972. More than 30 years have passed and
Indeed, RA 6657 is the applicable law, with PD petitioners are yet to benefit from it, while the farmer-
27 and EO 228 having only suppletory effect, beneficiaries have already been harvesting its produce
conformably with our ruling in Paris v. Alfeche. for the longest time. Events have rendered the
applicability of P.D. No. 27 inequitable. Thus, the
xxxx provisions of R.A. No. 6657 should apply in this case.

It would certainly be inequitable to determine just

compensation based on the guideline provided by
PD 27 and EO 228 considering the DAR's failure
to determine the just compensation for 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.

In this case, the trial court arrived at the just

compensation due private respondents for their
property, taking into account its nature as irrigated
Lubrica vs Land Bank of the Philippines the preliminary just compensation at P51,800,286.43 for
the 311.7682 hectares (TCT No. T-31) and
Facts: P21,608,215.28 for the 128.7161 hectares (TCT No. T-
Petitioner Josefina S. Lubrica is the assignee of Federico 128).
C. Suntay over certain parcels of agricultural land located Not satisfied with the valuation, LBP filed on February 17,
at Sta. Lucia, Sablayan, Occidental Mindoro, with an area 2003, two separate petitions[8] for judicial determination
of 3,682.0285 hectares covered by Transfer Certificate of of just compensation before the Regional Trial Court of
Title (TCT) No. T-31 (T-1326) of the Registry of Deeds of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro, acting as a Special
Occidental Mindoro. In 1972, a portion of the said Agrarian Court, docketed as Agrarian Case No. R-1339
property with an area of 311.7682 hectares, was placed for TCT No. T-31 and Agrarian Case No. R-1340 for TCT
under the land reform program pursuant to Presidential No. T-128, and raffled to Branch 46 thereof.
Decree No. 27 (1972) and Executive Order No. 228 The Court of Appeals held that the trial court correctly
(1987). The land was thereafter subdivided and ordered LBP to deposit the amounts provisionally
distributed to farmer beneficiaries. The Department of determined by the PARAD as there is no law which
Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the LBP fixed the value of prohibits LBP to make a deposit pending the fixing of the
the land at P5,056,833.54 which amount was deposited final amount of just compensation. It also noted that there
in cash and bonds in favor of Lubrica. is no reason for LBP to further delay the deposit
On the other hand, petitioners Nenita Suntay-Taedo and considering that the DAR already took possession of the
Emilio A.M. Suntay III inherited from Federico Suntay a properties and distributed the same to farmer-
parcel of agricultural land located at Balansay, beneficiaries as early as 1972.
Mamburao, Occidental Mindoro covered by TCT No. T-
128[6] of the Register of Deeds of Occidental Mindoro, W/n the value of the realties should be computed as of
consisting of two lots, namely, Lot 1 with an area of the time of payment or when PD 27 took effect?
45.0760 hectares and Lot 2 containing an area of
165.1571 hectares or a total of 210.2331 hectares. Lot 2 Held: In the instant case, petitioners were deprived of
was placed under the coverage of P.D. No. 27 but only their properties in 1972 but have yet to receive the just
128.7161 hectares was considered by LBP and valued compensation therefor. The parcels of land were already
the same at P1,512,575.05. subdivided and distributed to the farmer-beneficiaries
Petitioners rejected the valuation of their properties, thereby immediately depriving petitioners of their
hence the Office of the Provincial Agrarian Reform use. Under the circumstances, it would be highly
Adjudicator (PARAD) conducted summary administrative inequitable on the part of the petitioners to compute the
proceedings for determination of just just compensation using the values at the time of the
compensation. On January 29, 2003, the PARAD fixed taking in 1972, and not at the time of the payment,
considering that the government and the farmer- and by the government to the property as well as the
beneficiaries have already benefited from the land nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from any
although ownership thereof have not yet been transferred government financing institution on the said land shall be
in their names. Petitioners were deprived of their considered as additional factors to determine its
properties without payment of just compensation which, valuation.
under the law, is a prerequisite before the property can Petitioners were deprived of their properties way back in
be taken away from its owners. The transfer of 1972, yet to date, they have not yet received just
possession and ownership of the land to the government compensation.Thus, it would certainly be inequitable to
are conditioned upon the receipt by the landowner of the determine just compensation based on the guideline
corresponding payment or deposit by the DAR of the provided by P.D. No. 227 and E.O. No. 228 considering
compensation with an accessible bank. Until then, title the failure to determine just compensation for a
remains with the landowner. considerable length of time. That just compensation
We also note that the expropriation proceedings in the should be determined in accordance with R.A. No. 6657
instant case was initiated under P.D. No. 27 but the and not P.D. No. 227 or E.O. No. 228, is important
agrarian reform process is still incomplete considering considering that just compensation should be the full and
that the just compensation to be paid to petitioners has fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the
yet to be settled.Considering the passage of R.A. No. expropriator, the equivalent being real, substantial, full
6657 before the completion of this process, the just and ample.
compensation should be determined and the process
concluded under the said law. Indeed, R.A. No. 6657 is
the applicable law, with P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 228
having only suppletory effect.
Section 18 of R.A. No. 6657 mandates that 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
 Held: No. AFC’s and HPI’s land were taken in 1996 without
APO vs CA just compensation. DARAB, an agency of the DAR which
was commissioned by law to determine just
Facts: compensation, sat on the cases for three years, which was
APO Fruits Corporation, Inc. (AFC) and Hijo Plantation Inc. the reason that AFC and HPI filed the cases before the
(HPI) were owners of 5 parcels of land (1338.60 has.) RTC. The RTC’s finding is to be sustained as it based it’s
located in San Isidro, Tagum, Davao. On 12 October 1995, ruling on evidence. DAR was given chance to support its
the two voluntarily offered to sell the properties to the DAR. ruling on why the purchase price should be at a lower
DAR offered P86.9 million for AFC’s land and P164.40 amount but DAR failed to present such evidence. To allow
million for HPI’s land (total of about P251.3 million). AFC, the taking of landowners’ properties, and to leave them
HPI and DAR cannot agree on a price hence the empty-handed while government withholds compensation
Complaint for Determination of Just Compensation was is undoubtedly oppressive.
filed before the DAR Adjudication Board on 14 February Note should be taken that in said Appraisal Report,
1997. The DARAB failed to render a decision on the permanent improvements on AFC’s and HPI’s lands have
valuation of the land for three years. But nevertheless, the been introduced and found existing, e.g., all weather-road
government, through the Land Bank of the Philippines, network, airstrip, pier, irrigation system, packing houses,
deposited P26M into AFC’s account and P45M into HPI’s among others, wherein substantial amount of capital
account as down payment in 1996. The DAR also caused funding have been invested in putting them up.
the titling of the land in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines in December 1996. Later, titles were given to The agricultural properties of AFC and HPI are just a
farmers under the CARP (Comprehensive Agrarian stone’s throw from the residential and/or industrial
Reform Program). sections of Tagum City, a fact DAR should never ignore.
The market value of the property (plus the consequential
Due to DARAB’s failure to adjudicate, AFC and HPI filed a damages less consequential benefits) is determined by
complaint for determination of just compensation before such factors as the value of like properties, its actual or
the RTC of Davao which rendered a decision in favor of potential use, its size, shape and location. Therefore, AFC
AFC and HPI. The RTC ruled, based on the reports it and HPI is entitled to the amount of just compensation
gathered from assessors, that the purchase price should (Php 1.38 billion) as computed with 12% interest per
be higher than what was offered by DAR; that the annum plus attorney’s fees amounting to 10% of the just
purchase price should be at P103.33/ sq. m; that DAR is compensation or P138 million.
to pay AFC and HPI a total of P1.38 billion. DAR appealed
to the CA, the CA reversed the RTC.
Issue: Whether or not there was just compensation.
LBP v Luz Lim and Purita Lim Cabochan, G.R. No. 171941, 2007 social and economic benefits contributed by the
Facts: farmers and the farmworkers and by the Government
Pursuant to RA 6657, the DAR compulsorily acquired 32.8363 to the property, as well as the non-payment of taxes or
hectares agricultural land of the Lims in Sorsogon. LBP loans secured from any government financing
computed the value of the property at P725K. The Lims rejected institution on the said land, shall be considered as
the valuation and a proceeding was conducted before the additional factors to determine its valuation.
PARAD to determine the valuation of the property. The PARAD These factors have been translated into a basic formula in DAR
set the amount at P725K. AO 6-92, as amended:
Dissatisfied, the Lims filed a petition for determination of just Land Value = (Capitalized Net Income x 0.6) + (Comparable Sales x 0.3) +
compensation with the RTC. The RTC valued the property at (Market Value per Tax Declaration x 0.1)
P1.5M following the report submitted by the Lims’ nominee, as The formula shall be used if all the three factors are present,
opposed to the P947K value given by the LBP’s nominee. The relevant and applicable.
RTC reconsidered, taking into consideration the comparable In computing Capitalized Net Income, the Average Gross
selling price of the adjoining land (acquired by LBP at P68K per Production of the latest available 12 months immediately
hectare), neighborhood, utility, size and the time element preceding the date of notice of coverage, and the average
involved and increased the valuation to P2.2M (at P68K per Selling Price of the latest available 12 months prior to the date
hectare). of receipt of the claimfolder by LBP for processing, should be
The CA affirmed the RTC decision and ordered the LBP to pay used.
legal interest from the time of the taking of the property until The date of notice of coverage would have to be sometime
actual payment. prior to the date of the Field Investigation Report, because the
Issue: field investigation is conducted after the notice of coverage is
Whether or not the lower courts erred in determining just issued. Also, the claimfolder would have been received by LBP
compensation under Section 17 of R.A. 6657 on or before the year the property was distributed to the
Held: agrarian reform beneficiaries, because land distribution is the
Section 17 of R.A. 6657, as amended, thus: last step in the procedure. However, the data used for the AGP
Sec. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. In and SP was the data for the year prior to the date of ocular
determining just compensation, the cost of acquisition inspection, or 3 years after the property was distributed.
of the land, the current value of like properties, its Finally, it was not taken into consideration that, except for
nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by seven hectares, the whole area of the property was planted
the owner, the tax declarations, and the assessment with coconut intercropped with abaca or vice-versa, contrary to
made by government assessors shall be considered. The DAR AO 6-92, as amended which provides that the total income
shall be computed from the combination of crops actually
produced on the covered land whether seasonal or permanent.
The determination of just compensation involves the exercise
of judicial discretion, however, it must be discharged within the
bounds of the law. The amount adopted by the RTC was not
based on any of the mandatory formulas.
The case is remanded to the RTC to determine the just
compensation in accordance with the procedures provided.



LBP v Pedro Yap, G.R. No. 118712, 1995 bank designated by the DAR, the compensation for the land
Facts: before it is taken and the titles are cancelled as provided under
Pedro Yap alleges that, without notice to him, the TCTs of his Section 16(e) of RA 6657.
land were cancelled and transferred to the farmer beneficiaries Issue:
by the RD, based on the request of the DAR together with a (1) Whether or not AO No. 9 is valid, insofar as it provides for the
certification of the Landbank that the sum of P735K and P719K opening of trust accounts in lieu of deposit in cash or in bonds
have been earmarked for Yap. (2) Whether or not the owners can withdraw the amounts
The heirs of Emiliano Santiago allege that, the Landbank, deposited in trust pending resolution of the cases for just
without giving notice to them, required the tillers in their lands compensation
to pay rentals to the Landbank for the use of the farmlots; that
Held:
the DAR issued an order directing the Landbank to pay the
(1) Section 16(e) of RA 6657 provides that the deposit must be
landowner directly or through the establishment of a trust fund
made only in "cash" or in "LBP bonds" and not in any other
in the amount of P135K; that the Landbank reserved in trust form.
P135K in the name of Emiliano F. Santiago; and that the tillers (2) The settled rule is that, there must be full payment of just
stopped paying rental s to the landowners after they compensation before the title to the expropriated property
committed themselves to pay rentals to the Landbank. is transferred. The owners have already been deprived of
Agricultural Management and Development Corporation the possession and use of the properties, to withhold the
(AMADCOR) alleges that the DARAB fixed the compensation for right of the owners to the compensation is an oppressive
their land in Quezon at P2.7M and ordered the Landbank to pay exercise of eminent domain.
or establish a trust account for said amount in the name of
AMADCOR.
With respect to AMADCOR's property in Albay, it is alleged that
emancipation patents were issued covering the area but no
action was taken by the DAR to fix the compensation for said
land; and that a trust account in the name of AMADCOR was
established in the amount of P12.2M, three notices of
acquisition having been previously rejected by AMADCOR.
The landowners argued that Administrative Order No. 9 was
issued without jurisdiction and with grave abuse of discretion
because it permits the opening of trust accounts by the
Landbank, in lieu of depositing in cash or bonds in an accessible
Gonzales v GSIS, G.R. No. L-51997, 1981 institution, which is to be paid directly to the latter by the Land
Facts: Bank in Land Bank bonds.
Spouses Gonzales obtained a housing loan from GSIS, secured While the statute did not provide that the bonds must be
by two residential lots and a 15.7880 & a 9.4602 hectare accepted at face value, it can be inferred that it is the intent of
agricultural land. The spouses weren’t able to pay the the law in the absence of any provision expressly permitting
obligation. discounting, as differentiated from other laws expressly
By virtue of PD 27, the agricultural lands were subdivided and allowing it.
awarded to the tenant-farmers. However, the payment by the The bonds fall within the purview of the non-impairment clause
LBP became remittable only seven years later. of the Constitution. The value of these bonds cannot be
The appraised value of the land was tendered by the Land Bank diminished by any direct or indirect act, particularly, since said
to the GSIS at 20% in cash and 80% in bonds. The GSIS refused bonds are fully guaranteed by the Govemment of the Republic
acceptance unless the payment in bonds were given a of the Philippines.
creditable/discounted value lower that its face value.
Spouses Gonzales accepted under protest the condition of the
GSIS. However, they appealed to the Office of the President
offering to pay the balance of their obligation in cash provided
GSIS would accept at par value the Land Bank bonds. The GSIS
did not reconsider.
Subsequently, the Petition for mandamus was filed praying that
the GSIS be directed to accept the payment of Land Bank bonds
at par value so that the collaterals could be released.
Issue:
Whether or not the GSIS may be compelled to accept Land Bank
bonds at face value in payment of outstanding loans secured
partially by lands taken by the Land Bank under Operation Land
Transfer.
Held:
Section 80 of RA 3844 provides that, when lands with existing
encumbrances are acquired under the land reform program,
the land owner is paid the net value of the land minus the
outstanding balance of his obligation to a government lending
Republic vs CA The District Land Officer at Ilagan, Isabela
recommended the dismissal of the protest on the ground
that the Bureau of Lands no longer had jurisdiction over
the matter as a result of the grant of a free patent to Irene
FACTS: Bullungan. But the Director of Lands on March 23,
1982 ordered an investigation of the protest.
On November 22, 1972 the court rendered a decision,
On September 10, 1955, Irene Bullungan (now dismissing the complaint of Vicente Carabbacan and
deceased) applied for a free patent covering lots situated ordering him to vacate the land, even as it upheld the
in Fugaru (now San Guillermo), Angadanan, Isabela. The ownership of Irene Bullungan. Carabbacan, who had been
lots consisting of 1.04 hectares, which Vicente in possession of the land in question, was finally ousted.
Carabbacan claimed.
The Director of Lands ordered an investigation of
Carabbacans protest. The investigation found that Vicente
Carabbacan had been in actual cultivation of the land
Irene Bullungan stated that the land applied for by her since 1947, having acquired the same from Tomas
was not claimed or occupied by any other person and that Tarayao on May 4, 1947. The land investigator stated that
it was public land which had been continuously occupied due to a big flood which occurred in December 1947, the
and cultivated by her since 1925. Cagayan River changed its course by moving north-east,
resulting in the emergence of a piece of land, which is the
subject of this dispute. Carrabacan took possession of the
Upon certification of Assistant Public Land Inspector land and cultivated it. He was in the continuous, peaceful,
that Irene Bullungan had been in actual, continuous, open, open and adverse occupation and cultivation of the land
notorious, exclusive and adverse possession of the land from December 1947 until 1981 when he was ejected by
since 1925, the Director of Lands approved Bullungans virtue of the decision in Civil Cases.
application on June 4, 1957. The Solicitor General filed in behalf of the Republic
On December 26, 1957, Original Certificate of Title of the Philippines a complaint for the cancellation of Free
No. P-8817 was issued in the name of Irene Bullungan. Patent on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation in
obtaining the free patent.
Alleging that a portion of Lot covered by the free patent
issued to Irene Bullungan overlapped which he was The case was filed in the Regional Trial Court of
occupying, Vicente Carrabacan filed a protest Cauayan, Isabela which, on September 25, 1989,
on September 7, 1961. rendered a decision declaring Free Patent null and void.
 The lower court found that Irene Bullungan made certificate of title is issued, the land ceases to be part of
misrepresentations by claiming in her application for a free the public domain and becomes private property over
patent that she was in possession of the disputed portion which the Director of Lands will no longer have either
of Lot, when in fact Vicente Carabbacan was occupying control or jurisdiction. The Torrens Title issued on the
and cultivating the land. basis of a free patent or homestead patent becomes as
indefeasible as one which was judicially secured upon the
The court justified the reversion of the land in question as
expiration of one year from date of issuance of patent as
an assertion of a governmental right.
provided in P.D. No. 1529, 32 (formerly Act No. 496,
On appeal, however, the Court of Appeals reversed 38). However, as held in Director of Lands v. De
the lower courts ruling on the ground that, after the lapse Luna, even after the lapse of one year, the State may still
of one year from the date of issuance of the patent, the bring an action under 101 of the Public Land Act for the
State could no longer bring an action for reversion. reversion to the public domain of lands which have been
fraudulently granted to private individuals. This has been
The appellate court held that the certificate of title the consistent ruling of this Court.
issued in the name of Irene Bullungan became
incontrovertible and indefeasible upon the lapse of one The failure of Irene Bullungan to disclose that Vicente
year from the issuance of the free patent. Carrabacan was in possession of the portion of land in
dispute constitutes fraud and misrepresentation and is a
The Republic controverts the ruling of the Court of ground for annulling her title.
Appeals. It contends that the doctrine of indefeasibility of
Torrens Titles does not bar the filing of an action for This is not so. Where public land is acquired by an
cancellation of title and reversion of land even if more than applicant through fraud and misrepresentation, as in the
one year has elapsed from the issuance of the free patent case at bar, the State may institute reversion proceedings
in case of fraud in obtaining patents. even after the lapse of the one-year period.
Public policy demands that one who obtains title to a
public land through fraud should not be allowed to benefit
Issue: Whether or not upon the lapse of one year from the therefrom. Vicente Carabbacan had been in possession of
issuance of the free patent bar the filing of an action for the land even. before Irene Bullungan bought the
cancellation of title. possessory rights to the land. It was therefore a
misrepresentation for her to state in her application for a
free patent that she had been in possession of the lot in
Held: question when the fact is that Carabbacan had been there
No. It is settled that once a patent is registered under Act ahead of her.
No. 496 (now P.D. No. 1529) and the corresponding
 industrial area, which became the subject of the strike of
Fortich vs. Corona (AJG) the farmers.
The hunger strike was dramatic and well-publicized which
Facts: commanded nationwide attention that
even church leaders and some presidential candidates
On October 1997, alleged farmer-beneficiaries tried to intervene for their “cause”.
commenced a hunger strike in front ofthe Department of
Agrarian Reform compound in Quezon City. They These events led the OP, through then Deputy Exec. Sec.
protested the decision of the Office of the President (OP) Corona, to issue the so-
dated March 29, 1996 which approved the conversion of a called “Win-Win”Resolution, substantially modifying its
144-hectare land from agricultural to agro- earlier Decision (see decision dated March 29, 1996) after
industrial/institutional area. Note that this decision already it hadalready become final and executory.
became final and executory.
It modified the approval of the land conversion to agro-
The land is located at San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon, industrial area only to the extent of forty-four (44) hectares,
owned by NQSRMDC (NorbertoQuisumbing Sr. and ordered the remaining one hundred (100) hectares to
Management and Development Corp). It was leased as a be distributed to qualified farmer-beneficiaries.
pineapple plantation to Del Monte.

The Sangguniang Bayan of Sumilao, Bukidnon became The Supreme Court, in their decision dated April 24, 1998,
interested in the property, and enacted an ordinance ruled for Fortich and company and declared that the “Win-
converting the said land to industrial/institutional with a Win” Resolution is VOID and of no legal effect considering
view to attract investors in order to achieve economic that the March 29, 1996 resolutionof the OP already
vitality. became final and executory.
Apparently, land conversion issues need to go through the
Department of Agrarian Reform. The DAR rejected the
land conversion and instead opted to put the same under
CARP and ordered the distribution of the property to the
farmers.

The case reached the OP. The OP rendered a decision Issue:

reversing the DAR and converting the land to agro-
1) Whether or not the proper remedy of petitioners should
have been to file a petition for review directly with the
Court of Appeals in accordance with Rule 43 of the However, in this particular case, the remedy prescribed in
Revised Rules of Court; Rule 43 is inapplicable considering that the present
petition contains an allegation that the challenged
(2) Whether or not the petitioners failed to file a motion resolution is patently illegal and was issued with grave
for reconsideration of the assailed Win-Win Resolution abuse of discretion and beyond his (respondent
before filing the present petition; and Secretary Renato C. Coronas) jurisdiction when said
resolution substantially modified the earlier OP Decision
Held: of March 29, 1996 which had long become final and
executory. In other words, the crucial issue raised here
1. In order to determine whether the recourse of involves an error of jurisdiction, not an error of judgment
petitioners is proper or not, it is necessary to draw a line which is reviewable by an appeal under Rule 43. Thus,
between an error of judgment and an error of jurisdiction. the appropriate remedy to annul and set aside the
assailed resolution is an original special civil action for
An error of judgment is one which the court may certiorari under Rule 65, as what the petitioners have
commit in the exercise of its jurisdiction, and which error correctly done. The pertinent portion of Section 1 thereof
is reviewable only by an appeal. On the other hand, provides:
an error of jurisdiction is one where the act complained of
was issued by the court, officer or a quasi-judicial SECTION 1. Petition for certiorari. When any tribunal,
body without or in excess of jurisdiction, or with grave board or officer exercising judicial or quasi-judicial
abuse of discretion which is tantamount to lack or in functions has acted without or in excess of its or his
excess of jurisdiction. This error is correctable only by the jurisdiction, or with grave abuse of discretion amounting
extraordinary writ of certiorari. to lack or excess of jurisdiction, and there is no appeal, or
any plain, speedy, and adequate remedy in the ordinary
It is true that under Rule 43, appeals from awards, course of law, a person aggrieved thereby may file a
judgments, final orders or resolutions of any quasi-judicial verified petition in the proper court, alleging the facts with
agency exercising quasi-judicial functions, including the certainty and praying that judgment be rendered
Office of the President, may be taken to the Court of annulling or modifying the proceedings of such tribunal,
Appeals by filing a verified petition for review within board or officer, and granting such incidental reliefs as
fifteen (15) days from notice of the said judgment, final law and justice may require.
order or resolution, whether the appeal involves
questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and The office of a writ of certiorari is restricted to truly
law. extraordinary cases in which the act of the lower court or
quasi-judicial body is wholly void. omission of a quasi-judicial agency, the petition shall be
filed only with the Court of Appeals, unless otherwise
The aforequoted Section 1 of Rule 65 mandates that the provided by law or the Rules of Court.
person aggrieved by the assailed illegal act may file a But the Supreme Court has the full discretionary power to
verified petition (for certiorari) in the proper court. The take cognizance of the petition filed directly to it if
proper court where the petition must be filed is stated in compelling reasons, or the nature and importance of the
Section 4 of the same Rule 65 which reads: issues rose, warrant. This has been the judicial policy to
be observed.
SEC. 4. Where petition filed.- The petition may be filed
not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment, Pursuant to said judicial policy, we resolve to take
order or resolution sought to be assailed in the Supreme primary jurisdiction over the present petition in the
Court or, if it relates to the acts or omissions of a lower interest of speedy justice and to avoid future litigations so
court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, in the as to promptly put an end to the present controversy
Regional Trial Court exercising jurisdiction over the which, as correctly observed by petitioners, has sparked
territorial area as defined by the Supreme Court. It may national interest because of the magnitude of the problem
also be filed in the Court of Appeals whether or not the created by the issuance of the assailed
same is in aid of its appellate jurisdiction, or in the resolution. Moreover, as will be discussed later, we find
Sandiganbayan if it is in aid of its jurisdiction. If it involves the assailed resolution wholly void and requiring the
the acts or omissions of a quasi-judicial agency, and petitioners to file their petition first with the Court of
unless otherwise provided by law or these Rules, the Appeals would only result in a waste of time and money.
petition shall be filed in and cognizable only by the Court
of Appeals. 2. The rules and regulations governing appeals to the
Office of the President of the Philippines are embodied in
Under the above-quoted Section 4, the Supreme Court, Administrative Order No. 18. Section 7 thereof provides:
Court of Appeals and Regional Trial Court have original
concurrent jurisdiction to issue a writ of SEC. 7. Decisions/resolutions/orders of the Office of the
certiorari, prohibition and mandamus. But the jurisdiction President shall, except as otherwise provided for by
of these three (3) courts are also delineated in that, if the special laws, become final after the lapse of fifteen (15)
challenged act relates to acts or omissions of a lower days from receipt of a copy thereof by the parties, unless
court or of a corporation, board, officer or person, the a motion for reconsideration thereof is filed within such
petition must be filed with the Regional Trial Court which period.
exercises jurisdiction over the territorial area as defined
by the Supreme Court. And if it involves the act or Only one motion for reconsideration by any one party
shall be allowed and entertained, save in exceptionally
meritorious cases.

It is further provided for in Section 9 that The Rules of

Court shall apply in a suppletory character whenever
practicable.

When the Office of the President issued the Order dated

June 23, 1997 declaring the Decision of March 29, 1996
final and executory, as no one has seasonably filed a
motion for reconsideration thereto, the said Office had
lost its jurisdiction to re-open the case, more so modify its
Decision. Having lost its jurisdiction, the Office of the
President has no more authority to entertain
the second motion for reconsideration filed by respondent
DAR Secretary, which second motion became the basis
of the assailed Win-Win Resolution. Section 7 of
Administrative Order No. 18 and Section 4, Rule 43 of the
Revised Rules of Court mandate that only one (1) motion
for reconsideration is allowed to be taken from the
Decision of March 29, 1996. And even if a second motion
for reconsideration was permitted to be filed in
exceptionally meritorious cases, as provided in the
second paragraph of Section 7 of AO 18, still the said
motion should not have been entertained considering that
the first motion for reconsideration was not seasonably
filed, thereby allowing the Decision of March 29, 1996 to
lapse into finality. Thus, the act of the Office of the
President in re-opening the case and substantially
modifying its March 29,1996 Decision which had already
become final and executory, was in gross disregard of
the rules and basic legal precept that accord finality to
administrative determinations.
 BALBOA VS. FERRALES
G.R. No. L-27059 February 14, 1928 ISSUE: whether the validity of the sale of the land in question
JOHNSON, J.:
should be determined under the provisions of Act No. 926 or
FACTS: Sometime in the year 1913, plaintiff Buenaventura under those of Act No. 2874.
Balboa filled with the Bureau of Lands an application for
homestead under the provisions of Act No. 926, covering a Ruling: The Supreme Court is of the opinion that, the right,
tract of land situated in the barrio of Culis, municipality of title and interest of Buenaventura having become vested
Hermosa, Province of Bataan, containing 14 hectares, 49 ares under the provisions of Act No. 926, his rights cannot be
and 77 centares. Five years thereafter, Balboa submitted affected by any law passed subsequent thereto. The
proof, showing his residence upon, and cultivation of said provisions of Act No. 2874 cannot be invoked for the purpose
land, as well as his compliance with all of the other of defeating the vested right acquired by him before its
requirements of section 3 of said Act No. 926, which final adoption.
proof was approved by the Director of Lands on February 15, Section 116 of Act No. 2874, which prohibits the sale of
1918. On July 1, 1919, said Act No. 926 was repealed by Act homestead land during the period of five years subsequent to
No. 2874. the issuance of the patent or certificate of title upon which
On August 11, 1924, said Buenaventura Balboa, for and in rests the decision of the court a quo, cannot be invoked to
consideration of the sum of P950, sold said land to the annul the sale in question. Said prohibition, if applied in the
defendant Cecilio L. Farrales and on October 16, 1924, the present case, would impair and diminish the vested rights
latter secured in his name transfer certificate of title No. 650 acquired under Act No. 926, contrary to the uniform doctrine
of said land. Now, Buenaventura commenced the present followed in the United States, and in violation of the express
action for the purpose of having said sale declared null and provisions of section 3 of the Jones Law.
void on the ground of lack of consent on his part and fraud on
the part of the defendant, and on the further ground that said
sale was contrary to, and in violation of the provisions of
section 116 of Act No. 2874.
The trial court ruled in favor of Buenaventura that said deed
was null and void, in view of the fact that it was executed
before the lapse of five years from the date of the issuance of
the certificate of title in favor of Buenventura Balboa, in
violation of the prohibition contained in section 116 of Act No.
2874.
 SAMUEL ESTRIBILLO VS. DAR ISSUE: Whether Certificates of Title issued pursuant to
G.R. No. 159674 June 30, 2006 Emancipation Patents are as indefeasible as TCTs issued in
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
registration proceedings.
FACTS: Petitioners herein with the exception of two, were
recepients of Emancipation Patents (EP’s) over a parcel of RULING: YES. The Supreme Court said that the date of
lands located at Barangay. Angas, Sta. Josefa, Agusan del Sur. issuance of the patent, corresponds to the date of the
The parcels of land disputed herein, were formerly part of a issuance of the decree in ordinary registration cases because
forested area which have been denuded as a result of the the decree finally awards the land applied for registration to
logging operations of respondent Hacienda Maria, Inc. (HMI). the party entitled to it, and the patent issued by the Director
Petitioners, together with other persons, occupied and tilled of Lands equally and finally grants, awards, and conveys the
these areas believing that the same were public lands. HMI land applied for to the applicant. This is in consonance with
never disturbed petitioners and the other occupants in their the intent and spirit of the homestead laws, i.e. conservation
peaceful cultivation thereof. of a family home, and to encourage the settlement, residence
HMI, through a certain Joaquin Colmenares, requested that and cultivation and improvement of the lands of the public
527.8308 hectares of its landholdings be placed under the domain. Inasmuch as there is no positive statement of the
coverage of Operation Land Transfer. Receiving compensation Public Land Law, regarding the titles granted thereunder, such
therefor, HMI allowed petitioners and other occupants to silence should be construed and interpreted in favor of the
cultivate the landholdings so that the same may be covered homesteader who come into the possession of his homestead
under said law. In 1982, a final survey over the entire area was after complying with the requirements thereof.
conducted and approved. From 1984 to 1988, the Hence, the TCTs issued to petitioners or to their successors-in-
corresponding TCTs and EPs covering the entire 527.8308 interest are declared valid and binding.
hectares were issued to petitioners.
However, In December 1997, HMI filed with the Regional
Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) of CARAGA and claimed
that said area was not devoted to either rice or corn, that the
area was untenanted, and that no compensation was paid
therefor. The 17 petitions, which were later consolidated,
sought for the cancellation of the EPs covering the disputed
277.5008 hectares which had been awarded to petitioners.
 CORPUZ VS. GROSPE landholding to the Samahang Nayon of Malaya, Sto. Domingo,
G.R. No. 135297. June 8, 2000 Nueva Ecija, which had passed Resolution Nos. 16 and 27
PANGANIBAN, J.:
recommending the reallocation of the said lots to the
FACTS: Petitioner Gavino Corpuz was a farmer-beneficiary respondent spouses, who were the "most qualified farmer[s]-
under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) Program of the beneficiaries.”
Department of Agrarian Reform. Pursuant to PD No. 27, he ISSUE: Whether or not by voluntary surrender, petitioner
was issued a Certificate of Land Transfer over two parcels of Corpuz forfeit his right as a beneficiary
agricultural land with a total area of 3.3 hectares situated in
Salungat, Sto. Domingo, Nueva Ecija. To pay for his wifes Ruling: YES. Given the fact that the land was surrendered to
hospitalization, petitioner mortgaged the subject land on the government, not transferred to another private person. It
January 20, 1982, in favor of Virginia de Leon. When the was the government, through the DAR, which awarded the
contract period expired, he again mortgaged it to Respondent landholding to the private respondents who were declared as
Hilaria Grospe, wife of Geronimo Grospe, for a period of four qualified beneficiaries under the agrarian laws. Voluntary
years. surrender, as a mode of extinguishment of tenancy relations,
Petitioner instituted against the respondents an action for does not require court approval as long as it is convincingly
recovery of possession. In his Complaint, he alleged that they and sufficiently proved by competent evidence. Hence,
had entered the disputed land by force and intimidation on Petitioners voluntary surrender to the Samahang Nayon
January 10 and 11, 1991, and destroyed the palay that he had qualifies as a surrender or transfer to the government because
planted on the land. such action forms part of the mechanism for the disposition
Respondents, in their Answer, claimed that the "Kasunduan" and the reallocation of farmholdings of tenant-farmers who
between them and petitioner allowed the former to take over refuse to become beneficiaries of PD 27.
the possession and cultivation of the property until the latter
paid his loan. Instead of paying his loan, petitioner allegedly
executed on June 29, 1989, a "Waiver of Rights" over the
landholding in favor of respondents in consideration of
P54,394.
However,Petitioner denied waiving his rights and interest over
the landholding and alleged that his and his childrens
signatures appearing on the Waiver were forgeries.
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) Ernesto P.
Tabara ruled that petitioner abandoned and surrendered the