Set 2 1st Sem 2nd Year

7/24/2019 Set 2 1st Sem 2nd Year

1/9

CASTROVERDE, KRIZEL MARY B. LAW II-A

JULIAN S. LEBRUDO and REYNALDO L. LEBRUDO v. REMEDIOS LOYOLAG.R. No. 11!"#, Ma$%& ', (#11

J. Carpio

)ACTS

Respondent owns a 240-square meter parcel of land located at Carmona, Cavite awardedby the DAR under RA !o ""#$ %CAR&' which is covered by Certi(cate of )and *wnership%C)*A' and duly re+istered under C erein petitioner .ulian )ebrudo substituted by hisson Reynaldo, (led with the &ARAD of Cavite, an action for the cancellation of said itle andthe issuance of another for half of the lot involved which was dismissed on the +round ofprematurity &etitioner then re-(led for the same action with the followin+ alle+ations/ hatherein respondent ased for petitioner1s assistance in redeemin+ the mort+a+ed lot and toshoulder the epenses needed for the issuance of itle to )oyola which was ful(lled by thepetitioner 3n echan+e for his assistance, respondent promised to +ive half of the said lot to

petitioner by eecutin+ three sinumpan+ salaysay waivin+ her ri+ht to half of the lot infavour of petitioner Respondent then refused to comply with her promise when petitionerased for his portion of the lot involved which then resulted to the petitioner asin+ for theassistance of the an++unian+ 5aran+ay of Carmona, Cavite, the &!&, and DAR to mediateand solve the dispute Despite e6orts to solve the di6erence the parties failed to reach anamicable settlement Respondent alle+ed facts contrary to the information provided bypetitioner in her answer and denied ever promisin+ to +ive half of the lot to )ebrudo he&ARAD then decided the case in favour of the petitioner Respondent then appealed to theDARA5 which was +ranted reversin+ the decision of &ARAD &etitioner then (led a motion forreconsideration which the DARA5 denied in a resolution &etitioner then (led a petition withthe CA which a7rmed the decision of DARA5 in denyin+ his petition

ISSUE

8hether or not )ebrudo is entitled to half of the lot covered by RA ""#$

RULING

!o A Certi(cate of )and *wnership is a document evidencin+ ownership of the land+ranted of awarded to the bene(ciary by DAR, and contains the restrictions and conditionsprovided for in RA ""#$ and other applicable laws particularly ec 2$ which provides for thetransferability of awarded lands prohibitin+ any land acquired under said law to betransferred, sold, or conveyed to third persons ecept throu+h hereditary succession, the+overnment, )5&, or other quali(ed bene(ciaries &etitioner1s action is without merit he

law epressly prohibits any sale, transfer or conveyance by farmer-bene(ciaries of their landreform ri+hts within 90 years form the +rant by the DAR :urthermore the certi(cate of titleobtained by herein respondent serves as evidence of an indefeasible title and it becomesincontrovertible after a year he eecuted inumpaan+ alaysays are liewise void ab initiofor it was the intention of the petitioner to violate the conditions imposed by the A+rarian)aw herefore the &etition is D;!3;D, the C A::3R


2/9


LAND BANK O) T*E +*ILI++INES v. *ONEYCOMB )ARMS COR+ORATIONG.R. No. 1(', Nov/0$ 1(, (#1(

J. Brion

)ACTS

Respondent was the re+istered owner of a parcel of a+ricultural land with an area of2=0="" hectares situated in Cainta+an,


3/9

reception of evidence he &etition is FRA!;D he assailed amended decision of the CA isR;G;R;D and ; A3D; he special civil case is remanded to the RC of


4/9


LAND BANK O) T*E +*ILI++INES v. ENRI4UE LIVIOCOG.R. No. 1"#, S53/0$ ((, (#1#

J. D2 Ca63722o,

)ACTS

Respondent ;nrique )ivioco was the owner of ?0"?2= hectares of su+arland located in=,>$000 he Goluntary-o6er-to-sell%G*' form indicated that his property is ad@acent to residential subdivisions and to aninternational paper mill aid o6er was then referred to )5& for valuation which set the priceat ?29 pesos per square meter or a total of >2$,=4?4> pesos for 2" hectares Respondentwas +iven notice but did not act upon it he )5& then issued a certi(cation to the Re+isterof Deeds of &ampan+a that it has earmared the aforementioned amount as compensationfor the land in question wo years later, respondent requested for a re-evaluation of thecompensation on the +round that its value had already appreciated from the time it was (rst

o6ered for sale which was denied by the Re+ional Director on the +round perfected salehe DAR then proceeded to tae possession of )ivioco1s property and awarded Certi(catesof )and *wnership to 2" quali(ed farmer-bene(ciaries Respondent (led separatecomplaints to cancel said certi(cates and to recover his property e liewise (led forquietin+ of title, recovery of possession and dama+es a+ainst the DAR, )5&, Re+ister ofDeeds, and the farmer-bene(ciaries he CA sustained the validity of the C)*As anddeclared it (nal and eecutor Respondent then (led a petition for reconveyance before theDAR Re+ional *7ce which eventually reached the CA which dismissed the same on the+round of the decided validity of the compulsory acquisition he )5& upon request of theDAR reduced the acquired portion of the property and noti(ed )ivioco he latter (nally (leda petition for @udicial determination of @ust compensation before the RC Respondentliewise presented evidence to prove the value of his property and alle+ed the increase in

said property1s value he RC ordered for the submission of additional evidence to supporttheir alle+ations which both parties failed to comply As a result, the RC decided the case infavor of respondent he )5& sou+ht for reconsideration but to no avail )5& was thenordered by the court upon motion of respondent to release an initial cash down payment&etitioner in turn sou+ht for reconsideration of said order he CA a7rmed the trial court1sdecision in toto

ISSUE

8hether or not the @ust compensation was determined in accordance with law

RULING

he factual (ndin+s of the trial courts are entitled to respect he factors for determinin+@ust compensation set out in ec 9$ of RA ""#$ were all considered by the trial court inarrivin+ at its decision :or purposes of @ust compensation, the fair maret value of andepropriated property is determined by its character and its price at the time of tain+ Asto the character of property, both courts erred in treatin+ the land as residential andacceptin+ the chan+e in the character of the property, without any proof that authoriedland conversion had taen place he property1s character refers to its actual use at thetime of tain+ not its potential uses ence, the CA and the trial court had no le+al basis forconsiderin+ the sub@ect property1s value as residential he trial and appellate court liewiseerred in its decision related to the price of the property involved As manifested in the trial


5/9

court1s decision, it reco+nies that the evidences presented by the parties were insu7cientto arrive at the @ust compensation and that the necessary evidence were unavailable for itsconsideration Despite the lac of evidence, the court still proceeded with the case anddecided it in favour of the respondent based on a mere preponderance of evidence even if itwas not relevant he )5&s valuation is liewise erroneous 3t is not enou+h that thelandowner fails to prove a hi+her valuation for the propertyH )5& must still prove thecorrectness of its claims 3n the absence of such substantiation, the case may have to beremanded for the reception of evidence )5& merely submitted its computation to the courtwithout any evidence on record whether documentary or testimonial that would support thecorrectness of the values of data used in such computation 3n li+ht of the lac of evidenceneeded to pursue the case, the court decided to remand the case to its court of ori+in hepetition was D;!3;D in so far as it sou+ht to have the )5&1s valuation of the sub@ectproperty sustained he assailed decisions of the CA and its resolution were reversed andset aside for lac of factual and le+al basis he Civil case was remanded to the RC ofAn+eles City for reception of evidence on the issue of compensation and said court wasdirected to determine the @ust compensation in accordance with the +uidelinesH and wasfurther directed to conclude the proceedin+s and to submit to the C a report of its (ndin+sand recommended conclusions within "0 days from notice of the decision


ATLAS )ERTILIZER COR+ORATION v. T*E *ONORABLE SECRETARY O) T*EDE+ARTMENT O) AGRARIAN RE)ORM

G.R. No. '!1##, J8n 1', 1''"

J. Romero,

)ACTS

&etitioners are en+a+ed in the aquaculture industry utiliin+ (shponds and prawn farmshey assailed ections ? %b', 99, 9?, 9" %d', 9$ and ?2 of RA ""#$, as well as the

implementin+ +uidelines and procedures contained in A*s > and 90 series of 9=>> issue bypublic respondent secretary of the DAR as unconstitutional &etitioners claimed that thequestioned provisions of CAR) violate the constitution in that the provisions in questionunder CAR) etend a+rarian reform to aquaculture lands even as the Constitution limits saidlaw to a+ricultural landsH that said provisions treat aquaculture and a+riculture landssimilarly when they are di6erently situated and di6erently treat the same when they aresimilarly situated in violation of the equal protection clause of the constitutionH that saidprovisions distort employment bene(ts and burdens in favour of aquaculture employeesHthat questioned provisions deprive petitioner of its +overnment-induced investments inaquaculture as opposed to the constitutional mandate that the state respect the freedom ofenterprise to reasonable returns on investments and to epansion and +rowth

ISSUE

8hether or not the above-mentioned provisions insofar as they include in its covera+e landsdevoted to the aquaculture industry is unconstitutional

RULING

he court has already ruled impliedly that lands devoted to (shin+ are not a+riculturallands 3n said undertain+, the use of land is only incidental to and not the principal factor inproductivity and hence, is ecluded from RA ""#$ 8hile the court will not hesitate todeclare a law or an act void when confronted squarely with constitutional issues, neither willit pre-empt the )e+islative and the ;ecutive branches of the +overnment in correctin+ or

clarifyin+ by means of amendment, said law or act 3t is clearly stated in ection 90-;emptions and ;clusions of RA ""#$ that &rivate lands actually, directly, and eclusivelyused for prawn farms and (shponds have not been distributed and C)*A issued to a+rarianreform bene(ciaries under the CAR& furthermore, under the same law, the provision statesthat the fore+oin+ provision shall not apply to a+ricultural lands subsequently converted to(shponds or prawn farms provided the sie of the land converted does not eceed theretention limit of the landownerE 8herefore the petition is D3>9


6/9


NATALIA REALTY 3 a2. v6. DARG.R. No. 1#!!#(, A89863 1(, 1''!

J. Bellosillo,

)ACTS

&residential &roclamation !o 9"?$ set aside several hectares of land in Antipolo and


7/9


LAND BANK O) T*E +*ILI++INES v. MONTINOLA-ESCARILLA and CO., INC.G.R. No. 1"#, J8n 1!, (#1(

J. Perlas-Bernabe,

)ACTS

Respondent 9 hectares were acquired by the +overnment in 9==# under RA ""#$ )5&valued the land but was re@ected by respondent )5& then (le a summary proceedin+ for thedetermination of @ust compensation before the RARAD 2?,2040> pesos he 5oard ofCommissioners was unable to come up with a uni(ed valuation 8hile the RC +ave morecredence to the Appraisal Report submitted by Asian, it did not adopt its valuation andinstead (ed lower values but hi+her than those recommended by the 5oard ofCommissioners &etitioner and the DAR ecretary then (led separate motions forreconsideration which were both denied in the *rder )5& appealed with the CA which set

aside the RC1s valuation for failure to +ive due consideration to the factors enumerated inec 9$ of RA ""#$ he CA then adopted the commissioners1 report submitted by the twocommissioners as the only unbiased determination of @ust compensation

ISSUE

8hether or not the CA erred in adoptin+ the valuation for @ust compensation

RULING

:or purposes of determinin+ @ust compensation, the fair maret value of an epropriatedproperty is determined by its character and price at the time of tain+ he potential use of

the epropriated property is only considered in cases where there is a +reat improvement inthe +eneral vicinity of the epropriated property, but should never control the determinationof @ust compensation he RC and the CA i+nored the fact that at the time of the ocularsurvey, a substantial portion of the sub@ect property was idle and abandoned, but thefarmer-bene(ciaries were already startin+ to cultivate their desi+nated area of occupancy asevidenced in the cuttin+ of trees and some already started to plant crops 3t was erroneousto reclassify the acquired property into cornland and cocoland based on plainti61s evidenceconsiderin+ that the improvements were introduced by the farmers and farmworers to theproperty in determinin+ its valuation Consequently, there is a need to remand the case tothe court a quo for reception of evidence and (nal determination of @ust compensationtain+ into account the factors under ection 9$ of RA ""#$ he Assailed decision of CA is


8/9

; A3D; he records of the case were remanded to the court a quo which is directed todetermine the proper @ust compensation for the sub@ect property


LAND BANK O) T*E +*ILI++INES v. *EIRS O) MA:IMO +UYAT and GLORIA +UYATG.R. No. 1"#, J8n (", (#1(

J. Del Castillo,

)ACTS

Floria and


9/9

remand After the parties (led their respective memorandum in 200$ and submitted thecase for resolution, con+ress passed a new a+rarian reform law, RA =$00 which furtheramended RA ""#$ he former provides in section #, that all valuations that are sub@ect tochallen+e by the landowners shall be completed and (nally resolved pursuant to ection 9$of RA ""#$, as amended )astly, the DAR and )5& appeared to be nonchalant in deprivin+landowners of their properties hey seemed to have i+nored the requirements of law, andyet they ased for a strict compliance with the law when it came to compensatin+ thelandowners he ri+hts of the )andowners cannot be li+htly set aside and disre+arded forthe attainment of the lofty ideals of a+rarian reform he &etition was D;!3;D by the C forlac of

Documents

Set 2 1st Sem 2nd Year