Sherluck Jun C. VillegasAgrarian Law

1. Philippine Veterans Bank v CA [G.R. No. 132767, January 18, 2000]

Facts: Petitioner owned four parcels of land in Tagum, Davao. DAR took the lands and distributed it to the landless farmers in the area pursuant to R.A. No. 6657 - Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988. Petitioner filed a petition for determination of the just compensation of its property because of its dissatisfaction with the valuation of the land made by respondents Land Bank of the Philippines and the DARAB. However, RTC dismissed the petition on the ground that it was filed beyond the 15-day reglementary period for filing appeals from the orders of the DARAB.

Issue: Whether or not the petitioner can still appeal after the 15-day period for filing appeals.

Law: Rule XIII, Section 11 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure

Decision: No. According Rule XIII, Section 11 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure, an appeal shall be made fifteen (15) days from receipt of the resolution/decision/final order appealed from or of the denial of the movants motion for reconsideration and non-compliance with the foregoing shall be a ground for dismissal of the appeal. In the case at bar, the petition was filed beyond the 15-day period therefore it was dismissed.

Opinion: The 15-day period to file a petition for motion for reconsideration is sufficient. However, in cases where the petitioner cannot appeal within 15 days after receipt of resolution of the Adjudicator, the court shall not immediately dismiss the case if he can show a satisfactory cause that an extension period is needed to file the petition.

2. Reyes v Reyes [G. R. No. 140164, September 6, 2002]

Facts: Dionisia Reyes filed a complaint for reinstatement with DARAB against her four younger brothers who are the private respondents. According to Dionisa, her late father, was the tenant of a two-hectare agricultural lot owned by Castro. When her father died, she and Castro executed a leasehold contract naming her as the agricultural lessee of the property. However, before the planting of the dry season crop started, the respondents forcibly entered and occupied a one-hectare portion of the property and claimed to be the tenants thereof. The respondents then paid rent to Duran, overseer of Castro, and occupied the half of the property to prejudicing the petitioner. The respondents denied Dionisias claim that she was the genuine leasehold tenant and insisted that they are the ones who inherited the lease rights to the property from their deceased father. They also declared that they were the ones cultivating the portion occupied by them.

Issue: Whether or not the Dionisia is the lawful agricultural lessee of the two-hectare agricultural lot.

Law: RA 3844 - Agricultural Land Reform Code

Decision: Yes. The governing law in this agricultural leasehold dispute is R.A. No. 3844. The two modes for the establishment of an agricultural leasehold relation under this law are the following: (1) by operation of law in accordance with Section 4 of the said act which is the abolition of the agricultural share tenancy system and the converting it to into leasehold relations; (2) by oral or written agreement, either express or implied.In the case at bar, it is not disputed that an agricultural leasehold contract was entered into between petitioner and Ramon Castro. In fact, the overseer of Castro admitted that he was aware of the existence of the leasehold contract between petitioner and the Castros, naming the former as the successor-tenant to the property. Opinion: The decision of SC is precise. Dionisia is the lawful agricultural lessee of the two-hectare agricultural lot since she has an agricultural leasehold contract with Castro with respect to the said lot. Her case is also strong because she has the overseer, Duran, as her witness to the leasehold contract.

3. Sarne v Maquiling [G.R. No. 138839, May 9, 2002]

Facts: Private respondents filed a complaint for redemption and damages against petitioners before the Office of the Provincial Adjudicator in Dumaguete City. In the complaint, the respondents alleged that as tenants of the subject parcel of land, they have the right of pre-emption and redemption pursuant to Sections 11 and 12 of R.A. No. 3844. The Adjudicator ruled in favour of the respondents but the petitioners asserted that the Adjudicator has no jurisdiction to decide the case because the land in dispute was not under the administration and disposition of the DAR and the Land Bank of the Philippines. On appeal to the CA, the jurisdiction of DARAB (Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board) was upheld.

Issue: Whether or not the DARAB has jurisdiction over the case.

Law: Section 1, paragraph (e), Rule II of the DARAB New Rules

Decision: Yes. Section 1, paragraph (e), Rule II of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure covers agrarian disputes involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure, pre-emption and redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP or other agrarian laws. The phrase "agricultural lands under the coverage of the CARP" includes all private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture, as defined under Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657. There is no provision limiting the jurisdiction of the DARAB only to agricultural lands under the administration and disposition of DAR and LBP.

Opinion: The decision of SC in denying the petition is accurate since there is no provision in the law limiting the jurisdiction of the DARAB only to agricultural lands. We should not distinguish where the law does not distinguish.

4. Philbancor v. CA [GR No. 12957226, June 2000]

Facts: Hizon owned an agricultural lands which were tenanted by Pare, Galang, and Vie. Hizon mortgaged the said lands to Philbancor without the knowledge of his tenants. When Hizon failed to pay his obligations, Philbancor was acquired the property at a public auction. It was only after seven years when the tenants found out about the mortgage after they were asked by Philbancor to vacate the lots. Thus, they filed a complaint for maintenance of possession with redemption and tenancy right of pre-emption PARAB. The PARAB ruled in favor of the tenants and was affirmed by the DARAB and the CA affirmed the decision.

Issue: Wether or not the tenants could still exercise their right of redemption five years after expiration of the redemption period prescribed by law.

Law: Section 12 of RA 3844

Decision: No. According to Section 12 of RA 3844, the right of redemption may be exercised within 2 years from the registration of the sale. In the case at bar, the redemption period had already expired when the tenants filed the. However, their rights to continue as agricultural tenants in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land tenanted by them is nor prejudiced.

Opinion: The decision of the SC to deny the petition is just. The 2 year period for redemption is sufficient time to file a petition for redemption. This law regarding the redemption period is fair and unbiased.