Interfaz de Listado de Incidencias

 Because while it notifies that the property shall be placed under CARP, the landowner is entitled to retention.

 Notifies the landowner about the public hearing about the results of field investigation, land evaluation and other pertinent matters

 The landowner will be informed that the field investigation of his landholding shall be conducted. After that comes the notice of acquisition.

2. Notice of acquisition:

 The area subject of compulsory acquisition has to be stated. WHY? It is based already on the field investigation

 Plus the amount of just compensation offered by DAR

How is the notice to be done? Personal delivery, registered mail and posting

Note in the case of CONFED: Notice shall contain the offer of DAR

 OFFER: offer of the government to the landowner as to how much the government will pay the landowner corresponding to the land to be acquired.

 Discuss this in relation to par. (e): It is the deposit that is the key to the immediate possession and issuance of a title

(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal delivery or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.

 Within 30 days from the date of the receipt the owner shall inform DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.

TN: Do not be misled by the word administrator here because, in so far as the owner who answers to the offer, the administrator has no authority to receive the notice.

Roxas Co. vs. Ca

Roxas, the person who received the notice of coverage was and administrator. SC held that it was not a valid service of the notice.

(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP 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.

 If the landowner accepts the owner, he shall execute a deed of transfer and correspondingly the landowner shall be paid just compensation

University of San Carlos EH408 (2016)

(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative proceedings to determine the compensation of the land by requiring the landowner, the LBP and other interested parties to summit evidence as to the just compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.

TN: Even if DAR conducts Summary Administrative proceeding for determination of just compensation. SC explained in CONFED vs.

DAR that determination by DAR is merely preliminary because in sub-paragraph (F), it is the RT who has jurisdiction on determination of just compensation.

(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 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.

 In normal dealings (voluntary dealings), if you have a sale of land, the seller will execute the Deed of Sale and give the original copy (owner’s duplicate copy) to the buyer, so that the buyer can go to RD, and be issued a new title in favor of the purchaser. But here it is different because there is no deed to be executed by the landowner because this is compulsory.

There is also no surrender of the owner’s copy of the title.

There are two copies of a title: (1) with the Registry of Deeds and; (2) the owner’s copy of the title.

1. Under par. (e), Registry of Deeds can cancel the title of the LO on the basis of the deposit, certification from land bank which will be annotated to the title and RD will issue a new title in favor of the Republic of the Philippines.

2. The title is cancelled even without the surrender of the owner’s copy

3. RD’s copy of the LO’s title is cancelled even if the owner’s copy is subsisting

i. Probable in case LO rejects offer or does not reply, he is still in possession of the title

ii. Advise: do not simply rely on the owner’s copy, you get a certified true copy from the RD.

4. RD can cancel and issue under CARL even if there is no payment of taxes and transfer fees (provided in Sec 66 and 67 below)

Sec. 66 (Exemptions from taxes &fees of land transfer)

Sec. 67 (Free Registration of patents, titles & documents required for implementation of CARP)

Sec. (e): Once DAR request and LBP makes deposit of initial valuation, DAR can request RD to cancel title & transfer it to Republic of Phil. So even if landowners protests valuation, distribution of land will proceed.

CLOAs are issued upon land acquisition: so cancellation of title of landowner can simultaneously go w/ issuance of CLOA.

LBP vs. Heirs of Trinidad

What is the amount deposited? Does sub-paragraph E follows after subparagraph D? NO, because E may also follow after sub-paragraph B.

It means that if the owner does not file a reply within 30 days or if he rejects it, two things will happen: (1) it can be conducted through summary administrative proceedings and;

(2) deposit.

By mere deposit and having in possession a certification that there was deposit made in the bank in the name of the landowner, DAR can request the Registry of Deeds to cancel the title of the landowner and issue a new title under the name of the Republic of the Philippines.

Under the amendments of RA9700, the Registry of Deeds has no discretion because it is a ministerial function. ROD can only transfer the name of the title once the DAR issues a certification on the deposit.

TN: Sub-paragraph A, B, C, and E is related to administrative implementation so it is under MARO. D is not under MARO, it is under PARAD or RARAD depending on the amount involved- not more than 5M, PARAD; if more than 5M RARAD.

Summary Administrative Proceeding is not under the administrative implementation because it is quasi-judicial. There is a need for an adjudicatory arm because in determining the just compensation, disputes may arise and it must be settled.

(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation

 The decision referred to is based on the Summary Administrative Proceeding. If it reaches DARAB, any party (referring not only to the landowner, LBP can also file a case in RTC) can go to RTC.

“FINAL”

Determination of the DAR is merely preliminary; the final say is with the RTC.

“PAYMENT”

 In cash (if hectares involved are small hectares receives more cash while those who have bigger hectares receives less cash so that they can pursue on agricultural undertaking.)

 LBP bonds (expires in 10 years but it can be use to buy property)

Compulsory Acquisition is also an eminent domain.

Expropriation in Consti Law: two limitations:

 Public use

 Payment of just compensation

SC: In this case (CONFED VS. DAR), there is no more need to prove public use because this has been settled in the Constitution when it called for Agrarian Reform. So there is only one limitation remaining: just compensation.

JUST COMPENSATION

University of San Carlos EH408 (2016)

1.What are the factors which the court must rely upon to be able to determine just compensation? (Sec. 17)

2. When shall we reckon the payment of the determination of just compensation? Time of ACTUAL taking

 But it is different in this case, while the SC has mentioned about date of taking, but it has been interpreted at the time of the issuance of the title which may different.

 Actual scenario: actual taking may precede issuance or vice versa

TN: This is the section that provides the Special Agrarian Courts (SAC) original and exclusive jurisdiction. SAC refer to RTC. Agrarian Cases like any other case has rules and procedure which is Rule 67 which is about expropriation.

Sec. 58 and rule 67 talks about appointment of commissioners. When the case is filed in the RTC: in the law itself, it says MAY appoint, under rule 67, court SHALL appoint Commissioners for the determination of just compensation.

Who normally opposes commissioners? BIR, city assessor, provincial assessor, treasure and if parties cannot agree on the third member, the court appoints the clerk of court (they are more or less knowledgeable on the aspect of just compensation). It does not preclude other person to be appointed as commissioners. The purpose is to receive evidence as far as just compensation is concerned and based on the evidence submit recommendation to RTC.

Recommendation of the commissioners is not binding upon the them.

LBP vs .Heirs of Trinidad

“Deposit” under sub-paragraph (E), question is what is the amount to be deposited? Is it the amount of the offer the DAR in sub-paragraph A which is supposed to be contained in the notice of acquisition? Or is it the amount based on par. (d) after the conduct of summary proceedings?

CA claimed that the amount to be deposited under sub-paragraph E is the sum awarded under sub-sub-paragraph D because while sub-par. A talks about the offer sub-par. E talks about deposit. You can only find the word deposit in sub-par. E and it follows sub-par. E and because it follows sub-par. D so the word deposit must be referring to the sum awarded by DARAB after the conduct of Summary Administrative Proceeding.

SC did not agree. SC ruled that E should be related to subpar (a), (b), and (c) considering that the taking of possession by the state is the next step after DAR, and LBP supplied with the notice requirements.

In effect the SC is saying: it is the offer of the LBP that will determine that that is the correct amount to be deposited not the amount after the determination of just compensation in a summary administrative proceeding. SC claimed that to construe subpar (A) would hamper the land redistribution process because the government has to wait for the termination of the Summary Administrative proceeding.

TN: par (a) precedes over par. (d) on the determination of the correct amount to be deposited.

Compensation in cash or in LBP bonds (Section 16)

 Payment of cash and bonds otherwise the government will go bankrupt if all in cash.

 Bonds: to give the government time to appropriate in the future when the bonds will mature VOS (Voluntary offer to sell): under the law, if you make VOS, landowner is entitled to 5% payment in cash, additional than that provided by law.

Land Bank v. CA

Private respondent challenged the admin order issued by DAR permitting the opening of trust account by LBP, in lieu of depositing in cash or in LBP bonds.

SC:

 Sec. 16 (e) is explicit that deposit be in “cash” or in “LBP bonds”;

 Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made in any other form like a trust account;

 There was no basis for issuance of order.

WHY? Because the trust account is under the control of the trustee. The beneficiary-landowner cannot properly use or control the funds when the funds is supposed to be given due for land owner. not sanctioned by law

Service of the NOC

General rule — The NOC shall be addressed to and received by the Landonwer.

EXCEPTIONS:

 Service upon co-owners — In case of co-ownership, the NOC shall be served upon each and every co-owner, unless one is specifically authorized to receive for the other co-owners.

AHEDaI

 Service upon minors or incompetents — When the LO is a minor, insane or otherwise incompetent, service shall be made upon him personally and to his legal guardian if he has one, or if none, upon his guardian ad litem whose appointment shall be applied for by the DLR. In the case of a minor, service may also be made on his father and/or mother.

 Service upon entity without juridical personality — When the LOs who are persons associated in an entity without juridical personality are sued under the name by which they are generally or commonly known, service may be effected upon all the LOs by serving upon any one of them, or upon the person in charge of the Office or place of business maintained in such name. Such service shall not bind individually any person whose connection with the entity has, upon due notice, been severed before the proceeding was brought.

 Service upon domestic private juridical entity — When the LO is a corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate secretary, treasurer, in-house counsel or administrator. Branch manager is not included

 Service upon LO whose identity or whereabouts is unknown — In any proceeding where the LO is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the DLR may order.

 Extraterritorial service — When the LO does not reside and is not found in the Philippines, or when the LO ordinarily resides within the Philippines but is temporarily out of the country, service may be made by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in such places and for such time as the DLR may order.

ROXAS CO. vs. CA

University of San Carlos EH408 (2016)

There are two notices that is mandatory: Notice of Coverag and Notice of Acquisition.

QUERY: how does DAR know the name of the landowner?

ANS: DAR will get a Certified True Copy of the Title from Registry of Deeds or true copy of the Tax Declaration from the assessor in case of untitled land. If there is no certified true copy. Present any of these four documents, to wit:

1. Photocopy of Title 2. Tax Declaration

3. Certification from Registry of Deed that OCT/TCT is missing but there is a technical description and the last known registered owner is indicated.

4. Public Documents

If based on these documents, there are several landowners then send NOC’s to all of them. For just compensation, let DAR settle it for as long as service of the NOC is complied. DAR also preferred that NOC’s should be published in the national newspaper of general circulation.

Heirs of Deleste vs LBP HELD:

On the violation of petitioners' right to due process of law

Petitioners contend that DAR failed to notify them that it is subjecting the subject property under the coverage of the agrarian reform program; hence, their right to due process of law was violated.

We agree with petitioners. The importance of an actual notice in subjecting a property under the agrarian reform program cannot be underrated, as non-compliance with it trods roughshod with the essential requirements of administrative due process of law.

It was incumbent upon the DAR to notify Deleste, being the landowner of the subject property. It should be noted that the deed of sale executed by Hilaria in favor of Deleste was registered on March 2, 1954, and such registration serves as a constructive notice to the whole world that the subject property was already owned by Deleste by virtue of the said deed of sale. In Naval v. CA, this Court held:

Applying the law, we held in Bautista v. Fule that the registration of an instrument involving unregistered land in the Registry of Deeds creates constructive notice and binds third person who may subsequently deal with the same property.

It bears stressing that the principal purpose of registration is "to notify other persons not parties to a contract that a transaction involving the property has been entered into." 64 There was, therefore, no reason for DAR to feign ignorance of the transfer of ownership over the subject property.

Moreover, that DAR should have sent the notice to Deleste, and not to the Nanamans, is bolstered by the fact that the tax declaration in the name of Virgilio was already canceled and a new one issued in the name of Deleste. Although tax declarations or realty tax payments of property are not conclusive evidence of ownership, they are nonetheless "good indicia of possession in the concept of an owner, for no one in his right mind would be paying taxes for a property that is not in his actual or, at least, constructive possession."

Petitioners' right to due process of law was, indeed, violated when the DAR failed to notify them that it is subjecting the subject property under the coverage of the agrarian reform program.

Failure to notify owners violating section 16.

 Spouses Gregorio and Hilaria, childless. But the husband had a son name Virgilio by another woman but was raised by the couple. Gregorio also had two daughters, Esperanza and Caridad by still another woman. Gregorio died. Hilaria and Virgilio sold the land to Jose Deleste. Sale was notarized, registered, declaration was cancelled and tax declaration was issued in the name of Deleste.

 DAR notified the heirs of Gregorio meaning that Deleste was not notified.

SC: it was incumbent upon DAR to notify Deleste, he was the landowner, sale was registered and tax declaration was already in the name of Deleste. Petitioner’s right to due process was indeed violated, DAR failed to notify them. There can be no valid transfer of title should the CLT’s are void, cancellation of TCTs and OCTs are clearly warranted.

ROXAS CO. VS. CA

The landowner is a domestic corporation; the NOC was served to an administrator. After the service of the NOC, the government acquired the landholding and after that, causes the cancellation of the land title of the land owner and issued a new title in favor of the Republic. Then CLOAs were given to the farmers.

SC ruled that the service of the NOC to the administrator is invalid because he is not authorized to receive such (Admin. Order 7-11).

If the service is invalid, is it a ground to nullify the CLOA. SC said NO, let DAR validate the proceedings. SC has no power to cancel

If the service is invalid, is it a ground to nullify the CLOA. SC said NO, let DAR validate the proceedings. SC has no power to cancel