Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 88 views

    Landbank Vs Araneta

    Uploaded by

    Ren
    This case involves a 1,645 hectare tract of land originally registered under Doronilla that was later acquired by J. Amado Araneta in 1983. [1] In 1974, President Marcos issued a proclamation reserving the land for town site purposes. [2] In 1978, the OSG filed an expropriation case against Doronilla that was later dismissed in 1987. [3] The Supreme Court ruled that the land was converted to non-agricultural use when the proclamation was issued, placing it outside the coverage of the agrarian reform law and jurisdiction of the DAR adjudicating body.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Landbank Vs Araneta

    Uploaded by

    Ren
    88 views2 pages
    This case involves a 1,645 hectare tract of land originally registered under Doronilla that was later acquired by J. Amado Araneta in 1983. [1] In 1974, President Marcos issued a proclamation reserving the land for town site purposes. [2] In 1978, the OSG filed an expropriation case against Doronilla that was later dismissed in 1987. [3] The Supreme Court ruled that the land was converted to non-agricultural use when the proclamation was issued, placing it outside the coverage of the agrarian reform law and jurisdiction of the DAR adjudicating body.

    Original Title

    240653733-Landbank-vs-Araneta.docx

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    This case involves a 1,645 hectare tract of land originally registered under Doronilla that was later acquired by J. Amado Araneta in 1983. [1] In 1974, President Marcos issued a proclamation reserving the land for town site purposes. [2] In 1978, the OSG filed an expropriation case against Doronilla that was later dismissed in 1987. [3] The Supreme Court ruled that the land was converted to non-agricultural use when the proclamation was issued, placing it outside the coverage of the agrarian reform law and jurisdiction of the DAR adjudicating body.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    88 views2 pages

    Landbank Vs Araneta

    Uploaded by

    Ren
    This case involves a 1,645 hectare tract of land originally registered under Doronilla that was later acquired by J. Amado Araneta in 1983. [1] In 1974, President Marcos issued a proclamation reserving the land for town site purposes. [2] In 1978, the OSG filed an expropriation case against Doronilla that was later dismissed in 1987. [3] The Supreme Court ruled that the land was converted to non-agricultural use when the proclamation was issued, placing it outside the coverage of the agrarian reform law and jurisdiction of the DAR adjudicating body.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    LANDBANK vs.

    ARANETA, GR 161796

    FACTS:
    At the heart of the controversy is a large tract of land with an area of 1,645 hectares, more or less, which was
    originally registered in the name of Alfonso Doronilla (Doronilla) under Original Certificate of Title (OCT) No.
    7924 of the Rizal Registry. On June 21, 1974, then President Marcos issued Proclamation 1283, carving out a wide
    expanse from the Watershed Reservation in Antipolo, Rizal and reserving the segregated area for town site
    purposes, "subject to private rights, if any there be.

     In 1978, the OSG filed with the then CFI of Rizal an expropriation complaint against the Doronilla property.
    Meanwhile, on 1979, Doronilla issued a Certification, copy furnished the Agrarian Reform Office, among other
    agencies, listing seventy-nine (79) "bona fide planters" he allegedly permitted to occupy a portion of his land. On
    1987 or nine (9) years after it commenced expropriation proceedings, the OSG moved for and secured the dismissal
    of the expropriation case.

    Earlier, or on March 15, 1983, J. Amado Araneta, now deceased, acquired ownership of the subject Doronilla
    property by virtue of court litigation. A little over a week later, he had OCT No.7924 canceled and secured the
    issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. N-70860 in his name.

    ISSUES: Jurisdiction of DAR and its Adjudicating Arm

    RULING:
    The DARAB has been created and designed to exercise the DAR’s adjudicating functions. And just like any quasi-
    judicial body, DARAB derives its jurisdiction from law, specifically RA 6657, which invested it with adjudicatory
    powers over agrarian reform disputes and matters related to the implementation of CARL.

    As earlier discussed, the process of land reform covering the 1,266 hectares of the Araneta estate was not completed
    prior to the issuance of Proclamation 1637. So the intervenors, with the exception of the 79 tenant-beneficiaries who
    were granted CLTs, failed to acquire private rights of ownership under PD 27 before the effective conversion of the
    Doronilla property to non-agricultural uses.  Hence, the Doronilla property, being outside of CARP coverage, is also
    beyond DARAB’s jurisdiction.
     
              The OSG’s withdrawal of the expropriation suit on September 9, 1987 did not, automatically restore the
    Doronilla property to its original classification nor did it grant DAR or DARAB the power or jurisdiction to order
    the compulsory acquisition of the property and to place it under CARP.

    And, as the CA aptly noted, the DOJ Secretary, through Opinion 181,  even advised the DAR Secretary that lands
    covered by Proclamation 1637, having been reserved for town site purposes, are not deemed “agricultural lands”
    within the meaning and intent of Sec. 3(c) of RA 6657 and, hence, outside the coverage of CARL . The
    Secretary of Justice further stated that RA 6657 did not supersede or repeal Proclamations 1283 and 1637 and they
    remain operative until now; their being town site reservations still remain valid and subsisting.  To clarify, a DOJ
    opinion carries only a persuasive weight upon the courts.  However since this Court, in Natalia Realty, Inc., cited
    with approval DOJ Opinion No. 181, such citation carries weight and importance as jurisprudence.  Be that as it
    may, We recognize and apply the principles found in Natalia Realty, Inc. regarding the character of the Doronilla
    property being converted to a townsite and, thus, non-agricultural in character.

    WHEREFORE, the petitions are hereby partly DENIED. The CA Decision dated September 19,
    2003, as effectively reiterated in its Resolution of January 22, 2004 and April 2, 2004, is
    AFFIRMED with the modification that the 75 CLTs issued prior to the effectivity of Presidential
    Proclamation No. 1283 on June 21, 1974 are declared legal and valid. The other CLTs, EPs,
    CLOAs issued by DAR involving the subject property are hereby CANCELED and
    NULLIFIED.
     The Land Bank and DAR are hereby ordered to COMPUTE the just compensation of the
    land subject of the 75 CLTs and PAY the just compensation to the Estate of J. Amado Araneta.
    No pronouncement as to cost.
    SO ORDERED.

    You might also like