3llepublic of tbe tlbilippine~

i!Pupreme QCourt
:fflantla
FIRST DIVISION

MARKEN, IN CORPORATED,* G.R. No. 221060

Petitioner,
Present:

GESMUNDO, CJ, Chairperson,

HERNANDO,
- versus - ZALAJ\1EDA,
ROSARJO, and
MARQUEZ,JJ

LAND BANK OF THE

PHILIPPINES, DEPARTMENT
OF AGRARIAN REFORM, and
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN
REFORM ADJUDICATION Promulgated:
BOARD (DARAB),
Respondents.
AUG O9 2023 ~
X- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - X

DECISION

GESMUNDO, C.J.:

This is an Appeal by Certiorari 1 seeking to reverse and set aside the

April 24, 2015 Decision2 and October 1, 2015 Resolution3 of the Court of
Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No. 127071. The CA affirmed the September 5,

Also referred to as "Marken Incorporated" in some parts of the rollo (see rollo, pp. 13 and 22).
1 Rollo, pp. I 1-28.
1 ld. at 29-43; penned by Associate Justice Carmelita Salandanan-Manahan and concurred in by Associate
Justices Japar B. Dimaampao (now a Member of the Court) and Franchito N. Diamante.
ld. at 44-45.
Decision 2 G.R. No. 221060

2011 Decision4 and September 13, 2012 Resolution5 of the Department of

Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in DARAB Case No. JC-IV-
0330-OCC-MDO-CO-02.

Antecedents

Marken, Incorporated (petitioner), now known as Aquasalina

Incorporated, is the owner of two parcels of land located at Barangays San
Agustin and Bubog Central, Municipality of San Jose, Province of Occidental
Mindoro (subject properties). 6 The subject properties are covered by Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-13682 and T-13683 with an aggregate area
of 411.2680 and 100.2302 hectares, respectively. 7

On August 12, 1998, a Notice of Coverage and Field Investigation8 was

sent to petitioner notifying the latter that the subject properties were placed
under the Compulsory Acquisition Scheme of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program (CARP) of the government under Republic Act (R.A.) No.
6657. 9

Pursuant to its mandate, Landbank of the Philippines (LBP) determined

the value of the subject properties based on valuation inputs, and prepared
their Memoranda of Valuation, Claim Folder Profile, and Valuation
Summaries of Agricultural Land (MOV-CFPVS), 10 as follows: For TCT No.
T-13682 with total value of J'>l l,648,130.73 and TCT No. T-13683 with total
value ofl"7,882,623.22. 11

Subsequently, on September 8, 2000 and February 20, 2001, public

respondent Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) requested that the
compensation proceeds in the amount of Pl0,289,122.78 and Pl,359,007.95
be deposited, in connection with the value regarding TCT No. T-13682. In
compliance thereto, LBP deposited the following amounts in the name of

4 Id. at 84-101; penned by DARAB Member Jim G. Coleto and concurred in by Chairman Virgilio R.
Delos Reyes and Members Anthony N. Parungao, Gerundio C. Madueno, Mary Frances Pesayco-
Aquino, Arnold C. Arrieta, and Ma. Patricia Rualo-Bello.
Id. at 102-108; signed by DARAB Members Gerundio C. Madueno, Jim G. Coleto, Ma. Patricia Rualo-
Bello and Arnold C. Arrieta; Chairman Virgilio R. Delos Reyes and Members Anthony N. Paruiigao,
and Mary Frances Pesayco-Aquino did not take part.
6
Id. at 13.
Id. at 48-51.
Id. at 30.
9 Entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING A COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SOCIAL
JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZA TJON, PROVIDING THE MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATION, AND FOR
OTHER PURPOSES"; approved on June I 0, 1988.
" Rollo, p. 30.
11 ld.

ti
 Decision 3 G.R. No. 221060

petitioner, as evidenced by the Certifications dated September 11, 2000,

March 9, 2001, March 13, 2001, and May 24, 2002, thus:

Pl I ,648, 130.73 for 319.1552 hectares ofland covered by TCT No. T-13682
7,882,623.22 for 88.8800 hectares ofland covered by TCT No. T-13683. 12

When petitioner rejected the valuation, the matter was referred to public
respondent DARAB for summary administrative proceedings for the fixing of
just compensation. 13

Ruling of the DARAB

On September 5, 2011, the DARAB rendered a Decision, the

dispositive portion of which reads:

WHEREFORE, ORDER is hereby issued:

1. ADOPTING the valuation in the total amount of ELEVEN

MILLION SIX HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND ONE
HUNDRED THIRTY PESOS and 73/100 (Pl l,648,130.73) for TCT No.
T-13682 with an area of 319.1552 hectares and SEVEN MILLION
EIGHT HUNDRED EIGHTY TWO THOUSAND SIX HUNDRED
TWENTY THREE and 22/100 (1"7,882,623.22) for TCT N_o. T-13683
with an area of 88.8800 hectares as compensation due the landowner,
Marken, Incorporated, now Aqua Salina, Inc., located at Barangays San
Agustin and Bubog Central, Municipality of San Jose, Province of
Occidental Mindoro, computed as follows:

ForTCTNo. T-13682:

Date MOV Issued Land Use Area Acquired Valuation (f')

July 24, 2000 ldle with FBs 28J.9l88 10,289,]22.78
December 29, 2000 Idle (now planted) 37.2364 I 359 007.95
Total 319.1552 f'J l,648,130.73

ForTCTNo. T-I3683:

Date MOV Issued Land Use Area Acquired Valuation (f')

December 2 J, 2000 Unirrigated riceland 84.9762 7,536,40 J.52
April J9, 200 I Unirrigated riceland 2.6155 231,964.46
July 12, 200! Unirrigated riceland 1.2883 JJ4 257.24
88.8800 n,882,623.22

12
Id. at 31.
13
Id.
Decision 4 G.R. No. 221060

2. DIRECTING the LBP to recompute the additional

compensation package for the necessary improvements which redounded to
the benefit of the farmer-beneficiaries; and

3. DIRECTING the LBP, through its Land Valuation Office to

effect immediate payment to the petitioner, Marken, Incorporated, now
Aqua Salina, the amount due the landowner as computed in paragraph l
hereof, after deducting the amount withdrawn, if any upon receipt of the
claim folder/s of the registered landowner, her heirs, assigns[,] and
successors-in-interest subject to existing rules and regulations.

SO ORDERED. 14

The DARAB adopted the amount of just compensation as determined

by the LBP and held that the landowner failed to support its alleged valuation
on just compensation for the subject properties by clear and convincing
evidence. It was underscored that petitioner did not present any evidence that
would overcome the presumption of regularity ofLBP' s actions. DARAB also
noted the following: 1) petitioner failed to provide proof that it was exempted
from coverage of the CARP; 2) in 1998, DAR cancelled the Order of
Deferment of the previous owner of the subject properties, allowing the
properties to be covered by the CARP law; 3) the field investigation reports
revealed that the subject properties were classified as idle lands and were used
as rice land only in 1999; and 4) LBP was guided by the valuation factors in
Section 17 ofR.A. No. 6657 to value the subject properties. 15

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration dated October 5, 2011

praying that the just compensation computed by the LBP and adopted by the
DARAB be reconsidered. Petitioner claimed that the actual value of the
subject properties should not be lower than r"l60,604,800.00. However,
petitioner's motion for reconsideration was subsequently denied by DARAB
in its Resolution dated September 13, 2012, declaring that the determination
of just compensation had been exhaustively discussed in the September 5,
2011 Decision. 16

Aggrieved, petitioner filed a Petition for Review 17 under Rule 43 of the

Rules of Court before the CA.

The CA Ruling

In its April 24, 2015 Decision, the CA dismissed the petition for review
and affirmed the decision of the DARAB. Thefallo of the decision reads:

14
ld. ot 100-1 <ll.
" Id. at 94-100.
16 Id. at 107.
17
Id. at 190-207.
 Decision 5 G.R. No. 221060

_ WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Petition for Review

1s DISMISSED for lack of merit. The assailed Decision dated September
5, 2011 and the September 13, 2012 Resolution issued by the Department
ofAgrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in DARAB Case No. JC-
IV-0330-OCC-MDO-CO-02 are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED. 18

The CA held that petitioner resorted to the wrong mode of appeal and
should have filed a petition for determination of just compensation with the
Special Agrarian Court (SAC) as mandated by Sec. 6, Rule XIX of the 2009
DARAB Rules of Procedure, 19 implementing Sec. 57 ofR.A. No. 6657. The
failure of petitioner to follow this procedure rendered the decision of the
DARAB final and executory. 20

Petitioner filed a Motion for Reconsideration but the same was denied
by the CA via its October 1, 2015 Resolution.

Hence, this Petition for Review on Certiorari essentially raising the

following

Issues

( 1) Whether the CA erred when it failed to consider that the

petition filed before it was to seek redress for the
erroneous disposition by the DAR on placing the subject
properties under the CARP of the government;

(2) Whether the CA erred when it failed to consider that the

"just compensation" for the subject properties should be
based on their classification as prawn and fishpond and
not agricultural land. 21

Petitioner argues that its appeal to the CA was primarily to seek redress
for the correction of the erroneous disposition by the DAR of placing the
subject properties under the CARP rather than for simple determination of just
compensation. The subject properties were undisputed by public respondents
to have been previously utilized in salt production, and later as fishponds and
for prawn farming. It avers that under R.A. No. 6657, fishponds and prawn

18 Id. at 42.
19 The 2009 Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DA RAB) Rules of Procedure; approved
on September I, 2009.
20 Rollo, pp. 33-42.
21
Id. at 19.
Decision 6 G.R. No. 221060

farms were categorized as commercial farms eligible for a ten-year deferment

period and that a Deferment Order was issued in favor of its predecessor-in-
interest effective 1988 to 1998. While under this deferment period, R.A. No.
7881 22 was enacted, expressly exempting fishponds and prawn farms from its
coverage. Petitioner also adds that in 1995, the subject properties were re-
zoned as an industrial area under Sangguniang Bayan (SB) Resolution No.
5403. It points out that DAR had cancelled said Order of Deferment despite
the foregoing exemptions, but the DARAB made no determination on such
issue. 23 It insists that the just compensation for the subject properties should
be based on their classification as prawn fanns and fishponds and not as
agricultural land. Finally, petitioner contends that the LBP failed to consider
the value of the improvements introduced on the subject properties by their
previous owners in the determination of just compensation. 24

In its Comment, 25 LBP argues that the issues posited by petitioner are
mere rehash of the arguments previously presented before the CA which had
already been squarely passed upon and resolved by the said court. Thus, LBP
agrees with the CA's ruling that due to petitioner's resort to the wrong remedy,
the DARAB Decision and Resolution had become final and executory. The
issue of just compensation would then constitute res judicata on the matter,
barring judicial review. 26 LBP further argues that the subject properties are
not exempt from CARP coverage as there was no appeal by petitioner on the
27
DAR Order to include the subject properties from the coverage of the CARP.
Finally, LBP argues that the computation on just compensation was based on
the applicable laws. 28

Meanwhile, in their Comment, 29 DAR and DARAB reiterated the same

arguments of LBP that the DARAB Decision and Resolution had already
become final and executory, 30 adding that DARAB had legally adopted LBP's
valuations relative to the amount of just compensation as laid down by the
law. The DAR and DARAB concluded that LBP's valuations were products
of meticulous ocular inspections and computations which took into
31
consideration the factors specified under existing rules.

22 Amendment to R.A. No. 6657 (CARL), Republic Act No. 7881; approved on February 20, 1995.
23
Rollo, pp. 19-20.
24
ld. at 20-23.
25
Id. at 129-139.
26 Id. at 131-133.
27 Id. at 133-134.
28 Id. at 134-136.
29 Id. at 152-169.
30 Id. at 162-163.
31 Id. at 163-164.
 Decision 7 G.R. No. 221060

In its Consolidated Reply, 32 petitioner reiterates the arguments in its

petition, claiming that the inclusion of the subject properties to the CARP was
an "unlawful taking" as the same should never have been placed under the
latter's coverage. 33 Petitioner adds that public respondents disregarded the
actual use of the properties and the valuations made by independent
appraisers. The latter valued the subject properties at r'l88,257,000.00, the
Municipal Assessor of Mindoro valued the subject properties at
!'169,806,325.00, and the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) valued the
subject properties at !'220,500.00 per hectare for Barangay Bubog and
r'l 75,000.00 per hectare for Barangay San Agustin. 34

The Court's Ruling

The petition lacks merit.

Original and Exclusive

Jurisdiction ofSpecial Agrarian
Courts

Petitioner availed of the wrong remedy when it directly appealed from

the decision of the DARAB to the CA under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.
The correct remedy was to file a petition for determination of just
compensation with the SAC questioning the Decision of the DARAB as
mandated by Sec. 6, Rule XIX 35 of the DARAB Rules of Procedure and Sec.
5736 ofR.A. No. 6657.

Jurisdiction is the court's authority to hear and determine a case and

there are two rules in determining jurisdiction in cases. First, jurisdiction is

32
ld.atl79-189.
33
Id. at 180-183.
34
Id. at i 83-185.
35
SECTION 6. Filing of Original Action with the Special Awarian Court for Final Determination. - The
party who disagrees with the decision of the Board/Adjudicator may contest the same by filing an
original action with the Special Agrarian Court (SAC) having jurisdiction over the subject property
within fifteen (15) days from his receipt of the Board/Adjudicator's decision.

Immediately upon filing with the SAC, the party shall file a Notice of Filing of Original Action with
the Board/Adjudicator, together with a certified true copy of the petition filed with the SAC.

Failure to file a Notice of Filing of Original Action or to submit a certified true copy of the petition
shall render the decision of the Board/Adjudicator final and executory. Upon receipt of the
Notice of Filing of Original Action or certified true copy of the petition filed with the SAC, no
writ of execution shall be issued by the Board/Adjudicator.
36
Section 57. Special Jurisdiction. - The Special Agrarian Courts shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners, and the
prosecution of all criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all proceedings
before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by this Act. ~
Decision 8 G.R. No. 221060

conferred by law. 37 Second, the nature of the action and the issue of
jurisdiction are shaped by the material averments of the complaint and the
character of the relief sought. 38

Under R.A. No. 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of

1988, the DAR has exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of agrarian reform and is empowered to establish and
promulgate operational policies and issue rules and regulations. 39 It is also
mandated to acquire and determine the value of private agricultural lands for
distribution to qualified beneficiaries. 40 Meanwhile, LBP is charged with the
preliminary determination of the value of lands placed under the land reform
program and the compensation to be paid for their taking. It initiates the
acquisition of agricultural lands by notifying the landowner of the
government's intention to acquire his or her land and the valuation of the same
as determined by LBP. 41 Within 30 days from receipt of notice, the landowner
shall inform the DAR of his or her acceptance or rejection of the offer. In the
event the landowner rejects the offer, a surmnary administrative proceeding is
held by the provincial (PARAD), the regional (RARAD) or the central
(DARAB) adjudicator, as the case may be, depending on the value of the land
for the purpose of determining the compensation for the land. The landowner,
LBP, and other interested parties are then required to submit evidence as to
the just compensation for the land. The DAR Adjudicator decides the case
within 30 days after it is submitted for decision. 42

If the landowner finds the price unsatisfactory, it will be the SAC that
shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the
determination of just compensation to landowners. The pertinent provisions
ofR.A. No. 6657, states:

Section 56. Special Agrarian Court. - The Supreme Court shall

designate at least one (1) branch of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) within
each province to act as a Special Agrarian Court.

The Supreme Court may designate more branches to constitute such

additional Special Agrarian Courts as may be necessary to cope with the
number of agrarian cases in each province. In the designation, the Supreme
Court shall give preference to the Regional Trial Courts which have been
assigned to handle agrarian cases or whose presiding judges were former
judges of the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations.

31 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Villegas, 630 Phil. 613,617 (2010).

38 Department ofAgrarian Reform v. Cuenca, 482 Phil. 208, 216 (2004).
39 Republic Act No. 6657, Chapter Xll, Section 50.
4 o Mateo v. Department of Agrarian Reform, 805 Phil. 707, 721-723 (2017).
41 Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals, 379 Phil. 141, 147 (2000).
42 Id. at 147-148.
 Decision 9 G.R. No. 221060

The-Regional Trial Court (RTC) judges assigned to said courts shall

exercise said special jurisdiction in addition .to the regular jurisdiction of
their respective courts.

The Special Agrarian Courts shall have the powers and prerogatives
inherent in or belonging to the Regional Trial Courts.

Section 57. Special Jurisdiction. - The Special Agrarian Courts

shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the
determination of just compensation to landowners, and the prosecution
of all criminal offenses under this Act. The Rules of Court shall apply to all
proceedings before the Special Agrarian Courts, unless modified by
this Act. xx x (Emphasis supplied).

To implement this prov1s1on, Sec. 6 of Rule XIX (Preliminary

Determination of Just Compensation) of the DARAB Rules of
Procedure provides:

SECTION 6. Filing ofOriginal Action with the Special Agrarian

Court for Final Determination. - The party who disagrees with the
decision of the Board/Adjudicator may contest the same by filing an
original action with the Special Agrarian Court (SAC) having jurisdiction
over the subject property within fifteen (15) days from his receipt of the ·
Board/Adjudicator's decision.

Immediately upon filing with the SAC, the party shall file a
Notice of Filing of Original Action with the Board/Adjudicator, together
with a certified true copy of the petition filed with the SAC.

Failure to file a Notice of Filing of Original Action or to submit a

certified true copy of the petition shall render the decision of the
Board/Adjudicator final and executory. Upon receipt of the
Notice of Filing of Original Action or certified true copy of the pet1t10n
filed with the SAC, no writ of execution shall be issued by the
Board/Adjudicator.

Clearly, R.A. No. 6657 confers jurisdiction on Regional Trial Courts

(RTC) to act as SACs. The SACs have been statutorily determined to have
original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination
of just compensation due to landowners under the CARP. This legal
principle has been upheld and sustained in a number of decisions and has
passed into the province of established doctrine in agrarian reform
jurisprudence. 43

43 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Spouses Montalvan, 689 Phil. 641, 650-65 I (2012).
Decision G.R. No. 221060

In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Wycoco, 44 the Court upheld the

RTC's jurisdiction over the petition for determination of just compensation
even when no summary administrative proceedings were held before the
DARAB whic:h has primary jurisdiction over the issue. The Court held:

The trial court properly acquired jurisdiction because of its exclusive and
original jurisdiction over determination of just compensation, thus -

... It is clear from Sec. 57 that the RTC, sitting as a Special Agrarian
Court, has "original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the
determination of just compensation to landowners." This "original and
exclusive" jurisdiction of the RTC would be undermined if the DAR would
vest in administrative officials original jurisdiction in compensation cases
and make the RTC an appellate court for the review of administrative
decisions. Thus, although the new rules speak of directly appealing the
decision of adjudicators to the RTCs sitting as Special Agrarian Courts, it
is clear from Sec. 57 that the original and exclusive jurisdiction to determine
such cases is in the RTCs. Any effort to transfer such jurisdiction to the
adjudicators and to convert the original jurisdiction of the RTCs into an
appellate jurisdiction would be contrary to Sec. 57 and therefore would be
void. Thus, direct resort to the SAC [Special Agrarian Court] by private
respondent is valid. 45 (Italics in the original)

In Land Bank of the Philippines v. Belista, 46 the Court explained:

Clearly, under Section 50, DAR has primary jurisdiction to

determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and exclusive original
jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian
reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DA and
the DENR. Further exception to the DAR's original and exclusive
jurisdiction are all petitions for the determination of just compensation to
landowners and the prosecilition of all criminal offenses under RA No. 6657,
which are within the _jurisdiction of the RTC sitting as a Special Agrarian
Court. Thus, jurisdiction on just compensation cases for the taking of lands
47
under RA No. 6657 is vested in the courts.

Finally, in Heirs of Lorenzo and Carmen Vidad v. Land Bank of the

Philippines: 48

It must be emphasized that the taking of property under [R.A.] 6657

is an exercise of the State's power of eminent domain. The valuation of
property or <letennination of just compensation in eminent ·domain

44 464 Phil. 83 (2004).

45 Id. at 95-96.
46 608 Phil. 658 (2009).
47
Id. at 664.
48 634 Phil. 9 (20 I OJ.
Decision 11 G.R. No. 221060

proceedings is essentially a judicial function which is vested with the courts

and not with administrative agencies. When the parties cannot agree on the
amount of just compensation, only the exercise of judicial power can settle
the dispute with binding effect on the winning and losing parties. On the
other hand, the determination of just compensation in the RARAD/DARAB
requires the voluntary agreement of the parties. Unless the parties agree,
there is no settlement of the dispute before the RARAD/DARAB,
except if the aggrieved party fails to file a petition for just compensation
on time before the RTC.49 (Emphasis supplied; citations omitted)

It cannot be doubted that one of the principal averments raised by

petitioner is the issue of just compensation. Hence, petitioner's remedy falls
squarely on Sec. 57 of R.A. No. 6657, which is to bring the case before the
SAC for final determination of the just compensation due. 50 However, instead
of following the mandate of R.A. No. 6657, petitioner availed of the wrong
remedy when it directly appealed from the decision of the DARAB to the CA
under Rule 43 of the Rules of Court.

It is here that petitioner asserts that its remedy to appeal with the CA
was proper as it also sought to correct the erroneous disposition by the DAR
of placing the subject properties under the CARP rather than for simple
determination of just compensation.

The Court disagrees.

The following procedural rules are instructive. Rule II, Secs. 7 and 8,
in relation to Rule I, Sec. 2, of the 2003 Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law
Implementation51 (ALI) cases provides:

RULE I
PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS

xxxx

SECTION 2. ALI cases. These Rules shall govern all cases arising from or
involving:

2.1. Classification and identification oflandholdings for coverage under the

agrarian reform program and the initial issuance of Certificate_ of L~d
Ownership Awards (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs), mcludmg
protests or oppositions thereto and petitions for lifting of such coverage[.]

49 Id. at 31 cited in Alfonso v. Land Bank ofthe Philippines, 80 I Phil. 2 I 7, 3 !4 (20! 6).
so Marasiian, Jr. v. Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer, G.R. No. 222882, December 2, 2020.
51 2003 Rules for Agrarian Law Implementation Cases, DAR Administrative Order No. 0J.-03; approved
on January 16, 2003.
 Decision 12 G.R. No. 221060

RULE II
JURISDICTION OVER ALI CASES

SECTION 7. General Jurisdiction. The Regional Director shall exercise

primary jurisdiction over all agrarian law implementation cases except
when a separate special rule vests primary jurisdiction in a different DAR
office.

SECTION 8. Jurisdiction over protests or petitions to lift coverage. The

Regional Director shall exercise primary jurisdiction over protests against
CARP coverage or petitions to lift notice of coverage. If the ground for the
protest or petition to lift CARP coverage is exemption or exclusion of the
subject land from CARP coverage, the Regional Director shall either
resolve the same ifhe has jurisdiction, or refer the matter to the Secretary if
jurisdiction over the case belongs to the latter.

Evidently, assuming that petitioner was truly objecting the inclusion of

the subject properties under the CARP coverage, then the proper remedy is
not to appeal with the CA; rather, such matter should have been brought before
the Regional Director or the Secretary of the DAR.

In Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v. Reyes, 52 the Court held that the

determination of the land's classification as agricultural or non-agricultural
and, in tum, whether the land falls under agrarian reform exemption, must be
preliminarily threshed out before the DAR, 53 particularly, the DAR Secretary,
pursuant to DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 6, Series of 1994.
Accordingly, even with petitioner's insistence that it was merely objecting the
inclusion of the subject properties to the CARP coverage, it still availed of the
wrong remedy.

Further, the inclusion of additional issues other than just compensation

would not divest the SAC of its jurisdiction over petitions for the
determination of just compensation to landowners. To do so would undermine
the jurisdiction conferred to it by law.

In accordance with Sec. 6 of Rule XIX of the DARAB Rules of

Procedure, failure on the part of petitioner to file an original action with the
SAC to contest the decision of the Board or Adjudicator, renders the decision
ofDARAB final and executory. The same can no longer be altered, much less
reversed, by this Court under the doctrine of immutability of judgments.

52 863 Phil. 221 (20 I 9).

53 Id. at 28 I.
 Decision 13 G.R. No. 221060

Subject properties are covered

by the CARP

_ _ In any case, even assuming that the wrong remedy availed of by

pet1t10ner may be brushed off, the issue of whether the subject properties
should have been excluded from CARP coverage is a factual issue beyond the
ambit of this Court. The determination of such issue is best left to the courts
or tribunals below, especially the specialized adjudication bodies, 54 such as
the DAR.

Time and again, the Court has declared that it is not a trier of facts. The
Court's function in petitions for review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court is limited to reviewing errors of law that may have been
committed by the lower courts or tribunals. 55 It is not this Court's function to
analyze or weigh evidence that have already been considered in the lower
courts, or in this case, the proper administrative agencies. 56 Even granting
arguendo that petitioner's case falls under one of the exceptions to said off-
quoted principle, the petition must still fail upon resolution of the substantive
issues herein.

The CARP covers the following lands: (1) all alienable and disposable
lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture; (2) all lands
of the public domain exceeding the total area of five hectares and below to be
retained by the landowner; (3) all government-owned lands that are devoted
to or suitable for agriculture; and (4) all private lands devoted to or suitable
for agriculture, regardless of the agricultural products raised or can be raised
on these lands. 57 Meanwhile, agricultural land is defined as land devoted to
agricultural activity and not otherwise classified as mineral, forest, residential,
commercial, or industrial land. 58

As to what constitutes an agricultural activity, this is defined by Sec.

3(6) ofR.A. No. 6657, as amended, as the cultivation of the soil, planting of
crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish, including the
harvesting of such farm products, and other farm activities and
practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations
done by persons whether natural or juridical. 59 In addition, Secs. 10 and 11 of
R.A. No. 6657 provide the types of lands that are excluded therefrom:

s4 Marasigan, Jr. v. Prov;ncial Agrarian Reform Officer, supra note 50.

55
Ruiz v. Armada, G.R. No. 232849, June 14, 2021.
56
Ca/aoa7,an v. People, 850 Phil. 183, 193 (2019).
57 R.A. No. 6657, Chapter II, Section 4; Heirs ofSalas, Jr. v. Cabungcal, 808 Phil. 138, 162-163 (2017).
58
R.A. No. 6657, Chapter I, Section 3(c).
59
Heirs ofSalas, Jr. v. Cabungcal, supra, at 165.

;t
Decision 14 G.R. No. 221060

Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. - Lands actually,

directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks,
wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding
grounds, watersheds, and mangroves, national defense, school sites and
campuses including experimental farm stations operated by public or
private schools for educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research and
pilot production centers, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto,
mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto, communal burial
grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by
the imnates, government and private research and quarantine centers and all
lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already
developed shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act. 60 (Emphasis
supplied).

Section 11. Commercial Farming. - Commercial farms, which are

private agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and
swine raising, and aquaculture including saltbeds, fishponds and prawn
ponds, fruit farms, orchards, vegetable and cut-flower farms, and cacao,
coffee and rubber plantations, shall be subject to immediate compulsory
acquisition and distribution after (10) years from the effectivity of this Act.
In the case of new farms, the ten-year period shall begin from the first year
of commercial production and operation, as determined by the DAR. During
the ten-year period, the govermnent shall initiate the steps necessary to
acquire these lands, upon payment of just compensation for the land and the
improvements thereon, preferably in favor of organized cooperatives or
associations, which shall thereafter manage the said lands for the worker-
beneficiaries. 61

When R.A. No. 7881, 62 which amended certain provisions ofR.A. No.
6657, was enacted into law, it placed lands used for prawn farms and
fishponds as exempt from the coverage of the CARP, to wit:

Sec. 2. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657 is hereby amended to

read as follows:

Sec. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions.

a) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used for parks, wildlife,

forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds,
watersheds and mangroves shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.

b) Private lands actually, directly[,] and exclusively used for prawn

farms and fishoonds shall be exempt from the coverage of this
Act: Provided, That said prawn farms and fishponds have not been

60 R.A. No. 6657, Chapter ll, Section l 0.

61 R.A. No. 6657, Chapter II, Section 11.
6z An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 6657, entitled "AN ACT INSTITUTING A
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION;
PROVIDING THE MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMENTATl0N AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES"; approved on

February 20, 1995.

f
 Decision 15 G.R. No. 221060

distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) issued to

agrarian refonn beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program.

While the CARP previously categorized lands devoted to fishponds and

prawn farming as agricultural lands subject to the CARP, albeit under a ten-
year deferment period, R.A. No. 7881 wholly decreed lands actually, directly,
and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds to be exempt from the
coverage of the CARP. 63 Not only that, but by virtue of the foregoing
amendments, the operation of fishponds is no longer considered an
agricultural activity, and a parcel of land devoted to fishpond operation is no
longer an agricultural land. 64

Here, petitioner argues that the subject properties were previously

utilized as fishponds and for prawn farming and, therefore, exempt from the
coverage of CARP. Petitioner submits in evidence a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) to prove that the properties were used for fishponds and
prawn farming. The MOA was signed in 1991 by the previous owner of the
subject properties, Filipinas Aquaculture Corporation (FAC). Petitioner also
submits in evidence the balance sheets of F AC, which showed aquaculture
items in its inventory.

The Court is not convinced that the courts and tribunals a quo seriously
erred in declaring that the subject properties are covered by the CARP.

At the time the subject properties were evaluated by the DARAB, these
were already considered as idle lands. It must be noted that no balance sheets,
or any evidence were submitted to show that petitioner continued the use of
the subject prope11ies for prawn farming and fishponds when the latter
subsequently purchased the subject properties from FAC sometime in 1996.65
The alleged actual use of the subject properties as evidenced by the financial
statements of FAC were issued ten (10) years prior to the conduct of the ocular
inspection by the DAR in 1998. 66

Previous use of the land does not equate to actual use especially when
there is no evidence to the contrary. Assuming arguendo that the subject
properties were, in the distant past, used for prawn fanning and fishponds as
purportedly shown in the MOA in 1991, no evidence would suggest that it
continued to be so when petitioner bought the subject properties from its
previous owner, FAC, and when it was examined by the DAR in 1998. Nor
6
, Dillena v. Alcaraz, 822 Phil. 969, 983 (2017).
6
~ Sanchez, Jr. v. Marin, 562 Phil. 907, 919 (2007).
65
October 2, 1996, date of registration of TCT Nos. T-1 3682 and T-13683, rol/o, pp. 48 and 50.
66
Rollo, p. 98.
Decision 16 G.R. No. 221060

was there evidence that the lands were utilized for aquaculture when the DAR
issued the Notice of Coverage to petitioner on August 12, 1998. To reiterate,
the field· investigation reports conducted on the subject properties revealed
that the lands were classified as idle lands and such were planted with rice
only in 1999 .67 This affirms that the subject properties were no longer used in
aquaculture or prawn farming.

Petitioner further argues that the SB of San Jose, Occidental Mindoro

reclassified the subject properties as industrial areas, as evidenced by SB
Resolution No. 5403, series of 1995. 68 Being classified an industrial area, it
would be outside the scope of agricultural lands covered by CARP.

Again, the Court disagrees.

DAR AO No. 1, Series of 1990, states that for lands to be classified as

industrial, it should be approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB) and its preceding competent authorities. Further, the Local
Government Code (LGC), or R.A. No. 7160, gives the Local Government
Units (LGU) authority to reclassify agricultural lands for residential,
commercial or industrial use. However, in this case, there was no valid
reclassification under SB Resolution No. 5403 since the LGC requires an
ordinance, not a mere resolution from the local legislative body. 69 Sec. 20,
Chapter II, Title I of the LGC ordains:

Section 20. Reclassification ofLands. -(a) A city or municipality

may, through an ordinance passed by the sanggunian after conducting
public hearings for the purpose, authorize the reclassification of
agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utilization or
disposition in the following cases: (1) when the land ceases to be
economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by
the Department of Agriculture or (2) where the land shall have substantially
greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes,
as determined by the sanggunian concerned[.] (Emphasis supplied).

Clearly, an ordinance is required in order to reclassify agricultural

70
lands, and such may be passed only after the conduct of public hearings; it
cannot be done through a resolution. In Holy Trinity Realty & Development
Corporation v. Dela Cruz, 71 this Court held that a resolution is ineffectual for

67
Id. at 90 and 98-99.
68 Id: at 93. Dated June 8, 1995, entitled "Declaring all areas of Barangay Bu bog as non-agricultural except
those already classified as irrigated or irrigable prime agricultural lands and integrating the same as part
of areas therein declared as industrial zone as provided for in the Municipal Zoning Ordinance of San
Jose."
69 Holy Trinity Realty & Development Corporation v. Dela Cruz, 746 Phil. 209,229 (2014).
70
Id. at 230.
71 Supra.
 Decision 17 G.R. No. 221060

purposes of reclassifying agricultural lands for a resolution is a mere

declaration of the sentiment or opinion of the lawmaking body on a specific
matter and is temporary in nature. It differs from an ordinance in that the latter
is a law in itself and possesses a general and permanent character. 72

Verily, in this case, there being no valid reclassification due to the lack
of an ordinance, it is clear that a mere resolution could not serve as a basis
for exemption of the entirety of the subject properties embraced therein from
73
CARP coverage. As petitioner failed to prove that the subject properties are
exempt from the coverage of CARP, no error can be attributed to the common
conclusion reached by the DAR and DARAB that the subject properties are
covered by the CARP.

Just compensation; Applicable

formula

Finally, with respect to the issue of just compensation, the Court

declares that the courts a quo did not seriously err in declaring as final the
finding of just compensation regarding the land.

Just compensation is defined as the full and fair equivalent of the

property taken from its owner by the expropriator. 74 In determining just
compensation, a wide range of factors must be considered in approximating
the real and full value of a land. 75 Thus, for purposes of computing just
compensation, Sec. 17 ofR.A. No. 6657, as amended, states:

Section 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 farmworkers 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.

Guided by Sec. 17 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, DAR AO No. 5,

series of 1998, 76 that provided a basic formula which gave landowners the
opportunity to take part in the valuation process for purposes of obtaining just

72 Id. at 230.
73
Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v. Reyes, supra note 52, at 283.
74
Land Bank ofthe Philippines v. Spouses Cortez, G.R. No. 210422, September 7, 2022.
75 Id.
76
Revised Rules and Regulations Governing the Valuation of Lands Voluntarily Offered or Compulsorily
Acquired, Pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657; DAR AO No. 05-98; approved on April 15, 1998.

f
 Decision 18 G.R. No. 221060

compensation for their land. Landowners could even participate in the DAR's
field investigations and submit statements as to income derived from the
property. 77 However, R.A No. 9700, 78 or an Act Amending R.A. No. 6657 Re:
Extending the Acquisition and Distribution of Agricultural Lands, came into
effect on August 7, 2009. The law further amended Sec. 17 ofR.A. No. 6657
thus:

SECTION 7. Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, is hereby

further amended to read as follows:

SEC. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. ~ In determining just

compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the value of the standing
crop, the current value of like properties, its nature, actual use and income,
the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, the assessment made
by government assessors, and seventy percent (70%) of the zonal
valuation of the Bureau of Internal Revenne (BIR), translated into a
basic formula by the DAR shall be considered, subject to the final
decision of the proper court. The social and economic benefits
contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the
Government to the property as well as the nonpayment of taxes or loans
secured from any government financing institution on the said land
shall be considered as additional factors to determine its
valuation. (Emphases supplied).

It was pursuant to the mandate of R.A. No. 9700 that DAR AO No. 1
(2010) 79 and DAR AO No. 7 (2011) 80 were issued to implement the
amendments to Sec. 17. The administrative orders retained the basic formula
for valuation under DAR AO No. 5 (1998), however, some factors were
adjusted. There was a change in the reckoning date of average gross product
and selling price, both of which are relevant to the Capitalized Net Income
(CNI) factor, to June 30, 2009. The Comparable Sales (CS) factor was also
amended and adjusted to the fair market value equivalent to seventy percent
(70%) of the BIR zonal valuation The basic formula under DAR AO No.
7 (2011) is the prevailing land fonnula to .date.

77
Id. at IIB.2.
78 Entitled "AN ACT STRENGTHENJNG THE COMPREHENSJVE AGRAR]AN REFORM PROGRAM (CARP),
EXrENDlNG THE ACQU!SlTJON AND DJSTRJBUTJON OF ALL AGRJCULTURAL LANDS, INSTITUTING
NECESSARY REFORMS, AMENDJNG FOR THE PURPOSE CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLJC ACT No. 6657,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARlAN REFORM LAW OF 1988, AS AMENDED, AND
APPROPRIATJNG FUNDS THEREFOR"; approved on August 7, 2009.
79 Rules and Regulations on Valuation and Landowners Compensation Involving Tenanted Rice and Com
Lands Under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 and Executive Order (E.O.) No. 228, DAR
Administrative Order No. 001-10; approved on February 12, 20 I 0.
80 Revised Rules and Procedures Governing the Acquisition and Distribution of Private Agricultural Lands
Under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, as Amended, DAR Administrative Order No. 07-11; approved on
September 30, 2011.

I
 Decision 19 G.R. No. 221060

However, even with the enactment ofR.A. No. 9700, the law explicitly
states that the completion and final resolution of all previously acquired lands
wherein valuation is subject to challenge by the landowners shall still be made
pursuant to Sec. 17 ofR.A. No. 6657. 81 In addition, the DAR issued AO No.
82
2, Series of2009, to clarify the coverage of the amendments introduced by
R.A. No. 9700. The transitory provision of DAR AO No. 02-09 provides that
"with respect to land valuation, all Claim Folders received by LBP prior
to July 1, 2009 shall be valued in accordance with Section 17 of R.A. No.
6657 prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 9700." This has been recognized in
several cases, such as the recent case of Land Bank of the Philippines v.
Spouses Cortez, 83 wherein this Court ruled:

We have recognized and upheld the foregoing provision and ruled

that lands where the claim folders were received by LBP prior to July 1,
2009 shall be valued in accordance with Section 17 ofR.A. No. 6657 prior
to its further amendment by R.A. No. 9700, and thus will be governed by
the applicable DAR issuance. 84

Additionally, in Land Bank of the Philippines v. Kho 85 (Kho), this

Court held:

However, it bears pomtmg out that while Congress passed

RA 9700 on August 7, 2009, further amending certain provisions of RA
6657, as amended, among them, Section 17, and declaring "[t]hat all
previously acquired lands wherein valuation is subject to challenge by
landowners shall be completed and finally resolved pursuant to Section 17
of [RA 6657], as amended," DAR AO 2, series of 2009, which is the
implementing rules of RA 9700, had clarified that the said law shall not
apply to claims/cases where the claim folders were received by LBP prior
to July 1, 2009. In such a situation, just compensation shall be determined
in accordance with Section 17 of RA 6657, as amended, prior to its further
amendment by RA 9700.

xxxx

It is significant to stress, however, that DAR AO 1, series of 2010

which was issued in line with Section 31 of RA 9700 empowering the DAR
to provide the necessary rules and regulations for its implementation,
became effective only subsequent to July 1, 2009. Consequently, it cannot
be applied in the determination of just compensation for the subject land
where the claim folders were undisputedly received by the LBP prior to July
J, 2009, and, as such, should be valued in accordance with Section 17 of

81
R.A. No. 9700, Section 5. .
82 Rules and Procedures Governing the Acquisition and Distribution of Agricultural Lands Under Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 6657, as Amended by R.A. No. 9700, DAR Admin_istrative Order No. 02-09; approved
on October 15, 2009.
83
Supra note 74.
84 Id.
85
787 Phil. 478 (20 l 6).

j
 Decision 20 G.R. No. 221060

RA 6657 prior to its further amendment by RA 9700 pursuant to the cut-off

date set under DAR AO 2, series of2009 (cut-off rule). Notably, DAR AO
1, series of2010 did not expressly or impliedly repeal the cut-off rule set
under DAR AO 2, series of 2009, having made no reference to any cut-off
date with respect to land valuation for previously acquired lands under PD
27 and EO 228 wherein valuation is subject to challenge by
landowners. Consequently, the application of DAR AO 1, series of 201 O
should be, thus, limited to those where the claim folders were received on
or subsequent to July 1, 2009. 86

In applying the foregoing cases, it is to be noted that DAR AO No. 7

(2011), which was issued to revise and streamline DAR AO No. 2 (2009), 87
also makes no mention of repealing the cut-off rule mentioned in Kho. There
is also no dispute that the present case is well within the ambit of R.A. No.
6657 and DAR AO No. 5 (1998) and, consequently, beyond the scope and
applicability of the amendments introduced by R.A. No. 9700 and DAR
guidelines issued in relation thereto.

Thus, in Alfonso v. Land Bank ofthe Philippines 88 (Alfonso), this Court

settled the mandatory application of the guidelines and formula prescribed by
the DAR. Nevertheless, in the same case, it was recognized that the trial courts
may deviate from a strict application of the formula, provided that such
departure is supported by a reasoned explanation grounded on the evidence
on record. 89 Notably, in this case, there is no reason to deviate from the
application of the established formula for the computation of just
compensation.

Upon review of the records of the case, the procedure with which the
subject properties were brought into the coverage of CARP were all in order.
Further, the LBP, which is charged with the preliminary determination of the
value of lands placed under the land reform program and the compensation to
be paid for the taking,9° followed DAR AO No. 5 (1998) which contained the
basic formula for the computation of just compensation under Sec. 17 ofR.A.
No. 6657 at the time. 91 In this case, the DAR and LBP valued the subject lands
as Pl 1,648,130.73 and P7,882,623.22, respectively.

The data and factors used in the computation by the LBP regarding the
just compensation of the disputed lands included the tax declarations of the
subject properties, the schedule unit market value applicable for the
municipality of the subject properties, land use production value, and actual
86
Id. at 490-491.
87
Prefatory Statement of DAR AO No. 07-11.
88
Supra note 49.
89
Id. at 321-322.
90 Philippine Veterans Bank v. Court of Appeals, supra note 41.
91 Land Bank of the Philippines v. Gonzalez, 71 I Phil. 98, I 10 (2013).
 Decision 21 G.R. No. 221060

use per ocular inspections and field investigations. 92 As Capitalized Net

Income (CNI) and Comparable Sales factor (CS) were not present, the LBP
used the formula Land Value (LV) = Market Value (MV) x 2 or (LV = MV x
93
2). This is in accordance with DAR AO No. 5, (1998) (Item II, A.3), which
states:

II. The following rules and regulations are hereby promulgated to govern the
valuation of lands subject of acquisition whether under voluntary offer to sell
(VOS) or compulsory acquisition (CA).
A. There shall be one basic formula for the valuation of lands
covered by VOS or CA:

LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)

Where: LV = Land Value

CNI = Capitalized Net Income
CS = Comparable Sales
MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration

The above formula shall be used if all the three factors are present,
relevant, and applicable.

xxxx

A.3 When both the CS and CNI are not present and only
MV is applicable, the formula shall be:

LV=MVx2

In no case shall the value of idle land using the formula MV

x 2 exceed the lowest value of land within the same estate under
consideration or within the same barangay or municipality (in that
order) approved by LBP within one (1) year from receipt of
claimholder.

As held in Alfonso, an examination of the terms of the DAR issuances

would show that the implementing agency had indeed taken pains to ensure
that its valuation system was at par with local and international valuation
standards. The whole regulatory scheme provided under R.A. No. 6657,
implemented through the DAR fon11ulas, are reasonable policy choices made
by Congress and implemented by the DAR in accordance with the purposes
of the CARP. These policy choices, in the absence of contrary evidence,
deserve a high degree of deference from the Court. 94

92
Rollo, pp. 87-90.
93
Id. at 87.
94 Alfonso v. land Bank of the Philippines, supra note 49 at 304-305.

(
Decision 22 G.R. No. 221060

Lastly, petitioner contends that the actual value and valuations made by
the independent appraisers were disregarded by LBP and DARAB. Not only
that, petitioner claims that the latter also failed to consider the improvements
introduced on the subject properties, such as the roads, waterways, water
reverse and facilities. 95

The Court is not convinced. Contrary to petitioner's claims, the

DARAB Decision set forth:

Thus, on the issue as to the compensability of the improvements

introduced by the landowner, such as the roads which are now considered
as farm to market roads; waterways, used to irrigate the land for the portion
of the property classified as irrigated rice land; water reserve used to store
water during the summer season or as the need arises; and dikes to protect
the land from flooding, the said improvements, must necessarily be included
in the compensation package for the landowner.

xxxx

However, as to the valuation on just compensation of the CARP-

covered landholdings embraced by TCT Nos. [T-]13682 and T-13683 with
an area of 356.9948 hectares and 89.7367 hectares, respectively, the
landowner failed to support by clear and convincing evidence said
valuation. Marken, Inc. did not present evidence, documentary or otherwise
that would overcome the presumption of regularity enjoyed by the
personnel of the LBP.

xxxx

Further, the actual use of the property as evidenced by the Financial

Statements of Filipinas Aquaculture Corporation, ten years (1988-1990)
before the conduct of the ocular inspection in 1998 (for TCT [No. T-]13682)
and 2000 (for TCT No. T-13683) cannot be a valid basis for the computation
of the value of the property nor can RA 7881 be used as a reason for
exemption since when the subject landholdings were placed under the
coverage of RA 6657, as amended, the use of the property was no longer as
prawn farm nor as a fishpond. In fact, the Field Investigation Reports
conducted on the parcels of land on September 22, 1998 for TCT No. T-
13682 and on June 28, 2000, for TCT No. T-13683 revealed that the
landholdings were classified as idle lands and were planted to riceland only
in J999, which findings are in consonance with the Order of Deferment
describing the remaining portion consisting of 448 hectares as idle land as
well as the order lifting the order of deferment on the ground that its basis
for deferment is no longer applicable.

95 Rollo, pp. 22-23.

 Decision 23 G.R. No. 221060

Thus, the Financial Statements as of l 988-1989; 1989-1990 were

not reflective of the actual, current and fair market value of the property as
mandated by DAR Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1998 and neither
was the Market Value Appraisal for the Property of Marken, Inc. as of
January 5, 2007 of Cuervo Appraisers. In short, the landowner failed to
submit input data in order to convince the Board that the valuations of the
parcels of land were not in accordance with law, existing rules and
regulation and jurisprudential precedents.

xxxx

WHEREFORE, ORDER is hereby issued:

xxxx

2. Directing the LBP to recompute the additional compensation

package for the necessary improvements which redounded to the benefit of
the farmer-beneficiaries[.] 96

Thus, it is clear that the valuations of the subject properties were based
on reliable data gathered by the DAR and the LBP pursuant to the provisions
of DAR AO No. 5, series of 1998, and as contained in the Field Investigation
Report. Further, contrary to petitioner's contentions, the DARAB Decision
took into consideration the improvements that redounded to the benefit of the
farmer-beneficiaries, despite the fact that no other data or supporting
documents were submitted by petitioner to the DARAB regarding the actual
and current use of the subject lands.

As stated above, the DARAB recognized that there were Financial

Statements of F AC, the previous owner, from i 988 to 1990 covering the
subject properties. However, at the time that the subject properties were
covered by CARP in 1998, ten (10) years had already passed. The Field
Investigation Reports conducted on the subject properties from 1998 to 2000
by the DAR revealed that the landholdings were classified as idle lands and
were planted with rice only in 1999. These findings are in consonance with
the cancellation of the Order of Deferment because the remaining portions of
the subject properties consisting of 448 hectares were considered idle land,
hence, covered by CARP. Evidently, the Financial Statements ofFAC from
1988 to 1990 do not reflect the actual use and valuation of the subject
properties; rather, it is the factual and genuine investigation conducted by the
DAR over the lands, which showed them to be idle lands, that should prevail.
As these are idle lands, the lower valuation given by the courts and tribunals
a quo shall prevail.

96
Id. at 96-I00.

f
Decision 24 G.R. No. 221060

In light of the foregoing, the Court sustains the findings of the DAR
and the LBP. To reiterate, the Court generally defers and accords finality to
the factual findings of administrative agencies, such as the DAR, as a matter
of sound practice and procedure. These findings are deemed binding and
conclusive upon this Court as administrative agencies possessing special
knowledge and expertise on "matters falling under their specialized
jurisdiction." 97 Sec. 54 of R.A. No. 6657 and Rule XV, Sec. 2 of the 2009
DARAB Rules of Procedure, state:

SECTION 54. [R.A. No. 6657] x x x

The findings of fact of the DAR shall be final and conclusive if

based on substantial evidence.

Rule XV
Judicial Review

SECTION 2. [DARAB New Rules of Procedure] Findings of Fact;

Final and Conclusive. ~ The findings of fact of the Board, if based on
substantial evidence, shall be final and conclusive upon the courts pursuant
to Section 54, Republic Act No. 6657.

This Court then sees no reason to disturb the factual findings of the
DARAB. Such findings, when supported by substantial evidence, are
98
accorded great respect and even finality.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The April 24, 2015 Decision

and October 1, 2015 Resolution of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No.
127071, as well as the September 5, 2011 Decision and September 13, 2012
Resolution of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board in
DARAB Case No. JC-IV-0330-OCC-MDO-CO-02 are AFFIRMED in toto.

SO ORDERED.

97 Fil-Estate Properties, Inc. v. Reyes, supra note 52, at 287.

98
Id.
 Decision 25 G.R. No. 221060

WE CONCUR:

0
Associate Justice

..W:J-R ROSARIO
Ass ciate Justice

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I certify that

the conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before
the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court's Division.

. GESMUNDO