CHAPTER 1

COVERAGE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN

REFORM PROGRAM

The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program

The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is implemented by

Republic Act No. 6657 (1988) otherwise known as the “Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law”. Prior to its enactment on 10 June 1988, President Corazon C.
Aquino issued Proclamation No. 131 (1987) instituting a comprehensive agrarian
reform program, and Executive Order No. 229 (1987) providing the mechanics
for its implementation. RA 6657 took effect on 15 June 1988.

While expressly repealing specific provisions of prior enactments on

agrarian reform, RA 6657 provides that the provisions of RA 3844 (1963),
Presidential Decree No. 27 (1972) and PD 266 (1973), EO 228 (1987) and EO
229 (1987) and other laws not inconsistent with it shall have suppletory effect.

RA 6657 was enacted pursuant to the constitutional mandate shrined in

Section 4, Art. XIII of thee 1987 Constitution, which provides:

Sec.4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform

program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers,
who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till
or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the
fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake
the just distribution of all the agricultural lands, subject to such
priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may
prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity
considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation.
In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of
small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for
voluntary land-sharing.

The constitutionality of RA 6657 has been upheld in Association of Small

Landowners vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform , 175 SCRA 342 (1989) and
companion cases. The Supreme Court held that the requirement of public use
has already been settled by the Constitution itself. It noted that “[n]o less than
the 1987 Charter calls for agrarian reform which is the reason why private
agricultural lands are to be taken from their owners, subject to the prescribed
retention limits.” (at 378)
 While RA 6657 itself has been held constitutional, the Supreme Court in a
subsequent case, Luz Farms vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform , 192 SCRA 51
(1990), declared unconstitutional Sec. 3 (b), 10 and 11 thereof in so far as they
include lands devoted to the raising of livestock, swine and poultry within its
coverage. As a result of this ruling, Congress enacted RA 7881 (1995) amending
the provisions and incorporating new provisions to existing ones. The
amendments adopted the Luz doctrine by removing livestock, swine and poultry
farms from CARP coverage.

Scope of the CARP

The Constitution in Sec. 4, Art. XIII, mandates the just distribution of all
agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and to reasonable retention limits
that Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental or
equity considerations and subject to the payment of just compensation.

Prior to RA 6657, the operative law on lad distribution was PD 27 (1972).

However, PD 27 is limited in scope, covering only tenanted private agricultural
lands primarily devoted to rice and corn operating under a system of share-crop
or lease tenancy, whether classified as landed estate or not. The constitutional
provision thereof expanded the scope of agrarian reform to cover all agricultural
lands.

RA 6657 operationalized this constitutional mandate and provides in Sec.

4 thereof that the CARP shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and
commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands, as provided in
Proclamation No. 131 and EO 229 including other lands f the public domain
suitable f agriculture. More specifically, the following lands are covered by CARP:

a) All alienable and disposable lands of public domain devoted to

or suitable for agriculture;
b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as
determined by the Congress in Sec. 4 (a) of RA 6657;
c) All other lands owned by the government devoted to or suitable
for agriculture; and
d) All private lands devoted or suitable for agriculture regardless of
the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon
(Rep. Act No. 6657 [1988], sec. 4).
 Definition of agricultural land

Sec. 3 (c) of RA 6657 defines agricultural lands as follows:

(c) Agricultural Land refers to land devoted to agricultural

activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest,
residential, commercial or industrial land.

Sec. 3 (b) of RA 6657, as amended by RA 7881 (1995), defines

“agricultural activity” as follows:

(b) Agriculture, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity

means cultivation of soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees,
including the harvesting of such farm products, and other farm
activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjuction with
such farming operations done by persons whether natural or
juridical.

In Natalia v. DAR, 225 SCRA 278 (1993), the Supreme Court held:

Section 4 of RA 6657 provides that the CARL “shall cover,

regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all
public and private agricultural lands.” As to what constitutes
“agricultural land,” it is referred to as “land devoted to agricultural
activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest,
residential, commercial or industrial land.” The deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission confirm this limitation. “Agricultural
lands” are only those lands which are “arable and suitable
agricultural lands” (at 282, 283).

Agricultural lands reclassified by local governments into

“forest conservation zones”

Agricultural lands reclassified by the local government units (LGUs) into

“forest conservation zones” even prior to the effectivity of CARL do not become
forest land under Sec. 3 (c) of RA 6657 as to be exempted from CARP coverage.

It should be noted that under the Constitution, lands of the public domain
are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks
(CONST., Art. XII, sec. 3). These classifications are called primary classifications
or “classification in the first instance.” The same provision of the Constitution
also provides that the agricultural lands of the public domain may be further
classified according to the uses to which they may be devoted. This further
classification of agricultural land is referred to as secondary classification. The
responsibility over primary classification of lands of the public domain is vested in
the President who exercises such power upon the recommendation of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) (Com. Act No. 141
[1963], sec. 6; EO 192 [1987]). On the other hand, the authority to reclassify
agricultural lands into residential, commercial or industrial is lodged, among
others, in cities and municipalities (Rep. Act No. 7160 [1991], sec. 20).

The group of lands referred to in Sec. 3 (c) of RA 6657 as non-agricultural

(i.e., mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial) is a mix of primary and
secondary classifications. Forest and mineral lands are, under the Constitution
and Commonwealth Act No. 141 (1963), primary classifications, while the rest
are secondary classifications.

Reclassification by LGUs of agricultural lands into “forest conservation

zones” does not have the effect of converting such lands into forest lands as to
be exempted from CARP. Firstly, an agricultural land is already a primary
classification and, hence, can only be subjected to secondary classification.
Secondly, LGUs have no authority or power to make primary classifications
considering that such power is the sole prerogative of the President exercising
such power upon the recommendation of the DENR.

The forest (or mineral) land referred to in Sec. 3 (c) of RA 6657 is

therefore to be understood as referring to forest (or mineral) land declared to be
such by the President/DENR and not by the LGUs. DAR Administrative Order No.
1 (1990) makes this qualification in its definition of “agricultural land,” as follows:

Xxx Agricultural land refers to those devoted to agricultural

activity as defined in R.A. 6657 and not classified as mineral or
forest by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR) and its predecessor agencies, and not classified in town
plans and zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding competent
authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential, commercial or
industrial use.

Agricultural lands reclassified by LGUs into residential,

commercial or industrial

Taking into consideration the effectivity of the law, the secondary

classifications mentioned in Sec. 3 (c) of RA 6657 are treated according to
whether they were classified as such before or after the effectivity of the law on
June 15, 1988.
 If the agricultural land was classified as residential, commercial or
industrial by the LGU and approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board (HLURB), or its predecessor agencies, prior to 15 June 1988, the land will
be recognized as so classified under Sec. 3 (c) of RA 6657 and is therefore not
covered by CARP. However, an exemption clearance from DAR is still necessary
to confirm or declare its exempt status (DAR Adm. O. No. 6 [1994]).

This is based on Department of Justice Opinion No. 44 (1990) which

provides that with respect to the conversion of agricultural lands covered by RA
6657 to non-agricultural uses, the authority of the DAR to approve such
conversion may be exercised from the date of its effectivity or on 15 June 1988.
Thus, all lands already classified as commercial, industrial or residential before
that date no longer need ay conversion clearance from the DAR.

If an agricultural land is reclassified after 15 June 1988, the provisions on

land conversion under CARL and its implementing rules will apply (Rep. Act No.
6657 [1988], sec. 65; DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1991]).

Conversion prior to 15 June 1988 through presidential

proclamation binding before DAR

The reasoning in DOJ Opinion No. 44 (1990) was validated by the

Supreme Court in Natalia v. DAR, supra. This case involved the question of
whether or not lands already classified for residential, commercial or industrial
use, as approved by HLURB and its precursor agencies, prior to 15 June 1988 are
covered by CARP.

Natalia Realty, Inc. vs.

Department of Agrarian Reform
225 SCRA 278 (1993)

Facts:

Petitioner Natalia Realty, Inc. is the owner of a 125.0078-ha

land set aside by the Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 (1979) as
townsite area for the Lungsod Silangan Reservation. Estate
Developers and Investors Corporation (EDIC), the developer of the
area, was granted preliminary approval and locational clearances
by then Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC) for the
establishment of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision therein. In
November 1990, a Notice of Coverage was issued by DAR on the
undeveloped portion of the landholding. The developer filed its
 objections and filed this case imputing grave abuse of discretion to
respondent AR for including the undeveloped portions of its
landholding within the coverage of CARP.

Issue:

Are lands already classified for residential, commercial or

industrial use, and approved by the HLURB and its predecessor
agencies prior to 15 June 1988, covered by RA 6657?

Held:

Sec. 4 of RA 6657 states that the CARL covers “regardless of

tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and
private and agricultural lands” and as per the transcripts of the
Constitutional Commission, “agricultural lands” covered by agrarian
reform refers only to those which are “arable and suitable lands”
and “do not include commercial, industrial and residential lands.”
The land subject of the controversy has been set aside for the
Lungsod Silangan Reservation by Proclamation No. 1637 prior to
the effectivity of RA 6657 and in effect converted these lands into
residential use. Since the Natalia lands were converted prior to 15
June 1988, DAR is bound by such conversion, and thus it was an
error to include these within the coverage of CARL.

Exemptions and Exclusions

Sec. 10 of RA 6657, as amended by RA 7881 (1995), specifically

enumerates the exemptions and exclusions from CARP, as follows:

a) Lands actually, directly or exclusively used for parks and wildlife, forest
reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds,
watersheds and mangroves (Rep. Act No. 6657 [1988], sec.10 [a], as
amended by Rep. Act No. 7881[1995]).
b) Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms
and fishponds: Provided, That said prawn farms and fishponds have
not been distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA)
issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) under CARP (Sec. 10
[b]).
c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary
for national defense, school sites and campuses, including
experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for
educational purposes, seeds and seedling research and pilot
 production center, 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 inmates, government ad private research and
quarantine centers and all lands within eighteen percent (18%) slope
and over, except those already developed (Sec. 10 [c]).

Lands devoted to raising of livestock, swine and poultry.

The Luz Farms Case.

Before its amendment by RA 7881, Sec. 3 (b) of RA 6657 included in its

definition of agricultural activity the “raising of livestock, poultry or fish”.
Likewise, the original Sec. 11 of RA 6657 on commercial farming provided that
“lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising shall be subject
to compulsory acquisition within ten (10) years from the effectivity of the Act.”
However, the Supreme Court in Luz Farms v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
supra, held that Sec. 3 (b) and Sec. 11 of RA 6657 (along with Sec. 13 and 32)
are unconstitutional in so far as they include the raising of livestock and swine in
the coverage of CARP.

Luz Farms vs.

Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform
192 SCRA 51 (1990)

Facts:

Petitioner Luz Farms is a corporation engaged in livestock

and poultry business. It seeks to nullify Sec. 3 and Sec. 11 of RA
6657 in so far as they apply to livestock and poultry business.

Held:

Sec. 3 (b) and Sec. 11 of RA 6657 are unconstitutional in so

far as they include lands devoted to raising livestock, swine and
poultry within its coverage. The use of land is incidental to but not
the principal factor or consideration of productivity in this industry.
The Supreme Court held that:

The transcripts of deliberations of the

Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning of
the word “agricultural”, clearly show that it was never
the intention of the framers of the Constitution to
include livestock and poultry industry in the coverage
 of the constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform
program of the government.

The Committee adopted the definition of

“agricultural land” as defined under Section 166 of RA
3844, as land devoted to any growth, including but
not limited to crop lands, saltbeds, fishponds, idle and
abandoned land (Record, CONCOM, August 7, 1986,
Vol. III, p. 11).

The Supreme Court noted that the intention of

the Committee to limit the application of the word
“agriculture” is further shown by the proposal of
Commissioner Jamir to insert the word “arable” to
distinguish this kind of agricultural land from such
lands as commercial and industrial lands and
residential properties. The proposal however was not
considered because the Committee contemplated that
agricultural lands are limited to arable and suitable
agricultural lands and therefore, do not include
commercial, industrial and residential lands (Record,
CONCOM, 7 August 1986, Vol. III, p. 30).

Moreover, in his answer to Commissioner

Regalado’s interpellation, Commissioner Tadeo
clarified that the term “farmworkers” was used
instead of “agricultural worker” in order to exclude
therein piggery, poultry and livestock workers
(Record, CONCOM, August 2, 1986, Vol. II, p. 621).

DAR AO 9 (1993) imposes two (2) conditions in order that these lands
may be exempted: (a) that the land or portion thereof is exclusively, directly, or
actually used for livestock, poultry and swine raising as of 15 June 1988; and (b)
the farm must satisfy the ratios of land, livestock, poultry and swine, as follows:

Cattle, carabao and horse raising Maximum of 1 to 1 hectare; 2 heads

for every 1.7815 hectares of
infrastructure
Sheep and goat raising 7 heads to 1 hectare; 147 heads for
every 0.7205 hectare of infrastructure

Sine raising 21 heads of hogs for every 0.5126

hectare of infrastructure
poultry raising 500 layers for every 0.53 hectare of
infrastructure or 1000 boilers for every
1.428 hectares of infrastructure

Fishponds and prawn ponds

With the amendment of Sec. 3 (c), 10 and 11 of RA 6657 by RA 7881,

fishponds and prawn ponds are also exempted from the coverage of CARP,
provided that said lands have not been distributed to ARBs and no CLOAs have
been issued.

To be exempted, the agricultural land must have been actually, directly

and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds as of 12 March 1995, the
date of effectivity of RA 7881. To avail of the exemption, a landowner or his
authorized representative still has to file a written application for land
exemption/exclusion with DAR Provincial Office (DAR Adm. O. No. 3[1995]).

In cases were the fishponds or prawn farms have been subjected to CARP, by
voluntary offer to sell, commercial farms deferment or notice of compulsory
acquisition, they can be exempt from CARP if a simple and absolute majority of
the actual regular workers or tenants consent to the exemption within one (1)
year from the effectivity of RA 7881 or on 12 March 1995. in cases where the
fishponds or prawnponds have not been subjected to CARP, the consent of the
farm workers shall no longer be necessary (Rep. Act No. 6657 [1998], sec.
10[b], as amended.)

Sec. 4 of RA 7881 also amended RA 6657 by introducing a new provision

mandating the introduction of an incentive plan for employees of all fishponds
and prawn farms. Operators and entities owning or operating fishponds and
prawn farms are directed to execute within six (6) months from its effectivity an
incentive plan with their regular fishpond or prawn farm worker’s organization, if
any, whereby seven point five percent (7.5%) of nrt profits before tax from the
operation of the fishpond or prawn farms are distributed within sixty (60) days at
the end of the fiscal year as compensation to regular and other pond workers
over and above their current compensation. This incentive plan requirement,
however, does not apply to agricultural lands subsequently converted to
fishponds or prawnfarms provided that the size of the land converted does not
exceed the retention limit of the landowner.
Lands used for academic or educational use. The CMU case.

In Central Mindanao University vs. DARAB, 215 SCRA 85 (1992), the

Supreme Court passed upon the exemption of lands directly, actually and
exclusively used and found to be necessary for school sites and campuses,
including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for
educational purposes provided for under Sec. 10 of RA 6657, as amended.

Central Mindanao University vs.

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
215 SCRA 86 (1992)

Facts:

On 16 January 1958, President Carlos Garcia issued

Proclamation No. 467 reserving for the Mindanao Agricultural
College, now the CMU, apiece of land to be used as its future
campus. In 1984, CMU embarked on a project titled “Kilusang
Sariling Sikap” wherein parcels of land were leased to its faculty
members and employees. Under the terms of the program, CMU
will assist faculty members and employee groups through the
extension of technical know-how, training and other kinds of
assistance. In turn, they paid the CMU a service fee for use of the
land. The agreement explicitly provided that there will be no
tenancy relationship between the lessees and the CMU.

When the program was terminated, a case was filed by the

participants of the “Kilusang Sariling Sikap” for declaration of status
as tenants under the CARP. In its resolution, DARAB, ordered,
among others, the segregation of 400 hectares of the land for
distribution under CARP. The land was subjected to coverage on
the basis of DAR’s determination that the lands do not meet the
condition for exemption, that is, it is not “actually, directly, and
exclusively used” for educational purposes.

Issue:

Is the CMU land covered by CARP? Who determines whether

lands reserved for public use by presidential proclamation is no
longer actually, directly, and exclusively used and necessary for the
purpose for which they are reserved?
Held:

The land is exempted from CARP. CMU is in the best position

to resolve and answer the question of when and what lands are
found necessary for its use. The Court also chided the DARAB for
resolving this issue of exemption on the basis of “CMU’s present
needs.” The Court stated that the DARAB decision stating that for
the land to be exempt it must be “presently, actively exploited and
utilized by the university in carrying out its present educational
program with its present student population and academic faculty”
overlooked the very significant factor of growth of the university in
the years to come.

The CMU case is unique as it involves land transferred by

the state to CMU through PD 467 which provided for its
communication to a specific use and purpose. Thus, the said land
was already set aside for a specific purpose and, in effect, was
taken outside the coverage of agrarian reform by law. It is
submitted that a more accurate basis for the exemption should
have been that the exclusive use of the land- both present and
future- has been determined by law, and not because of the
determination of the CMU of what it needs and how it intends to
use it.

In ruling that the CMU is in the best position to determine

the use of the land and not DAR, the Supreme Court seems to have
overlooked EO 407 (1990), as amended by EO 448 (1991), which
provides that DAR is vested with power to determine whether lands
reserved for public uses by presidential proclamation is no longer
actually, directly, exclusively used and necessary for the purpose
for which they are reserved. Said EO provides that:

Sec. 1-A. All lands or portions thereof reserved

by virtue of Presidential proclamations for specific
public uses by the government, its agencies and
instrumentalities, including government-owned or
controlled corporations suitable for agriculture and no
longer actually, directly and exclusively used or
necessary for the purposes for which thay have been
reserved, as determined by the Department of
Agrarian Reform in coordination with the government
agency or instrumentality concerned in whose favor
the reservation was established, shall be segregated
from the reservation and transferred to the
 Department of Agrarian Reform for distribution to
qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program.

Thus, DAR, in coordination with the agency or department

involved, can determine whether the purpose or use for which the lands
resereved continues to exist and therefore establish if they continue to be
exempt from CARP coverage.

The Supreme Court’s statement that the lands of universities and

academic institutions need not be actually, directly and exclusively used
for educational or research purposes at the time of the effectivity of the
RA 6657 to be exempt from CARP also fails to consider Sec. 10 of RA
6657. Sec. 10 is explicit that only those lands that are “actually, directly,
and exclusively” used and found necessary for the uses enumerated
therein are exempt from CARP coverage. A literal interpretation of the
provision implies that the exemption applies only to those lands already
committed for the enumerated purposes at the dare of the effectivity of
the law on 15 June 1988. Thus, agricultural land acquired by academic
institutions for academic, educational, or research purposes after 15 June
1988, or those owned by them but not committed exclusively, actually,
and directly to the abovementioned uses before or on such date, are
covered by CARP. For its exclusion from acquisition and distribution, and
for its commitment to said purposes, the institution may file before DAR
for clearance to convert these lands into non-agricultural use.

Lands with 18% slope

Lands with 18% slope over are exempt from CARP coverage unless these
are found to be agriculturally developed as of 15 June 1988.

This rule on exemption is based on PD (1975), or the “Revised Forestry

Code of the Philippines,” which provides that lands with a slope of 18% or over
are generally reserved as forest lands. Sec. 15 thereof states that “no land of the
public domain eighteen per cent (18%) in slope or over shall be classified as
alienable and disposable” and that “lands eighteen per cent (18%) in slope or
over which have already been declared as alienable and disposable shall be
reverted to the classification of forest lands by the Department Head, to form
part of the forest reserves, unless they are already covered by existing titles or
approved public land application, or actually occupied openly, continuously,
adversely and publicly for a period of not less than thirty (30) years as of the
effectivity of this Code, where the occupant is qualified for a free patent under
the Public Land Act.
 If the land has 18% slope pr over and is agriculturally developed as od 15
June 1988, the same shall be allocated to the qualified applicants in the following
manner:

a) If land is classified as forest land, and therefore is inalienable and

indisposable, this shall be allocated by the DENR under its Integrated
Social Forestry Program;

b) If classified as alienable and disposable, this shall be allocated by the

Land Management Bureau-DENR and DAR pursuant to the provisions
of CA 141 and the Joint DAR-DENR AO 2 (1998); and

c) If private agricultural land, this shall be acquired in accordance with

the provisions of RA 6657 (DAR Adm. O. No. 13 [1990], item E, part
II).

Effects of exemption

Sec. 10 of RA 6657 provides that exempted or excluded lands are

removed from the coverage of CARP. However, there are two (2) contending
views on whether these exempted or excluded lands are perpetually taken out
from coverage of the CARP.

The first view is that lands exempted or excluded from the law are
permanently taken out from coverage of the CARP. The basis of this
interpretation is the phraseology of Sec. 10 which states that exempted lands are
“exempt from the coverage of the law.” The legal effect of this interpretation is
that the owner can use and dispose the land as he deems fit without the need
for any clearance from DAR.

The second view is that excluded and exempted lands can be covered by
CARP when the reason for their exemption ceases to exist. Thus, when the
reason for exemption ceases to exist for lands exempt under the Luz Farms
ruling or Sec. 10, as amended by RA 7881 (except lands with an 18% slope),
they are removed from the exemption and are treated like any other agricultural
land.

It must be remembered that the lands subject of exemption under Sec. 10

of RA 6657 and the Luz Farms ruling are considered agricultural lands as defined
by Sec. 3 (c) of RA 6657, that is, they are in fact suitable to agriculture and not
classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial lands, but are
exempt or excluded from CARP by reason of their actual use and their necessity
for other purposes. Thus, in the event that these lands cease to be used or
necessary for the purposes for which they are exempted, they are removed from
the application of Sec. 10 and are then subject to CARP coverage.

The second view is anchored on the spirit and intent of the law to cover
all agricultural lands suitable to agriculture. Moreover, as RA 6657 is a social
welfare legislation the rules of exemption and exclusions must be interpreted
restrictively and any doubts as to the applicability of the law should be resolved
in favor of inclusion.

In either case, the security of tenure of tenants enjoyed prior to 19 June

1988 shall be respected even when the lands are exempted. As to farmworkers,
the exemption of the land shall not cause the loss of the benefits to which they
are entitled under other laws. In addition, they are granted preference in the
award of other lands covered by CARP (DAR Adm. O. No. 13 [1990], part II).

Homesteads

In Alita vs. CA, the Supreme Court stated that homesteads are exempt
from agrarian reform.

Alita vs. Court of Appeals

170 SCRA 706 (1989)

Facts:

Subject matter of the case consists of two (2) parcels of land

acquired by respondents’ predecessors-in-interest through
homestead patent under the provisions of CA 141. Respondents
wanted personally to personally cultivate these lands, but the
petitioners refused to vacate, relying on the provisions of PD 27
and PD 316 and appurtenant regulations issued by the then
Ministry of Agrarian Reform.

Issue:
Are lands obtained through homestead patent covered under
PD 27?

Held:

No. While PD 27 decreed the emancipation of tenants from

the bondage of the soil and transferring to them ownership of the
land they till, the same cannot be invoked to defeat the very
purpose of the enactment of the Public Land Act or CA 141. In
Patricio v. Bayog, 112 SCRA 45, it was held that:
 The Homestead Act has been enacted for the
welfare and protection of the poor. The law gives a
needy citizen a piece of land where he may build a
modest house for himself and family and plant what is
necessary for the subsistence and for the satisfaction
of life’s other needs. The right of the citizens to their
homes and to the things necessary for their
subsistence is as vital as the right to life itself. They
have a right to live with a certain degree of comfort
as become human beings, and the State which looks
after the welfare of the people’s happiness is under a
duty to safeguard the satisfaction of this vital right.

In this regard, Sec. 6 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution

provides:

Section 6. The State shall apply the principles

of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever
applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition
or utilization of other natural resources, including
lands of public domain under lease or concession
suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights,
homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of
indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.

Moreover, Sec. 6 of RA 6657 contains a proviso supporting

the inapplicability of PD to lands covered by homestead patents like
those of the property in question, reading:

Section 6. Retention Limits. xxx Provided

further, That original homestead grantees or their
direct compulsory heirs who still own the original
homestead at the time of the approval of this Act
shall retain the same areas as long as they continue
to cultivate said homestead.
Xxx xxx xxx

While homestead lots are declared exempt under PD 27, they are not
expressly declared as such under RA 6657. However, Sec. 6 of RA 6657 provides
that homesteaders are allowed to retain the total homestead lot subject to the
conditions provided in the same section and as set out in DAR MC 4 (1991), to
wit:
 a) That original homestead grantee or his/her direct
compulsory heirs still own the land on 15 June 1988;
b) The original homestead grantee or his or her compulsory
heirs cultivate the land as of 15 June 1988 and continue to
cultivate the same.

It also provides that tenants of lands covered by homestead patents

exempted from PD 27 or retained under RA 6657 shall not be ejected therefrom
but shall remain as leaseholders therein.

Schedule of Implementation

Sec. 7 of RA 6657 lays out the schedule of acquisition and distribution of

all the agricultural lands through a period of ten (10) years from the effectivity of
the Act:

Phase Lands Covered Schedule

I  Rice and corn lands under Presidential Decree No. 27; 1988-1992
 all idle or abandoned lands;
 all private lands voluntarily offered by the owners for
agrarian reform;
 all lands foreclosed by the government financial
institutions;
 all lands acquired by the Presidential Commission on
Good Governance (PCGG); and
 all other lands owned by the government devoted to or
suitable for agriculture
II  All alienable and disposable public agricultural lands; 1992-1995
 all arable public agricultural lands under agro-forest,
pasture and agricultural leases already cultivated and
planted to crops in accordance;
 all public agricultural lands which are to be opened for
new development and resettlement;
 and all private agricultural lands in excess of fifty (50)
hectares,
III-A  Landholdings above twenty-four (24) hectares up to 1988-1992
fifty (50) hectares; and
III-B  Private agricultural lands with areas above the retention 1994-1998
limit up to 24 hectares

Though Sec. 7 of RA 6657 provides a fixed time table for the

implementation of the CARP law, this provision should be interpreted as merely
directory, rather than mandatory in character. This is the gist of DOJ Opinion No.
9 (1997). It has been held that the difference between a mandatory and a
directory provision is often determined in grounds of expediency. Where a
provision embodies a rule of procedure rather than one of substance, the
provision as to time will be regarded as directory only notwithstanding the
mandatory nature of the language used. Sec. 5 of RA 6657 is more procedural in
nature than substantive. The ten (10) year period is merely a time frame given
to DAR for the acquisition and distribution of private and public agricultural lands
covered by RA 6657. It is merely a guide to DAR in setting its priorities, and it is
not, by any means, a limitation of its authority. Hence, Sec. 5 of RA 6657 should
not be construed as a prescriptive period, the lapse of which bars the DAR from
covering the land under CARP.

Thus, DAR need not wait for the full coverage of those lands in the first
phase before those in the succeeding phases could be covered. DAR may also
proceed with the coverage of lands in different phases simultaneously.

In view of the passing of the ten (10) year period in 1998, Congress
passed RA 8532 (1998) providing for the funding for land acquisitions for
another ten (10) years.

Idle or abandoned land

Sec.22 of Art. XVIII of the 1987 Constitution and Sec. 18 (h) of EO 229
prioritizes the immediate expropriation or acquisition of the idle or abandoned
lands.

Sec. 3 (e) of RA 6657 defines idle or abandoned land as “any agricultural

land not cultivated, titled or developed to produce any crop not devoted to any
specific economic purpose continuously for a period of three (3) years
immediately prior to the receipt of notice of acquisition by the government as
provided under RA 6657. However land that has become permanently or
regularly devoted to non-agricultural purposes is not to be considered as idle or
abandoned. Neither can it be considered as abandoned or idle any land which
has become unproductive by reason of force majeure or any other fortuitous
event, provided that prior to such event, such land was previously used for
agricultural to other economic purpose.”

Lands owned by government

To expedite the disposition of lands owned by the government, President

Corzaon Aquino issued EO 407 (1990) directing all government instrumentalities,
government agencies, government owned and controlled corporations or
financial institutions to transfer to the Republic of the Philippines, trhough the
DAR, all landholdings suitable for agriculture. Sec. 3 of EO 407 (1990) likewise
provides for the redistribution and award of fishponds, pasturelands and other
lands of public domain suitable for agriculture subject of cancelled or amended
lease agreement to the agrarian reform beneficiaries. EO 448 (1991) and EO 506
(1992) amended EO 407 by including all lands or portions thereof reserved by
virtue of presidential proclamations for specific public uses by the government,
its agencies and instrumentalities, and no longer actually, directly or exclusively
used or necessary for the purposes for which they have been reserved. These
also excluded national parks and other protected areas, proposed national parks,
game refuge, bird sanctuaries, wildlife reserves, wilderness areas and other
protected areas, including old growth or virgin forests and all forests above 1,000
meters elevation or above 50 percent slope until such time that they are
segregated for agricultural purposes or retained under the National Integrated
Protected Areas System.

Commercial farms

Sec. 11 of RA 6657 allowed the deferment of the coverage of commercial

farms. Deferred commercial farms shall be subject to immediate compulsory
acquisition and distribution after ten (10) years from the effectivity of RA 6657
on 15 June 1988. For new farms, the ten (10)-year deferment will begin from the
first year of commercial production and operation.

For a commercial farm to be qualified for deferment, it must have been

planted to commercial crop or devoted to commercial farming operations before
15 June 1988. DAR AO 16 (1988) provided a 60-day period for the filing of
application of deferment which lapsed on 2 May 1989.

DAR AO 16 (1988) explicitly allows the DAR to automatically subject the

lands to redistribution when it determines that the purpose for which deferment
s granted no longer exists as when the particular farm area ceases to be
economically productive. During the deferment period, the DAR shall initiate
steps to acquire the lands. Final land transfer to the beneficiaries shall be
effected at the end of the deferment period. The acquisition and distribution of
these deferred commercial farms are governed by DAR AO 9 (1998).

Retention

Sec. 4, Art, XIII of the 1987 Constitution subjects the distribution of

agricultural lands for agrarian reform to “reasonable retention limits as Congress
may prescribe”. Sec. 6 of RA 6657 operationalizes this mandate and observes the
right of the persons to own, or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private
agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to the factors governing a
viable family-size farm such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and
soil fertility, but in no case shall exceed five (5) hectares.

The retention limits under Sec. 6 of RA 6657 covers all persons whether
natural or juridical. Juridical persons like corporations and partnerships are
therefore subject to five (5)-hectare limit.

With respect to married couples, their maximum retention limit is

determined by the nature of their property relations. For marriages covered by
the New Civil Code, in the absence of an agreement for the judicial separation of
property, spouses who own only conjugal properties may retain a total of not
more than five (5) hectares of such properties. However, if either or both of
them are landowners in their own respective rights (capital and/paraphernal),
they may retain not more than five (5) hectares of their respective landholdings.
In no case, however, shall the total retention of such couple exceed ten (10)
hectares. (DAR Adm. O. No. 5 [2000], sec. 9 [g])

For marriages covered by the Family Code, which took effect on 3 August
1988, a husband owning capital property and/or a wife owning paraphernal
property may retain not more than five (5) hectares each provided they executed
a judicial separation of properties prior to entering into marriage. In the absence
of such an agreement, all properties (capital, paraphernal and conjugal) shall be
considered to be held in absolute community, i.e., the ownership relation is one,
and therefore, only a total of five (5) hectares may be retained. (DAR Adm. O.
No. 5 [2000], sec. 9 [h]).

The five (5)-hectare retention limit applies to all lands regardless of how
acquired (i.e., by purchase, award, succession, donation) as the law does not
distinguish. Thus, a child who was awarded three (3) hectares as a preferred
beneficiary under Sec. 6 of RA 6657 and subsequently acquires a five (5)-hectare
landholding of his parent by succession can retain only five (5) hectares of the
total landholding.

Landowners have the obligation to cultivate directly or through labor

administration, and thereby make productive the area he retains. He is also
prohibited from making any constructions therein or commit it to purposes
incompatible with its agricultural nature. Before a landowner can commit the
retained land to non-agricultural purposes, he must first secure a conversion
order from DAR, otherwise he can be held liable for premature conversion ( see
DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999]).
 Award to children

If a landowner has children, three (3) hectares may be awarded to each

subject to the following qualifications:

a) that he is at ;least fifteen (15) years old as of 15 June 1988; and

b) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing it. (Rep. Act No.
6657 [1988], sec. 6).

DAR MC 4 (1994)define the term “directly managing” as the cultivation of

the land through personal supervision under the system of labor administration.

The award to the child is not to be taken from the retained land of the
owner and is awarded to the child in his own right as a beneficiary. Thus, the
award is not automatic. The child is merely given a preference over other
beneficiaries.

As the right of the child is derived from his being a beneficiary, he must
not only meet the requirements of preference laid out in Sec. 6 of RA 6657, but
also all the other qualifications of a beneficiary enumerated under Sec. 22 of RA
6657. Thus, he must also be landless, a resident of the barangays or municipality
where the land is located, and must have the willingness, aptitude and ability to
cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. Moreover, he is subject to
the same liabilities, responsibilities and limitations imposed on all agrarian reform
beneficiaries.

Exceptions to the 5-hectare retention limit

The five (5)-hectare retention limit under RA 6657 does not apply to
original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs at the time of the
approval of RA 6657 who continue to cultivate the same, and to those entitled to
retain seven (7) hectares under PD 27.

In Association cases, the Supreme Court held that landowners who failed
to exercise their rights to retain under PD 27 can avail of the rights of retention
under Sec. 6 of RA 6657 and retain only five (5) hectares. However, in the
resolution of the Supreme Court on the motion for reconsideration in the said
case, the Court qualified that those who, prior to the promulgation of RA 6657,
complied with the requirements under Letter of Instruction (LOI) Nos. 41, 45 and
52 regarding the registration of the land holdings, shall be allowed to enjoy the
seven (7) hectare retention limit. All those who refused to comply with the
requirements cannot, in view of the passage of CARL, demand that their
retention limit be determined under PD 27.
 Thus, the following OLT owners are still entitled to retain seven (7)
hectares even if they exercised their right of retention under PD 27 after 15 June
1988:

a) Those landowners who complied with the requirement of either LOI

41, 45 or 52;
b) Those who filed their applications before the deadline set (27
August 1985 as provided by AO. 1 [1985]) whether or not they
have complied with LOI Nos. 41, 45 and 52;
c) Those who filed their applications after the deadline but complied
with the requirements of LOI 41, 45 or 52; and

d) Heirs of a deceased landowner who manifested, while still alive, the

intention to exercise the right of retention prior to 23 August 1990
(the finality of the Supreme Court decision in Association of Small
Landowners vs. Hon. Secretary of DAR; supra. (DAR Adm. O. No. 4
[1991]).

Exercise of right of retention

While Sec.6 of RA 6657 acknowledges the right of the landowners to

choose the area to be retained, it requires that the area be compact and
contiguous, and shall be least prejudicial to the entire landholding and the
majority of the farmers therein. (DAR Adm. O. No. 5 [2000], sec. 2 [b]).

Sec. 4 of DAR AO 5 (2000) provides that under the Compulsory

Acquisition (CA) scheme, the landowner shall exercise his right of retention
within sixty (60) days from receipt of the Notice of Coverage from DAR. Failure
to exercise this right within the prescribed period means that the landowner
waives his right to choose which area to retain. Thereafter, the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) shall designate the retained area for the
landowner.

Under the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) scheme, the right of retention
shall be exercised at the time the land is offered to sell. The offer should specify
and segregate the portion covered by VOS and the portion applied for retentions;
otherwise, the landowner shall be deemed to have waived his right of retention
over the subject property (DAR Adm. O. No. 5 [2000], sec. 4).

As a matter of policy, all rights acquired by the tenant-farmers under PD

27 and the security tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on the land prior to the
approval of RA 6657 shall be respected (DAR Adm. O. No. 5 [2000], sec. 2 [c]).
 In case the area selected by the landowner or awarded for retention by the
DAR is tenanted, the tenant has two (2) options:

a) To remains as a lessee. If he chooses to remain in the area retained, he

shall be considered a lease holder and shall lose his right to be a
beneficiary; or

b) Be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or

comparable features.

The tenant must exercise either option within one (1) year after the
landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention, or from the time the
MARO has chosen the area to be retained by the landowner, or from the time an
order is issued granting the retention (DAR Adm. O. No. 5 [2000], sec. 10).

Sec. 10 of DAR AO 5 (2000) further provides that in case the tenant declines
to enter into leasehold and there is no available land to transfer, or if there is,
the tenant refuses the same, he may choose to be paid disturbance
compensation by the landowner.

Where Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs), Emancipation Patents (EPs) or

Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) have already been issued on the
land chosen by the landowner as retention area, the DAR shall immediately
inform the agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) concerned and provide them the
opportunity to contest the landowner’s claim. Moreover, the DAR shall ensure
that the affected ARBs, should they so desire, be given priority in the distribution
of other lands of the landowner or other lands identified by the DAR for
redistribution, subject to the rights of those already in the area (DAR Adm. O.
No. 5 [2000], sec. 11).

Waiver of right of retention

Sec. 7 of DAR AO 5 (2000) provides that the following acts constitute waiver
on the landowner’s right of retention:

a) Executing an affidavit, letter or any other document duly attested by the

MARO, Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) or Regional Director
(RD) indicating that he is expressly waiving his retention right over subject
landholding;
b) Signing of the Landowner-Tenant Production Agreement and Farmer’s
Undertaking (LTPA-FU) or Application to Purchase and Farmer’s
Undertaking (APFU) covering subject property;
 c) Entering into a Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme (VLT-
DPS) agreement as evidenced by a Deed of Transfer over the subject
property;

d) Offering the subject landholding under VOS scheme and failure to indicate
his retained area;

e) Signing/submission of other documents indicating consent to have the

entire property covered, such as the form letter of the LBP on the
disposition of the cash and bond portions of a land transfer claim for
payment, and the Deed of Assignment, warranties and undertaking
executed in favor of the LBP;

f) Performing acts which constitute estoppel by laches; and

g) Doing such act or acts as would amount to a valid waiver in accordance

with applicable law and jurisprudence.

Public Lands

Public lands pertain to all lands that were not acquired by private persons
or corporations either by grant or purchase. These lands are either (a)
disposable (alienable) public lands or (b) non-disposable public lands.

CA 141 (1936), otherwise known as the “Public Land Act”, governs the
administration and disposition of lands of the public domain. Sec. 9 thereof
classifies alienable or disposable lands of the public domain as (a) agricultural;
(b) residential, commercial, industrial or for similar productive purposes; (c)
educational, charitable, or other similar purposes; or (d) reservations for town
sites and for public and quasi-public uses.

Non-disposable public lands or those not susceptible of private

appropriation and include the following: (a) timber lands which are governed by
PD 705 (1975) or the Revised Forestry Code; and (b) mineral lands which are
governed by RA 7942 (1995) or the Philippine Mining Act of 1995 and other
related laws.

All lands of the public domain are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
DENR except those placed by law and/or by executive issuances under the
jurisdiction of other government agencies. Under Sec.3 and Sec. 5 of CA 141, the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (now the Secretary of DENR) is
the executive officer charged with carrying out the provisions of the Public Land
Act. It is empowered to prepare and issue such forms, instructions, rules and
regulations consistent with the Public Land Act. Sec.6 of CA 141 (see also EO 192
[1987]) reserves the power to classify lands in the public domain into either
agricultural (disposable, timber or mineral lands to the President, with the
recommendation of the Secretary of DENR.

Under Sec.4 of RA 6657, public and private agricultural lands and lands of
the public domain suitable for agriculture are covered by CARP. It provides,
among others, that all alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
devoted or suitable or devoted to agriculture (Sec. 4 [a]) and all lands of the
public domain in excess of the specific limits of the public domain a determined
by Congress (Sec. 4 [b]) shall be covered by CARP. It has also been determined
that public agricultural lands that are untitled and privately claimed are covered
by CARP. In response to a query by DAR, the Department of Justice issued
Opinion No. 176 (1992) which stated:

xxx… Thus, it has been held that there should be no

distinction in the application of the la where non is
indicated therein (SSS vs. City of Bacolod, 115 SCRA 412 )
…By said rule, the term “private agricultural lands” in the
aforementioned section should be interpreted as including
all private lands, whether titled or untitled. xxx

RA 6657 has created an overlapping of jurisdictions between the DENR

and the DAR over the disposition of these lands. RA 6657 mandates DAR to
acquire and distribute these public lands to agrarian beneficiaries while CA 141
vests upon the DENR the power to control, survey, classification, lease, sale or
any other form for concession or disposition and management of the lands of the
public domain.

To resolve the overlapping mandates of the DENR and DAR in the disposition
and distribution of public lands for CARP purposes, the two agencies issued Joint
DAR-DENR MC 9 (1995) which recognizes that all lands of the public domain are
under the jurisdiction of the DENR unless placed by law and/or by executive
issuances under the jurisdiction of other government departments or entities.
Under the said circular, the disposition of non-registrable lands of the public
domain is the exclusive responsibility of the DENR under its various programs
(i.e., the Integrated Social Forestry). In this instance, the role of the DAR is to
assist the DENR in identifying and screening of farmer beneficiaries. The
responsibility and authority of DAR to distribute public lands shall be limited to
the following:
 a) Lands proclaimed by the President as DAR Resettlement Projects and
placed under the administration of the DAR for distribution to qualified
farmer beneficiaries under CARP;

b) Lands which are placed by law under jurisdiction of DAR; and

c) Lands previously proclaimed for the various government departments,

agencies and instrumentalities and subsequently turned over to the
DAR pursuant to EO 407 (1990), as amended by EO 448 and 506.

Untitled public alienable and disposable lands are still within the exclusive
jurisdiction of DENR pursuant to CA 141. However, in accordance with DOJ
Opinion No. 176 (1992), Joint DAR-DENR MC 14 (1997) provides that all untitled
public alienable and disposable lands are deemed “private” if the criteria
specified in RA 6940 for the determination of whether or not a person has
already acquired a recognizable private right over a landholding is met, namely:

a) Continuous occupancy and cultivation by oneself or through one’s

predecessors-in-interest for at least thirty (30) years prior to the
effectivity of RA 6940 on 16 April 1990;
b) The land must have been classified as alienable and disposable for
at least thirty (30) years prior to the effectivity on 16 April 1990;
c) One must have paid the real estate tax thereon; and
d) There are no adverse claims on the land.

For these privately claimed public alienable and disposable lands, the
DENR first issues a Free Patent to qualified applicants for the retained area of
not more than five (5) hectares. The DAR shall then cover the excess area and
issue a CLOA or EP and distribute these to qualified beneficiaries.

For untitled public alienable and disposable lands which are tenanted and
with claimants not qualified under the criteria specified in RA 6940, the
disposition shall be under the jurisdiction of the DENR. The role of the DAR ijn
the case is limited to the documentation and protection of the leasehold
arrangement between public and land claimant and the tenants.

If the alienable and disposable land is no tenanted but has actual farm
occupants, and the public land claimant lacks the requisite thirty (30)-year
possession, these shall be under the jurisdiction of DENR and the appropriate
tenurial instrument shall be applied.

It is submitted, however, that these alienable and disposable lands that

are privately claimed by claimants who are not qualified under the criteria set
under RA 6940 (1990) should be turned over to DAR for distribution under CARP.
As these claimants/tenants are mere occupants and can not be granted Free
Patents by the DENR, these lands should instead be committed for agrarian
purposes.

A recently issued DENR MC 22 (1999) entitled “DENR Jurisdiction over

Alienable and Disposable Lands of the Public Domain”, seems to abrogate or set
aside Joint DAR_DENR MC 14 (1997). It directs all Regional Executive Directors
to strictly exercise DENR’s jurisdiction over all alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain, including those lands not specifically placed under the
jurisdiction of other government agencies, and prepare the same for disposition
to qualified and legitimate recipients under the People’s Alliance for the
Rehabilitation of Environment of the Office of the Secretary of the DENR.

This recent issuance prohibits the turnover of alienable and disposable

lands to CARP, and thus, effectively removes remaining public alienable and
disposable lands out of the scope of CARP. While merely an administrative order
that can not overturn legislation on the matter, DENR MC 22 (1999) poses
another roadblock which if not corrected or legally challenged in court can derail
the already delayed coverage of public agricultural lands. Sec. 7 of RA 6657
explicitly provides that alienable and disposable public agricultural lands are
among the priority lands for distribution. Needless to say, the political
implications of government’s reluctance to commit public agricultural lands for
agrarian ends in the face of its relentless expropriation of private landholdings is
serious.

Ancestral Lands

Sec. 9 of RA 6657 defines ancestral lands as those that include, but not
limited to, lands in actual, continuous and open possession of an indigenous
cultural community and its members. Sec. 3 (b) of RA 8371 (1997) or the
“Indigenous Peoples Rights Act”, has more encompassing definition, to wit:

Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. –xxx

c) Ancestral Lands – Subject to Section 56 hereof, refers to lands

occupied, possessed and utilized by individuals, families and
clans who are members of the ICCs/IPs (indigenous cultural
communities/indigenous peoples) since time immemorial, by
themselves or through their predecessors-in-interest, under
claims of individual or traditional group ownership continuously,
to the present, except when interrupted by war, force majeure
or displacement by force, deceit, stealth or as a consequence of
 government projects and other voluntary dealings entered into
by government and private individuals/corporations, including,
but not limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies,
private forests, swidden farms and treelots;

Policy for ancestral lands under CARP

CARP ensures the protection of the right of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral

lands to ensure their economic, social and cultural well being. System of land
ownership, land use, and modes of settling land disputes of ICCs/IPs shall be
recognized and respected in line with the principles of self-determination and
autonomy.

The Presidential Agrarian Reform Committee (PARC), notwithstanding any

law to the contrary, has the power to suspend the implementation of the CARP
with respect to ancestral lands for the purpose of identifying and delineating
such lands. It shall also respect laws on ancestral domain enacted by the
respective legislators of autonomous regions, subject to the provision of the
Constitution and the principles enunciated in RA 6657 and other national laws.

However, the full protection of the rights of the ICCs/IPs to their ancestral
lands under CARP is hampered by various legal constrains. For one, while Sec. 9
respects or protects the rights of the ICCs/IPs to their ancestral lands as means
to protect their economic, social and cultural well-being, its definition of ancestral
lands is circumscribed by the limitation that the Torrens System shall be
respected. This is a fundamental legal setback to the rights of ICCs/IPs. It should
be noted that the vested rights of these communities to ancestral lands have not
been recognized to have pre-existed the Regalian Doctrine which underlie the
government’s perspective to full ownership and control over natural resources as
well as the current legal system that regulates private property rights.

CARP involves alienable and disposable lands only while ancestral lands of
ICCs/IPs encompass forest and mineral lands and other lands of the public
domain which are by definition inalienable and indisposable. Thus, the benefit of
being awarded CLOAs over ancestral lands to these ICCs/IPs are limited to
private agricultural lands and public agricultural lands transferred to DAR.

In any case, to promote and protect the rights of the ICCs/IPs over
ancestral alnds situated in inalienable and indisposable public lands, DAR issues
member/s of the ICCs who are engaged in agricultural activities over the said
lands CARP Beneficiary Certificate (CBC). Though these do not vest title, it
likewise recognizes the claim of the ICC over these lands and allows them to
access support services from DAR>
 RA 8371 (1997) has a more expensive definition of ancestral domains and
ancestral lands which includes lands that are legally determined as indisposable
and inalienable public lands. RA 8371 is a clear departure from either law and
regulation for not only does it expand the definition of ancestral lands but
recognizes the right of the ICCs/IPs to own these lands. National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), a body created by RA 8371, is vested, among others
with the power and to issue Certificates of Ancestral Domain/Land Titles over
ancestral lands.