Land reform in the Philippines has long been a contentious issue rooted in the Philippines's Spanish

Colonial Period. Some efforts began during the American Colonial Period with renewed efforts during the
Commonwealth, following independence, during Martial Law and especially following the People Power
Revolution in 1986. The current law, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, was passed following
the revolution and recently extended until 2014

History Edit

Much like Mexico and other Spanish colonies in the Americas, the Spanish settlement in the Philippines
revolved around the encomienda system of plantations, known as haciendas. As the 19th Century
progressed, industrialization and liberalization of trade allowed these encomiendas to expand their cash
crops, establishing a strong sugar industry in the Philippines, especially in the Visayan island of Negros.

Rice Share Tenancy Act of 1933 Edit

When the Philippine Commonwealth was established, President Manuel L. Quezon implemented the
Rice Share Tenancy Act of 1933.[5] The purpose of this act was to regulate the share-tenancy contracts
by establishing minimum standards.[5] Primarily, the Act provided for better tenant-landlord
relationship, a 50–50 sharing of the crop, regulation of interest to 10% per agricultural year, and a
safeguard against arbitrary dismissal by the landlord.[5] The major flaw of this law was that it could be
used only when the majority of municipal councils in a province petitioned for it.[5] Since landowners
usually controlled such councils, no province ever asked that the law be applied. Therefore, Quezón
ordered that the act be mandatory in all Central Luzon provinces.[5] However, contracts were good only
for one year. By simply refusing the renew their contract, landlords were able to eject tenants. As a
result, peasant organizations agitated in vain for a law that would make the contract automatically
renewable for as long as the tenants fulfilled their obligations.[5]

In 1936, this Act was amended to get rid of its loophole, but the landlords made its application relative
and not absolute. Consequently, it was never carried out in spite of its good intentions. In fact, by 1939,
thousands of peasants in Central Luzon were being threatened with wholesale eviction.[5] By the early
1940s, thousands of tenants in Central Luzon were ejected from their farmlands and the rural conflict
was more acute than ever.[5]

Therefore, during the Commonwealth period, agrarian problems persisted.[5] This motivated the
government to incorporate a cardinal principle on social justice. Dictated by the social justice program of
the government, expropriation of landed estates and other landholdings commenced. Likewise, the
National Land Settlement Administration (NSLA) began an orderly settlement of public agricultural lands.
At the outbreak of the Second World War, major settlement areas containing more than 65,000 hectares
were already established.[5]
Roxas Administration Edit

When the Philippines gained its independence in 1946, much of the land was held by a small group of
wealthy landowners. There was much pressure on the democratically elected government to redistribute
the land. At the same time, many of the democratically elected office holders were landowners
themselves or came from land-owning families.

In 1946, shortly after his induction to Presidency, Manuel Roxas proclaimed the Rice Share Tenancy Act
of 1933 effective throughout the country.[5] However problems of land tenure continued. In fact these
became worse in certain areas.[5] Among the remedial measures enacted was Republic Act No. 1946
likewise known as the Tenant Act which provided for a 70–30 sharing arrangements and regulated share-
tenancy contracts.[5] It was passed to resolve the ongoing peasant unrest in Central Luzon.[5]

As part of his Agrarian Reform agenda, President Elpidio Quirino issued on 23 October 1950 Executive
Order No. 355 which replaced the National Land Settlement Administration with Land Settlement
Development Corporation (LASEDECO) which takes over the responsibilities of the Agricultural
Machinery Equipment Corporation and the Rice and Corn Production Administration.[6]

To amplify and stabilize the functions of the Economic Development Corps (EDCOR), President Ramon
Magsaysay worked[7] for the establishment of the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation
Administration (NARRA),[7] which took over from the EDCOR and helped in the giving of some sixty-five
thousand acres to three thousand indigent families for settlement purposes.[7] Again, it allocated some
other twenty-five thousand to a little more than one thousand five hundred landless families, who
subsequently became farmers.[7]

As further aid to the rural people,[7] the president established the Agricultural Credit and Cooperative
Administration (ACCFA). The idea was for this entity to make available rural credits. Records show that it
did grant, in this wise, almost ten million dollars. This administration body next devoted its attention to
cooperative marketing.[7]

Along this line of help to the rural areas, President Magsaysay initiated in all earnestness the artesian
wells campaign. A group-movement known as the Liberty Wells Association was formed and in record
time managed to raise a considerable sum for the construction of as many artesian wells as possible. The
socio-economic value of the same could not be gainsaid and the people were profuse in their gratitude.
[7]
Finally, vast irrigation projects, as well as enhancement of the Ambuklao Power plant and other similar
ones, went a long way towards bringing to reality the rural improvement program advocated by
President Magsaysay.[7]

President Ramón Magsaysay enacted the following laws as part of his Agrarian Reform Program:

Republic Act No. 1160 of 1954 – Abolished the LASEDECO and established the National Resettlement and
Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) to resettle dissidents and landless farmers. It was particularly
aimed at rebel returnees providing home lots and farmlands in Palawan and Mindanao.

Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954) – Governed the relationship between
landowners and tenant farmers by organizing share-tenancy and leasehold system. The law provided the
security of tenure of tenants. It also created the Court of Agrarian Relations.

Republic Act No. 1400 (Land Reform Act of 1955) – Created the Land Tenure Administration (LTA) which
was responsible for the acquisition and distribution of large tenanted rice and corn lands over 200
hectares for individuals and 600 hectares for corporations.

Republic Act No. 821 (Creation of Agricultural Credit Cooperative Financing Administration) – Provided
small farmers and share tenants loans with low interest rates of six to eight percent.[6]

Macapagal administration Edit

Land Reform Code Edit

Main article: Agricultural Land Reform Code

The Agricultural Land Reform Code (RA 3844) was a major Philippine land reform law enacted in 1963
under President Diosdado Macapagal.[8]

The code declared that it was State policy

To establish owner-cultivatorship and the economic family-size farm as the basis of Philippine agriculture
and, as a consequence, divert landlord capital in agriculture to industrial development;
To achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers free from pernicious institutional restraints and
practices;

To create a truly viable social and economic structure in agriculture conducive to greater productivity
and higher farm incomes;

To apply all labor laws equally and without discrimination to both industrial and agricultural wage
earners;

To provide a more vigorous and systematic land resettlement program and public land distribution; and

To make the small farmers more independent, self-reliant and responsible citizens, and a source of
genuine strength in our democratic society.

and, in pursuance of those policies, established the following

An agricultural leasehold system to replace all existing share tenancy systems in agriculture;

A declaration of rights for agricultural labor;

An authority for the acquisition and equitable distribution of agricultural land;

An institution to finance the acquisition and distribution of agricultural land;

A machinery to extend credit and similar assistance to agriculture;

A machinery to provide marketing, management, and other technical services to agriculture;

A unified administration for formulating and implementing projects of land reform;

An expanded program of land capability survey, classification, and registration; and

A judicial system to decide issues arising under this Code and other related laws and regulations.

Marcos administration Edit

On 10 September 1971, President Ferdinand E. Marcos signed the Code of Agrarian Reform of the
Philippines into law which established the Department of Agrarian Reform, effectively replacing the Land
Authority.

In 1978, the DAR was renamed the Ministry of Agrarian Reform.

On 26 July 1987, following the People Power Revolution, the department was re-organized through
Executive Order (EO) No. 129-A.

In 1988, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law created the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
which is also known as CARP.

Corazon Aquino administration Edit

President Corazon Aquino envisioned agrarian and land reform as the centerpiece of her administration's
social legislative agenda. However, her family background and social class as a privileged daughter of a
wealthy and landed clan became a lightning rod of criticisms against her land reform agenda. On 22
January 1987, less than a month before the ratification of the 1987 Constitution, agrarian workers and
farmers marched to the historic Mendiola Street near the Malacañan Palace to demand genuine land
reform from Aquino's administration. However, the march turned violent when Marine forces fired at
farmers who tried to go beyond the designated demarcation line set by the police. As a result, 12
farmers were killed and 19 were injured in this incident now known as the Mendiola massacre. This
incident led some prominent members of the Aquino Cabinet to resign their government posts.

In response to calls for agrarian reform, President Aquino issued Presidential Proclamation 131 and
Executive Order 229 on 22 July 1987, which outlined her land reform program, which included sugar
lands. In 1988, with the backing of Aquino, the new Congress of the Philippines passed Republic Act No.
6657, more popularly known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law." The law paved the way for
the redistribution of agricultural lands to tenant-farmers from landowners, who were paid in exchange
by the government through just compensation but were also allowed to retain not more than five
hectares of land.[9] However, corporate landowners were also allowed under the law to "voluntarily
divest a proportion of their capital stock, equity or participation in favor of their workers or other
qualified beneficiaries", in lieu of turning over their land to the government for redistribution.[10]
Despite the flaws in the law, the Supreme Court upheld its constitutionality in 1989, declaring that the
implementation of the comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP) provided by the said law, was "a
revolutionary kind of expropriation."[11]

Despite the implementation of CARP, Aquino was not spared from the controversies that eventually
centered on Hacienda Luisita, a 6,453-hectare estate located in the Province of Tarlac, which she,
together with her siblings inherited from her father Jose Cojuangco (Don Pepe).[12]
Critics argued that Aquino bowed to pressure from relatives by allowing stock redistribution under
Executive Order 229. Instead of land distribution, Hacienda Luisita reorganized itself into a corporation
and distributed stock. As such, ownership of agricultural portions of the hacienda were transferred to
the corporation, which in turn, gave its shares of stocks to farmers.[12]

The arrangement remained in force until 2006, when the Department of Agrarian Reform revoked the
stock distribution scheme adopted in Hacienda Luisita, and ordered instead the redistribution of a large
portion of the property to the tenant-farmers. The Department stepped into the controversy when in
2004, violence erupted over the retrenchment of workers in the Hacienda, eventually leaving seven
people dead.[12]

Ramos administration Edit

President Fidel V. Ramos speeded the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP) of former President Corazon Aquino in order to meet the ten-year time frame. However, there
were constraints such as the need to firm up the database and geographic focus, generate funding
support, strengthen inter-agency cooperation, and mobilize implementation partners, like the non-
government organizations, local governments, and the business community.[5] In 1992, the government
acquired and distributed 382 hectares of land with nearly a quarter of a million farmer-beneficiaries. This
constituted 41% of all land titles distributed by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) during the last
thirty years. But by the end of 1996, the DAR had distributed only 58.25% of the total area it was
supposed to cover. From January to December 1997, the DAR distributed 206,612 hectares. That year,
since 1987, the DAR had distributed a total of 2.66 million hectares which benefited almost 1.8 million
tenant-farmers.[5]

One major problem that the Ramos administration faced was the lack of funds to support and
implement the program.[5] The Php50 million, allotted by R.A. No. 6657 to finance the CARP from 1988
to 1998, was no longer sufficient to support the program. To address this problem, Ramos signed R.A.
No. 8532 to amend the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) which further strengthened the
CARP by extending the program to another ten years.[5] Ramos signed this law on 23 February 1998 – a
few months before the end of Ramos' term.[5]

Arroyo administration Edit

On 27 September 2004, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, signed Executive Order No. 364, and the
Department of Agrarian Reform was renamed to Department of Land Reform. This EO also broadened
the scope of the department, making it responsible for all land reform in the country. It also placed the
Philippine Commission on Urban Poor (PCUP) under its supervision and control. Recognition of the
ownership of ancestral domain by indigenous peoples also became the responsibility of this new
department, under the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples (NCIP).[13]

On 23 August 2005, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed Executive Order No. 456 and renamed the
Department of Land Reform back to Department of Agrarian Reform, since "the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law goes beyond just land reform but includes the totality of all factors and support services
designed to lift the economic status of the beneficiaries."[14]

When President Noynoy Aquino took office, there was a renewed push to compete the agrarian reform.
The Department of Agrarian Reform adopted a goal of distributed all CARP-eligible land by the end of
Pres. Aquino's term in 2016.[15] As of June 2013, 694,181 hectares remained to be distributed,
according to DAR.[15]

Hacienda Luisita, owned by the Cojuangco family, which includes the late former President Corazón C.
Aquino and her son, former President Benigno Simeon Cojuangco Aquino III, has been a notable case of
land reform.[16]

The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is the current law under which land reform is conducted.
Large land-holdings are broken up and distributed to farmers and workers on that particular hacienda.
The crops grown on such haciendas include sugar and rice. Each farmer is giving a "certificates of land
ownership award" or CLOA for their new property.[15] Under the law, a landowner can only retain 5
hectares, regardless of the size of the hacienda.[15] Conflict can arise between previous landowners and
"beneficiaries" and between competing farmers' groups that have conflicting claims.[15]

In December 2008, CARP expired and the following year CARPer was passed. CARPer stands for
"Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms". CARPer expired in 2014.

The Philippine Rice Share Tenancy Act

Article by David Wurfel, from Pacific Affairs 1954.

The Rice Share Tenancy Act as amended in 1946 is a much misunderstood piece of legislation in the
Philippines today, and unfortunately that misunderstanding has been perpetuated by many Western
reporters on Philippine affairs.

Former President Roxas did a magnificent job of salesmanship when he attached to this Act the label
“the seventy-thirty law”. But popular though this terminology may have been, it has little relationship to
the provisions of the Act. A more descriptive title, “the fifty-fifty law” would undoubtedly have been less
popular.

The original Rice Share Tenancy Act was passed by the Philippine Legislature in 1933, during the
administration of Governor-General Theodore Roosevelt, Jr. He and many of the legislators were aware
of the increasing inequality of the tenants’ and the landlords’ bargaining power. They believed that
legislation, even legislation alone, could balance the unbalanced social forces — a belief not often
verified by Philippine experience.

The Act’s many admirable provisions were unfortunately rendered useless by the final one. The law
could go into effect “only in provinces where the majority of the municipal councils shall, by resolution,
petition for its application to the Governor-General who shall make the law effective by proclamation”.1
In view of the landlords’ control of the municipal councils, it was hardly surprising that in no province did
this law come into effect.

But while reform by legislation was frustrated, changes of another kind did take place on the land. By
1939 some 35.1 percent of all farmers were tenants-more than double the percentage twenty years
earlier. And the tenancy problem was, in reality, the rice share tenancy problem: 98.4 percent of tenants
were share tenants and 54.8 percent of those were rice share tenants.2 Rice was the Philippines first
crop, taking 39.1 percent of the farm area and 39.9 percent of rice farmers were share tenants. The
second crop by area, coconut, accounted for only 11.8 percent of the share tenants, while 21.8 percent
of the share tenants were on corn farms and 2.8 percent on sugar farms.

The tenancy problem was geographically as peculiar to Central Luzon as it was agronomically to rice. In
1939 five Central Luzon provinces, all of which had the greater part of their farm land planted to rice,
had share tenancy rates above 50 percent: Tarlac, 50.5, Cavite, 53.5, Bulacan, 62.2, Pampanga, 64.6, and
Nueva Ecija, 66.3.3 The only place outside Central Luzon where rice culture and high tenancy rates
coexisted was Panay. In the third important rice growing region, Hocos, the land was usually cultivated
by its owners.
In most cases these tenancy figures were disturbing to former President Manuel Quezon and other
Filipino leaders only insofar as they were associated with agrarian unrest. But the tenancy rate cannot be
said to be a complete explanation of unrest-and population density, poverty and backwardness of
agricultural techniques are even less adequate explanations of this phenomenon. The sharp increase of
tenancy in the 1930’S throws more light on the problem, but only the broad term “change” can fully
explain agrarian unrest, or other revolutionary outbreaks. The change was both economic and
psychological. The Filipino tao (peasant) was in increasing numbers being reduced from owner to tenant
at the same time that education with all its attendant blessings (or evils), as well as high-sounding
phrases from Manila politicians spread abroad by press and radio, was raising the tao’s expectation of
the kind of life he was entitled to. Thus the politicos who wrote a piece of “reform legislation” which
could not be put in effect unwittingly abetted the incipient unrest. Tenants’ hopes, especially those of
the more politically alert, were raised, then dashed.

Though it seemed right and expedient at the time, Quezon’s attempt to enforce the Rice Share Tenancy
Act probably also contributed to later unrest. At his behest Commonwealth Act No. 178 was passed in
November 1936, amending Sec. 29 of Act No. 4054 in order to read: “This Act. . . shall take effect . . . by
proclamation to be issued by the President of the Philippines upon recommendation of the Secretary of
Labor, when public interests so require. . . .” In January 1937 Quezon proclaimed the Act to be in effect in
five Central Luzon provinces, and by 1941 had extended it to five more provinces on Luzon and two on
Panay.

The text of the Act — which is long, technical, and in places ambiguous, remained incomprehensible to
many of the tenants for whose benefit it was intended. The crop-sharing provision was hardly
revolutionary; it merely stamped legal approval on the prevailing arrangement. When the tenant
furnished work animal and implements, and shared production expenses equally with the landlord, he
was to receive 50 percent of the crop. Other provisions of the Act, which remain in effect today, were
designed to bring real change in existing practice. “To be valid and binding” the tenancy contract was to
be written in a language known to both parties and signed or thumb-marked in the presence of two
witnesses, one chosen by each party.

In practice the contract was usually verbal. And even if it were written, the landlord retained the sole
copy and could alter it if he were so inclined. Section 10 provided that all advances from landlord to
tenant should not bear interest of more than 10 percent per agricultural year and that a record thereof
should be kept in writing. The existing rates varied from 50 to 300 percent per annum. To prevent
evasion of this provision, it further specified that in case of loans in kind any inflation of the original price
of the article loaned was to be considered usury. Section 11 prohibited loans in excess of 50 percent of
the tenant’s average yearly share. By Section 13 a final accounting between landlord and tenant was
required within 15 days after threshing, to be recorded in a language known by the tenant and signed by
two witnesses. Normally the accounts were kept in English or Spanish and seldom shown to the tenant
anyway. No debts in kind, once converted into money, were to be again converted into kind. This
provision proscribed a widespread practice whereby formerly a tenant might have to borrow a quantity
of rice at a time of the year when the price was high and have to pay back a much larger quantity at a
time when the price was low.

Parts III and IV of the Act listed the rights and duties of the landlord and tenant. The landlord was to
retain the right of managing the farm and was held responsible for payment of the land taxes. Most
important, the landlord was prohibited from dismissing his tenant except for “just and reasonable
cause”. Section 19 listed some of such causes, among them being: “Gross misconduct or willful
disobedience on the part of the tenant to the orders of landlord or of his representative in connection
with his work; negligence on the part of the tenant to do the necessary farm work expected of him so as
to insure a good harvest; non-compliance with any of the obligations imposed upon the tenant by the
Act or by the contract. . . .” The tenant had the right to work elsewhere when there was no work to be
done on the farm, and if he were requested by the landlord to perform work not connected with his
duties as tenant, he was to be paid accordingly-“unless otherwise stipulated in the contract”.4 The
tenant was to be entitled to a home lot on which he might construct a dwelling, and, in case of ejection,
he was to be given 45 days notice. His duties included the “obligation to cultivate the farm as a good
father of the family”, and to inform the landlord of any trespass on his farm committed by a third person
(including a labor leader).

Though some of these provisions, such as the last mentioned, were mainly of benefit to the landlord, the
Act as a whole, if enforced, would have improved the tenants’ lot. But the new day had not yet dawned
for them. On those estates where the tenants were both acquainted with the law and bold enough to
demand its application, the almost universal reaction of the landlord was to threaten ejection at the end
of the agricultural year.5 This could be perfectly legal, since the traditional contract lasted only for one
agricultural year and Act No. 4054 as amended did not require that a land lord retain a tenant with
whom he had no contract.

Legal or not, the wholesale ejection of politically aware share-tenants would have brought even more
unrest to Central Luzon than it was then experiencing. Consequently, on June 9, 1939, the National
Assembly passed — undoubtedly as the result of pressure from Quezon — Commonwealth Act No. 461,
which stated that no tenant under “any system of tenancy” should be “dispossessed of the land
cultivated by him except for any of the causes mentioned in [Section 19 of] Act No. 4054 or for any just
cause, and without the approval of a representative of the Department of Justice duly authorized for the
purpose”. If either party felt aggrieved by the action of the Department, he was entitled to appeal to the
Court of Industrial Relations (which also serves as a court of agrarian relations). Landlords were
aggrieved, or so they felt; they talked loudly of the unconstitutionality of this new act. In the meantime
they continued to file ejectment suits against unruly tenants who demanded the application of the Rice
Share Tenancy Act. When, in March 1941, in the case of Jacinto v Catacutan the landlord’s petition was
denied by the Department of Justice and appeal was brought to the Court of Industrial Relations, the
legal confusion which had delayed the tenants’ enjoyment of their rights was swept away.6 The Court
upheld the constitutionality of Commonwealth Act 461 against “due process” and “freedom of contract”
attacks and ruled that expiration of the contract was not a “just cause” and was thus insufficient cause
for discharge of the tenant. One month later the Supreme Court gave a similar decision in Tapang v Court
of Industrial Relations and Amalia Robles.7 Throughout 1941 some 353 of the Court’s 415 new cases
were tenancy disputes; 138 landlords and 507 tenants were affected. Of those cases which were
appealed to the Court from lesser jurisdictions, 265 were won by landlords and only 44 by tenants.8

Thus, though the Court did not allow the law to topple in the face of the landlord’s onslaught, neither did
it frequently grant tenant demands. Yet at the same time the Social Improvement Service of the
Department of Labor, which was created on May 1, 1937, worked diligently to inform the barrio people
about the provisions of the Rice Share Tenancy Act “and of the invaluable benefits and advantages
emanating from a happy and harmonious relationship between the government and the masses”.9 Up to
1939 rural agents had visited 981 barrios, held 384 meetings and distributed 7,500 pamphlets to explain
the Act. This activity, however, since it was not followed by effective enforcement of the Act, created
discontent rather than “a happy and harmonious relationship”.

Japan brought war to the Philippines and war brought new changes causing more agrarian unrest. A
large percentage of Central Luzon landlords fled to Manila for the duration. Hukbalahap organizers urged
their tenants to refuse to pay rent, and this the tenants did whenever they had Huk armed forces to back
up their refusal. The Huks also provided the tenant a chance for participation in the governments which
they set up in the areas not controlled by the Japanese. Thus for the rice share tenant the war was often
a time of economic prosperity and of new-found political independence. The American “liberation”
meant for many tenants the reestablishment of a near-feudal political and economic system which they
had, at least for a while, thrown off.

Shortly after President Osmena returned to the Philippines in 1945, he and his Cabinet, as part of a deal
to gain the support of the Democratic Alliance, agreed to amend the Rice Share Tenancy Act so that the
tenant would receive 60 percent of the crop. But powerful landlord interests thwarted any legislative
action to this effect. In 1946, however, when President Roxas came to power and when the Huks had
demonstrated their political strength and resilience against armed attack, Republic Act 34, the so-called
“Seventy-thirty Law”, was actually passed by a Congress still dominated by landlords.
Roxas and his followers seized the propaganda initiative from the Huks, but they had no intention of
creating serious economic handicaps for the landlords. The new law ideally was suited for their limited
purposes. It amended Section 8 of .Act No. 4054 to read, in part, as follows:

“. . . When the tenant furnishes the necessary implements and the work animals and defrays all the
expenses for planting and cultivation of the land, the crop shall be divided as follows: the tenant shall
receive seventy percent of the net produce of the land and the landlord thirty percent, for first class
land, the normal production of which, based on the average yield for the three preceding years, is more
than forty cavans of palay per one cavan of seed; seventy-five percent for the tenant and twenty-five
percent for the landlord, in case of land the average normal production of which is not more than forty
cavans of palay per one cavan of seed. In case the landlord furnishes the necessary work animals and
farm implements and, likewise, bears all the expenses of planting and cultivation, the landlord shall
receive seventy percent and the tenant thirty percent of the crop. . . .”

“The following stipulations are hereby declared to be against public policy:

“If the tenant shall receive less than fifty-five percent of the net produce, in case he furnishes the work
animals and the farm implements, and the expenses of planting and cultivation are borne equally by said
tenant and the landlord. . . .

“If the landlord is the owner of the work animal, and the tenant of the farm implements, and the
expenses are equally divided between the landlord and the tenant, for the tenant to receive less than
fifty percent of the net crop.”

The first sentence was most quoted; the second, less so. Actually the provisions of the second sentence
were less detrimental to the tenant than might first appear, because the landlord rarely furnished both
work animals and implements in addition to bearing all expenses of planting and cultivating. Nor were
the provisions of the first sentence as advantageous as they appeared, since the tenant seldom
furnished all capital equipment and paid all operating expenses. Both sentences were, for practical
purposes, meaningless. Introduc ing the whole paragraph was the crucial phrase, “In the absence of any
written agreement to the contrary”!

The first paragraph of Section 7 of Act No. 4054, which remained un-amended, had provided that “the
landlord and tenant shall be free to enter into any or all kinds of tenancy contracts as long as they are
not contrary to existing laws, morals and public policy.” Republic Act 34 proceeded to define “public
policy”, something which had not been done by the earlier enactment:

In the final analysis the position of the average tenant had hardly been changed at all. The wartime mass
destruction of carabaos (water buffaloes) by the Japanese had for the most part hurt the tenant, who
had usually owned his own work animal. In the postwar period the landlord had capital with which to
purchase carabaos; the tenant did not and so the landlord furnished the work animals. Thus for the
tenant who owned his carabao before the war and afterwards did not-in most cases owning implements
and sharing operating costs-the legal minimum share remained at 50 percent.

One might have thought that the Court of Industrial Relations and Supreme Court decisions of 1941
would have strengthened the tenant’s hand to the extent that he could have successfully refused to sign
a contract without a 70-30 sharing basis. But it was not so. A Department of Justice Circular (No. 115 of
April 30, 1947) held that:

“The refusal of a tenant to sign a contract of tenancy with his landlord shall, within the purview of
Commonwealth Act No. 461, as amended, constitute a just cause for his ejectment from his landholding,
upon proof of the following:

“( I) That the contract of tenancy is in accordance with the form prepared and furnished by the
Department of Justice;

“(2) That the terms and conditions therein stipulated conform with the requirements of Act No. 4054, as
amended;

“(3) That the ratio of crop-sharing assures for the tenant the minimum share that he may receive in
conformity with the public policy provided in Section 7 of Act No. 4054; and

“(4) That the stipulations therein enumerated show a decided advantage or improvement in his favor or
are better than the terms and conditions of his previous agreement or contract with his landlord entered
into between them prior to the amendment of Act No. 4054 by Republic Act No. 34’”
By January of 1948 two decisions of the CIR, both written by Presiding Judge Arsenio Roldan, upheld this
ruling. One cannot say that the Act was not being “enforced”. Judge Roldan was well acquainted with the
text of Sections 7 and 8 when he said:

“The ceiling of 70-30 sharing basis allowed for. . . shall only prevail in the absence of a written tenancy
contract formulated under the requirements of Section 4, Act No. 4054, as amended. If they [the
tenants] reject it, the disposition of the Tenancy Law Enforcement Division granting authority to
landowners to dismiss the tenants, contingent upon their refusal to sign the tenancy contracts offered, is
well founded. . . . What the Act merely provides is a sharing in a level not less than 55 percent for the
tenant, if he owns the work animals and farm implements and shares equally in the expenses of planting
and cultivation.”10

Some decisions which went against the tenant were the results of his demanding even more than 70
percent of the crop, and by no means all the Court’s decisions were detrimental to tenant interests. In
November 1947 the Court had rejected the contention of the Ongsiaco Hacienda that Republic Act No.
34 was applicable only to contracts drawn up after its passage.11 In March 1948 it declared that it had
power to defer the dismissal of a tenant by his landlord, even though a just cause for such action
existed.12

The Court’s November 1947 decision also included a ruling which called attention to the ambiguity of
Republic Act No. 34. The Judges found in an examination of Sections 7 and 8 that in all cases the share of
labor was 30 percent, of land 30, of planting and cultivating expenses 30, of work animals 5, and of farm
implements, 5. Computing on this basis, and in light of the terms of the contract in the case at hand, the
Court decreed that 60 per cent for the tenant would be legal. Thus the line between the sharing systems
allowed by Section 7 as in accord with “public policy” and those allowed by Section 8 “in the absence of
any written agreement to the contrary” was blurred-and rightly so, for the shares allotted to the factors
of production were the same in both sections. One clear advantage of such an analysis is in its revelation
of the real difference between the sharing provisions of Act No. 4054 and of Republic Act No. 34- The
later act merely increased the share of labor from 25 to 30 percent and decreased the share of land from
35 to 30 percent.

There continued to be much talk in administration circles of the “enforcement” of the “seventy-thirty
law”. Late in 1950 the Tenancy Law Enforcement Division was transferred from the Department of Justice
to the Court of Industrial Relations. The transfer was said to be more economical for the government and
to allow for a speedier disposition of tenancy cases.13 In June 1951 a delegation of tenants from
Pampanga led by Judge Quirino Abad Santos visited the President to complain about the non-
enforcement of the Law. The most that was achieved by this pilgrimage was the calling of a “tenant-
landlord conciliation conference”.14 Tenant unrest and the potential mass base for Huk power remained.

Then on September 30, 1952, Chief Justice Ricardo Paras of the Supreme Court wrote a decision in
Pineda v Pingul15 which, though it paid little attention to certain provisions of Republic Act No. 34,
struck a blow for “social justice”. Pingul had just become the landlord of Pineda and 68 other cultivating
tenants who had long been on the land. In the new contract which he asked them to sign he demanded
a larger share of the crop than the previous landlord had received. In late 1951 the Court of Industrial
Relations ruled that “the choice of contract terms is with the landlord and it is for the tenant either to
accept or reject them. In the latter eventuality the landlord may exercise his property rights. . .” (i.e. evict
the tenant).

With the help of Quirino and Vicente Abad Santos,16 the tenants appealed this decision to the Supreme
Court. Though the newspaper reports led readers to believe that Chief Justice Paras’ decision would
henceforth allow all tenants to choose the sharing arrangement,17 the “blow for social justice” was
actually less telling. Paras agreed that the Court of Industrial Relations ruling held true at the inception of
the tenancy relationship, when the “prospective tenant . . . , before being accepted, has of course to
accede to the terms of the landlord”. But, said the Chief Justice, “We are inclined to hold that, where a
situation involves an old and pre-existing tenant, as in this case, he cannot be forced to alter the existing
share agreement.” Furthermore, “if any change is desirable in the matter of the sharing ration, the
initiative and decision should lie with the tenant. . . .” The wording of this passage is certainly less than a
clear promise to the tenant that he may choose the factors of production which he wants to furnish and
thus what share he wants to receive. This decision, at least, makes the Rice Share Tenancy Act a bulwark
against reaction in tenant-landlord relations, but re-emphasizes that its sharing provision does not
constitute reform.

During the month following this ruling the Supreme Court in Vidal v Roldan again reversed the Court of
Industrial Relations-this time to the detriment of the tenant. Section 1 of Republic Act No. 44 clearly
stated that the latter Court had jurisdiction in disputes under “any system of tenancy” and Judge Roldan
had assumed jurisdiction in a coconut tenancy dispute. But the Supreme Court held that the pertinent
phrase in Republic Act No. 44 “should not be interpreted literally” and claimed that “the clear legislative
intent is to make the law applicable to such other tenancy laws as may be enacted in the future, not to
any system of tenancy for which no rules have yet been provided”,18 e.g. coconut tenancy. Thus the
Supreme Court can become an agent by which tenant rights are diminished as well as expanded.
It is clear that a real attempt is being made by the Judiciary to enforce the Rice Share Tenancy Act. But it
is not the great reform measure that the appellation “seventy-thirty law” connotes. Enforcement is not
enough, nor is “amendment” by the courts. The task which the realistic Filipino reformer faces today in
the realm of agrarian relations is the writing of an entirely new piece of legislation based on principles of
universal application to all types of tenancy, of a 1ong-term tenancy contract — three agricultural years
according to Dr. Jorge Bocobo’s proposals — and of at least 40 percent of the crop for the tenants’ labor.
Dr. Bocobo, former president of the University of the Philippines, also contends that a new Share
Tenancy Act should provide that the cultivator is manager of his farm, having exclusive possession of the
entire crop before it is divided.19 The U. S. Mutual Security Agency (now Foreign Operations
Administration) has helped the Philippine Council on United States Aid to draft a new tenancy law, but it
has apparently become buried in the Philippine Congress. Such a law should have high priority in the
legislative program of the new administration. The Philippine agricultural census in 1952 showed
another increase in tenancy over 1939.

With these several needs in mind, it is disappointing to note a remark by the new President of the
Philippines, Mr. Magsaysay, who has been hailed as a great bulwark against Communism. Shortly after
the election President Magsaysay appointed a “rice committee” to make a study of that industry. On
December 14 he approved the report which it presented, dealing mainly with the technical problems of
production and of retail pricing. The one tenant representative on the committee, Segundino Samaniego,
remarked that all the recommendations embodied in it were useless “if the tenant continues to receive
the same deal as now”.20 Magsaysay assured Samaniego that the problem was easy to solve : “We will
enforce the [tenancy] law and make it work”. It is to be hoped that with the keen appreciation of the
plight of the rural masses which the President possesses he will, after more administrative experience,
realize that the existing law cannot “work” for the tenants’ betterment and that he will demand a new
one.

The key to the problem is greater political and economic strength for the tenant through organization.
The Huks have completely discredited themselves and are unable now to work in peaceful ways even if
they wanted to. Non-communist tenant unions and cooperatives will have to take their place as leaders
of the agrarian movement. No tenancy law is likely to be enforced unless the tenants can speak with a
powerful voice in the political arena.

Sksisiss

ACT NO. 4054

ACT NO. 4054 - AN ACT TO PROMOTE THE WELL-BEING OF TENANTS (APARCEROS) IN AGRICULTURAL
LANDS DEVOTED TO THE PRODUCTION OF RICE AND TO REGULATE THE RELATIONS BETWEEN THEM AND
THE LANDLORDS OF SAID LANDS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

PART I

Share tenancy contract in general

Section 1. Title of Act. — This Act shall be known as "The Philippine Rice Share Tenancy Act."

Sec. 2. Share tenancy Contracts defined. — A contract of share of tenancy is one whereby a partnership
between a landlord and a tenant is entered into, for a joint pursuit of rice agricultural work with common
interest in which both parties divide between them the resulting profits as well as the losses.

Sec. 3. Landlord and tenant interpreted. — For the purposes of this Act, the word "landlord" shall mean
and includes either a natural or juridical person who is the real owner of the land which is the subject-
matter of the contract, as well as a lessee, a usufructuary or any other legitimate possessor of
agricultural land cultivated by another; and the word "tenant" shall mean a farmer or farm laborer who
undertakes to work and cultivate land for another or a person who furnishes the labor.

Sec. 4. Form of contract. — The contract on share tenancy, in order to be valid and binding, shall be
drawn in triplicate in the language or dialect known to all the parties thereto, to be signed or thumb-
marked both by the landlord or his authorized representative and by the tenant, before two witnesses,
one to be chosen by each party. The party who does not know how to read and write may request one of
the witnesses to read the contents of the document. Each of the contracting parties shall retain a copy of
the contract and the third copy shall be filed with, and registered in the office of the municipal treasurer
of the municipality, where the land, which is the subject-matter of the contract, is located: Provided,
however, That in order that a contract may be considered registered, both the copy of the landlord and
that of the tenant shall contain an annotation made by the municipal treasurer to the effect that same is
registered in his office.

Sec. 5. Registry of tenancy contract. — For the purposes of this Act, the municipal treasurer of the
municipality wherein the land, which is the subject-matter of a contract, is situated, shall keep a record
of all contracts made within his jurisdiction, to be known as Registry of Tenancy Contracts. He shall keep
this registry together with a copy of each contract entered therein, and make annotations on said
registry in connection with the outcome of a particular contract, such as the way same is extinguished:
Provided, however, That the municipal treasurer shall not charge fees for the registration of said contract
which shall be exempt from the documentary stamp tax.

Sec. 6. Duration of contract. — Any contract on rice tenancy entered into between landlord and tenant
or farm laborer according to this Act shall last in accordance with the stipulation of the parties: Provided,
however, That in the absence of stipulation, same shall be understood to last only during one agricultural
year: Provided, further, That unless the contract is renewed in writing and registered as provided in
section four hereof within thirty days after the expiration of the original period, the same shall be
presumed to be extinguished: Provided, finally, That in case of renewing the contract without changing
the stipulations therein it is sufficient that the municipal treasurer shall annotate the word "renewed" in
the three copies of the contract and in the Registry of Tenancy Contracts.

For the purposes of this section, one agricultural year shall mean the length of time necessary for the
preparation of the land, sowing, planting and harvesting a crop, although it may be shorter or longer
than a calendar year.

Sec. 7. Rules governing tenancy contracts. — In any contract of tenancy mentioned in this Act, the
contracting parties shall be free to enter into any or all kinds of agreement or stipulations so long as they
are not contrary to existing laws, customs, morals and public policy: Provided, That such contract shall be
conclusive evidence of what has been agreed upon between the contracting parties, if their stipulations
are not denounced or impugned within thirty days from its registration in the office of the municipal
treasurer, as provided in section five of this Act.

Sec. 8. Share basis. — In the absence of any written agreement to the contrary and when the necessary
implements and the work animals are furnished by the tenant; and the expenses for planting,
harvesting, threshing, irrigation and fertilizer, if any, as well as other expenses incident to the proper
cultivation of the land, are born equally by both the landlord and tenant, the crop shall be divided
equally. The division shall be made in the same place where the crop has been threshed and each party
shall transport his share to his warehouse, unless the contrary is stipulated by the parties: Provided,
however, That when the landlord furnishes the work animal gratuitously it shall be deemed as a special
consideration, and the tenant shall be obliged to transport the share of the landlord to his warehouse if
it is within the municipality where the land cultivated is situated.

Sec. 9. Auxiliary industry. — In the absence of any written agreement to the contrary, the profits of any
other industry carried on the holding for the common benefit shall belong in equal shares to both
landlord and tenant, after making the necessary deduction for expenses which shall be returned to the
party who advanced it.

Auxiliary industry shall not, however, be construed to include the crops or products raised from a garden,
poultry, and such other industries carried on a lot specially provided for the residence of the tenant.

PART II

Accounts and their liquidation

Sec. 10. Loans. — All advances obtained by the tenant from the landlord in connection with the
cultivation, planting, harvesting, and such other incidental expenses for the improvement of the crop
planted, shall bear interest not exceeding ten per centum per agricultural year and shall be evidenced by
a written contract to this effect, otherwise they shall not bear any interest: Provided, however, That on
all loans other than money, such as grain or other agricultural products made to the tenant by the
landlord, no interest in excess of ten per centum shall be added to the invoice price of the article thus
loaned, and any inflation of the original price of said article shall be considered as usurious and penalized
according to the provisions of the Usury Law.

Sec. 11. Limit of loans. — The limit of the loan that can be requested by a tenant shall be fifty per
centum of the average yearly tenant's share on the particular piece of land allotted to said tenant for
cultivation during the last three years: Provided, That in the case of land to be cultivated for the first
time, the limit of the loan shall depend upon the agreement of the parties until the third year.

Sec. 12. Memorandum of advances. — Any obligation referring to any amount, either in money or in
kind, which the tenant may have received in advance from time to time from the landlord, shall be
unenforceable by action unless the same; or some note or memorandum thereof, be in writing, in a
language or dialect known to the party charged, and subscribed by the said party, or by his agent. Said
memorandum or note shall be signed by both parties and made in duplicate, one copy to remain with
the landlord and the other with the tenant.

Sec. 13. Form of final accounting. — The final accounting between landlord and tenant at the end of
each agricultural year, shall be effected within fifteen days after the threshing of the harvested crop and
the same shall be made to appear on a note or memorandum written in a language known to the tenant
and signed by both parties in the presence of two witnesses, who shall be selected by each party. Each
of the contracting parties shall be furnished with a copy of said note or memorandum, and such final
accounting, once duly signed by both parties and two witnesses, shall be deemed conclusive evidence of
its contents, except in case of fraud.

Sec. 14. Settlement of debts. — Once the accounting is made, any amount of money which the landlord
may have advanced to the tenant as expenses of cultivation or for his own private use, as well as any
amount of grain or agricultural products advanced for his support and that of his family, shall be paid by
the tenant out of his share, except fifteen per centum of same which is hereby declared exempt from the
landlord's lien: Provided, That such grain or agricultural products shall be appraised in money according
to their current market value at the place where the land is located at the time of their delivery to the
tenant: Provided, further, That in case his share is not sufficient, his outstanding debt shall be reduced in
money and shall bear an interest of not more than twelve per centum per annum: And provided, finally,
That the remaining debt of the tenant once converted into money shall not again be converted into kind.
Said outstanding debt may, however, be paid in money or in agricultural products appraised at the
current market price at the time of payment.

Sec. 15. Use of official measurement. — In all transactions entered into between landlords and tenants
on agricultural products, whether contracting a debt or making payment thereof, the official measure of
the Government shall be used.

PART III

Rights and obligations of landlord

Sec. 16. Landlord as manager. — For the purpose of this Act, the management of the farm rests with the
landlord, to be exercised either directly or indirectly, through a representative.
Sec. 17. Special lien on share of tenant. — The landlord shall have a special and preferential lien over the
share of the tenant in the product of the farm cultivated by him: Provided, however, That such lien over
the product of the farm shall be enforceable only to as much as eighty-five per centum of the total share
of the tenant in case the latter has an outstanding debt after the accounting is made.

Sec. 18. Land taxes, burden and contribution. — The landlord shall be responsible for the payment of
taxes imposed by the Government upon the land which is the subject matter of the contract and it shall
be illegal to make the tenant bear a part of such tax, burden and contribution, either directly or
indirectly.

Sec. 19. Landlord cannot dismiss his tenant for good causes. — The landlord shall not dismiss his tenant
without just and reasonable cause, otherwise the former shall be liable to the latter for losses and
damages to the extent of his share in the product of the farm entrusted to the dismissed tenant.

Any one of the following shall be considered just and reasonable cause for dismissing a tenant by the
landlord before the expiration of the period:

(1) Gross misconduct or willful disobedience on the part of the tenant to the orders of the landlord or of
his representative in connection with his work.

(2) Negligence on the part of the tenant to do the necessary farm work expected of him so as to insure a
good harvest.

(3) Non-compliance with any of the obligations imposed upon the tenant by this Act or by the contract.

(4) Fraud or breach of trust in connection with work entrusted to him.

(5) When the tenant leases it or lets to another the use of the land entrusted to him by the landlord,
without the consent of the latter.
(6) Commission of a crime against the person of the landlord or his representative, or any member of the
family of the same.

PART IV

Rights and obligations of a tenant

Sec. 20. Freedom of tenant at certain time. — The tenant shall be free to work elsewhere during the
intervals of the working season in the farm where he is a tenant: Provided, That if he is requested by the
landlord to perform other work not connected with his duties as tenant, he shall be paid accordingly by
said landlord, unless otherwise stipulated in the contract.

Sec. 21. Right of tenant in case of dismissal. — In case of dismissal the tenant shall not be dispossessed
of the land he cultivates until he is previously reimbursed of his advances if any, incurred in the
cultivation, planting or harvesting, and such other incidental expenses for the improvement of the crop
cultivated, even if such dismissal is for just cause.

Sec. 22. Lot for dwelling. — The tenant shall be entitled to construct a dwelling on the land cultivated by
him, if he so chooses, and once a dwelling is constructed, he shall also be entitled to a fixed residential
lot if there is any available, not exceeding ten per centum of the total area cultivated by him, but in no
case shall it exceed five hundred square meters, wherein he can have a garden, poultry and such other
minor industries necessary for his livelihood: Provided, however, That the tenant shall be given forty-five
days within which to remove his house from the land of the landlord in case of cancellation of the
contract of tenancy for any reason: Provided, however, That in case he fails to devote the lot allotted him
for the purposes herein mentioned for a period of six months, it shall revert again to the cultivation of
rice.

Sec. 23. Standard of conduct to be observed by tenant. — The tenant shall be under obligation to
cultivate the farm as a good father of the family, by doing all the work necessary to obtain the greatest
possible returns from the farm entrusted to him, such as the proper preparation of the soil, the cutting
of shrubs and grasses that may be growing on the land as well as the repair of dikes.
The tenant shall also be obliged to take reasonable care of the work animals that may be delivered to
him by the landlord, otherwise, he shall be liable for their death or physical incapacity by reason of his
negligence.

The tenant shall likewise be liable for any damage caused by his animal for letting it loose, in case it feeds
upon or destroys the crop of another.

Sec. 24. Trespass by third person. — The tenant shall inform the landlord at once of any trespass
committed by a third person upon the farm entrusted to him, otherwise it may be considered as
negligence on his part.

Sec. 25. Tenant cannot leave landlord at any time except for good cause. — The tenant cannot leave his
landlord without just and reasonable cause, otherwise the former shall be liable to the latter for losses
and damages to the extent of eighty-five per cent of his share in the product of the farm cultivated by
him.

Any one of the following shall be considered just and reasonable cause on the part of the tenant for
leaving the service before the expiration of the period:

(1) Cruel and inhuman treatment on the part of the landlord or his representative toward the tenant or
his family.

(2) Non-compliance on the part of the landlord with any of the obligations imposed upon him by the
provisions of this Act or by the contract.

(3) Compelling the tenant to do any work against his will, which is not in any way connected with his
farm work nor stipulated in the contract.

(4) Commission of a crime by the landlord against the person of the tenant, or any member of the family
of the latter.
PART V

Extinguishing of contract

Sec. 26. How extinguished. — The contract of farm tenancy is extinguished:

(1) At the end of each agricultural year, unless otherwise stipulated by the parties.

(2) By the agreement of the parties.

(3) By the death or physical incapacity of the tenant or farmer, in which case his heirs if any, shall be
given a proportional share in the products in accordance with the service rendered by the deceased.

(4) By the sale or alienation of the land which is the subject matter of the contract, in which case the
purchaser shall assume the rights and obligations of the former landlord in relation with the tenant or
farmer.

(5) When the estate is no longer fit for agriculture or becomes public property.

(6) By merger in the same person of the personality of landlord and tenant and tenant or landlord and
farmer.

PART VI

Penal and final provisions

Sec. 27. Violations. — All violations of the provisions of this Act involving deceit, malice, or fraud shall be
punished in accordance with article three hundred and eighteen of the Revised Penal Code.
If the violation is committed by means of falsification or alteration of private documents, the provisions
of article one hundred and seventy-two of the same Code shall be applied.

Sec. 28. Repealing provisions. — All laws or parts of laws inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are
hereby repealed.

Sec. 29. Final provisions. — This Act shall be applicable to the relations between landlords and tenants of
rice lands only, and shall take effect on May first, nineteen hundred and thirty-three: Provided, however,
That this Act shall take effect only in the provinces where the majority of the municipal councils shall, by
resolution, have petitioned for its application to the Governor-General, who thereupon shall, by
proclamation, fix the date when this law shall take effect in said provinces: And provided, further, That
this Act shall be translated into the dialects of the localities to which its provisions shall apply, and a
sufficient number of copies shall be printed for free distribution by the municipal treasurer concerned to
the persons asking for them.