GROUP 3
public domain devoted to or suitable for
Chapter 4: COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN
REFORM LAW OF 1988 (R.A. No. 6657) AS
AMENDED BY R.A. Nos. 7881, 7905, 8532
and 9700
A. Transfer of private and public lands to
farmer beneficiaries
Sec. 3(a) Definition of Agrarian Reform
Agrarian Reform means redistribution of lands,
regardless of crops or fruits produced, to farmers
and regular farmworkers who are landless,
irrespective of tenurial arrangement, to include
the totality of factors and support services
designed to lift the economic status of the
beneficiaries and all other arrangements
alternative to the physical redistribution of lands,
such as production or profit-sharing, labor
administration, and the distribution of shares of
stocks, which will allow beneficiaries to receive
a just share of the fruits of the lands they work.
REASON FOR ALTERNATIVES TO LAND
DISTRIBUTION - Confining agrarian reform
to land distribution is not feasible because there
is not enough agricultural land to be distributed
to every farmer or regular farm workers
Sec. 4 Scope of the Program
The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of
1989 shall cover, regardless of tenurial
arrangement and commodity produced, all
public and private agricultural lands, as provided
in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order
No. 229, including other lands of the public
domain suitable for agriculture.
More specifically the following lands are
covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program:
(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the
agriculture. No reclassification of forest or
mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be
undertaken after the approval of this Act until
Congress, taking into account ecological,
developmental and equity considerations, shall
have determined by law, the specific limits of
the public domain.
(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of
the specific limits as determined by Congress in
the preceding paragraph;
(c) All other lands owned by the Government
devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and
(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for
agriculture regardless of the agricultural
products raised or that can be raised thereon.
Sec. 4 Scope of the Program (as amended by
RA 9700)
“.. Provided, That landholdings of landowners
with a total area of five (5) hectares and below
shall not be covered for acquisition and
distribution to qualified beneficiaries.”
"A comprehensive inventory system in
consonance with the national land use plan shall
be instituted by the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR), in accordance with the Local
Government Code, for the purpose of properly
identifying and classifying farmlands within one
(1)year from effectivity of this Act, without
prejudice to the implementation of the land
acquisition and distribution."
Sec. 7 Priorities of Coverage
Priorities
1. Guiding Principle: In effecting the transfer,
priority must be given to lands that are tenanted.
2. Factors to consider in the Implementation a.
Need to distribute lands to the tillers at the
earliest practical time; b. Need to enhance
agricultural productivity; and c. Availability of
funds and resources to implement and support
the program 3. Phases of Implementation
Phase One:
During the five (5)-year extension period
hereafter all remaining lands above fifty (50)
hectares shall be covered for purposes of
agrarian reform upon the effectivity of this Act.
All private agricultural lands of landowners with
aggregate landholdings in excess of fifty (50)
hectares which have already been subjected to a
notice of coverage issued on or before
December 10, 2008; rice and corn lands under
Presidential Decree No. 27; all idle or
abandoned lands; all private lands voluntarily
offered by the owners for agrarian reform:
Provided, That with respect to voluntary land
transfer, only those submitted by June 30, 2009
shall be allowed: Provided, further, That after
June 30, 2009, the modes of acquisition shall be
limited to voluntary offer to sell and compulsory
acquisition: Provided, furthermore, That all
previously acquired lands wherein valuation is
subject to challenge by landowners shall be
completed and finally resolved pursuant to
Section 17 of Republic Act No. 6657, as
amended: Provided, finally, as mandated by the
Constitution, Republic Act No. 6657, as
amended, and Republic Act No. 3844,as
amended, only farmers (tenants or lessees) and
regular farmworkers actually tilling the lands, as
certified under oath by the Barangay Agrarian
Reform Council (BARC) and attested under oath
by the landowners, are the qualified
beneficiaries. The intended beneficiary shall
state under oath before the judge of the city or
municipal court that he/she is willing to work on
the land to make it productive and to assume the
obligation of paying the amortization for the
compensation of the land and the land taxes
thereon; all lands foreclosed by government
financial institutions; all lands acquired by the
Presidential Commission on Good Government
(PCGG); and all other lands owned by the
government devoted to or suitable for
agriculture, which shall be acquired and
distributed immediately upon the effectivity of
this Act, with the implementation to be
completed by June 30, 2012.
Phase Two:
(a) Lands twenty-four (24) hectares up to fifty
(50) hectares shall likewise be covered for
purposes of agrarian reform upon the effectivity
of this Act. All alienable and disposable public
agricultural lands; all arable public agricultural
lands under agro-forest, pasture and agricultural
leases already cultivated and planted to crops in
accordance with Section 6, Article XIII of the
Constitution; all public agricultural lands which
are to be opened for new development and
resettlement: and all private agricultural lands of
landowners with aggregate landholdings above
twenty-four (24) hectares up to fifty (50)
hectares which have already been subjected to a
notice of coverage issued on or before December
1O, 2008, to implement principally the rights of
farmers and regular farmworkers, who are
landless, to own directly or collectively the lands
they till, which shall be distributed immediately
upon the effectivity of this Act, with the
implementation to be completed by June 30,
2012; and (b) All remaining private agricultural
lands of landowners with aggregate landholdings
in excess of twenty-four (24) hectares,
regardless as to whether these have been
subjected to notices of coverage or not, with the
implementation to begin on July 1, 2012 and to
be completed by June 30, 2013
Phase Three:
All other private agricultural lands commencing
with large landholdings and proceeding to
medium and small landholdings under the
following schedule: (a) Lands of landowners
with aggregate landholdings above ten (10)
hectares up to twenty- four (24)hectares, insofar
as the excess hectarage above ten (10) hectares
is concerned, to begin on July 1,2012 and to be
completed by June 30, 2013; and (b) Lands of
landowners with aggregate landholdings from
the retention limit up to ten (10) hectares, to
begin on July 1, 2013 and to be completed by
June 30, 2014; to implement principally the
right of farmers and regular farmworkers who
are landless, to own directly or collectively the
lands they till. The schedule of acquisition and
redistribution of all agricultural lands covered by
this program shall be made in accordance with
the above order of priority, which shall be
provided in the implementing rules to be
prepared by the PARC, taking into consideration
the following: the landholdings wherein the
farmers are organized and understand ,the
meaning and obligations of farmland ownership;
the distribution of lands to the tillers at the
earliest practicable time; the enhancement of
agricultural productivity; and the availability of
funds and resources to implement and support
the program: Provided, That the PARC shall
design and conduct seminars, symposia,
information campaigns, and other similar
programs for farmers who are not organized or
not covered by any landholdings. Completion by
these farmers of the aforementioned seminars,
symposia, and other similar programs shall be
encouraged in the implementation of this Act
particularly the provisions of this Section. The
PARC shall establish guidelines to implement
the above priorities and distribution scheme,
including the determination of who are qualified
beneficiaries: Provided, That an owner-tiller
may be a beneficiary of the land he/she does not
own but is actually cultivating to the extent of
the difference between the area of the land
he/she owns and the award ceiling of three (3)
hectares: Provided, further, That collective
ownership by the farmer beneficiaries shall be
subject to Section 25 of Republic Act No. 6657,
as amended: Provided, furthermore, That rural
women shall be given the opportunity t o
participate in the development planning and
implementation of this Act: Provided, finally,
That in no case should the agrarian reform
beneficiaries' sex, economic, religious, social,
cultural and political attributes adversely affect
the distribution of lands. C.
Exceptions from the Implementation Phases
1. Land acquisition and distribution shall be
completed by June 30, 2014 on a province-by-
province basis. In any case, the PARC or the
PARC Executive Committee (PARC EXCOM),
upon recommendation by the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee
(PARCCOM), may declare certain provinces as
priority land reform areas, in which case the
acquisition and distribution of private
agricultural lands therein under advanced phases
may be implemented ahead of the above
schedules on the condition that prior phases in
these provinces have been completed: Provided,
That notwithstanding the above schedules, phase
three (b) shall not be implemented in a particular
province until at least ninety percent (90%) of
the provincial balance of that particular province
as of January 1, 2009 under Phase One, Phase
Two (a), Phase Two (b),,and Phase Three (a),
excluding lands under the jurisdiction of the
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR), have been successfully
completed. PARC, upon recommendation of the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating
Committee (PARCCOM), may declare certain
provinces or regions as priority land reform
areas, in which case the acquisition and
distribution of private agricultural lands therein
may be implemented ahead of schedule. [Section
7] 2. The PARC may suspend the
implementation of CARL with respect to
ancestral lands for purpose of identifying and
delineating such lands. [Section 9]
Sec. 16 Procedure for Acquisition of Private
Lands
1. The DAR will:
a. Identify the land, the landowners
and the beneficiaries;
b. Send notice to acquire the land (with
payment offer) to the owners
thereof:
i. By personal delivery or
registered mail, and
ii. By posting the same in the
municipal building and
barangay hall of the place
where the property is
located.
2. The landowner will inform the DAR of his
acceptance or rejection of the offer within
thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of
written notice
a. If the landowner accepts the offer of
the DAR, the Land Bank of the
Philippines (LBP) shall pay the
landowner the purchase price of the
land within thirty (30) days after he:
i. Executes and delivers a
deed of transfer in favor of
the government; and
ii. Surrenders the Certificate of
Title and other muniments
of title.
b. In case of rejection or failure to
reply, the DAR shall:
i. Conduct a summary
administrative proceeding to
determine the compensation
for the land;
ii. Require the landowner, the
LBP and other interested
parties to submit evidence
as to the just compensation
for the land, within fifteen
(15) days from the receipt
of the notice.
iii. Decide the case within
thirty (30) days after the
expiration of the above
period
Any party who disagrees with the
decision may bring the matter to the
court of proper jurisdiction for final
determination of just compensation.
3. The DAR shall:
a. Take immediate possession of the
land upon:
i. Receipt by the
landowner of the
corresponding payment;
or
ii. Deposit of the
compensation in cash
(or in LBP bonds) with
an accessible bank
designated by the DAR
b. Request the proper Register of
Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate
of Title (TCT) in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines;
c. Proceed with the redistribution of
the land to the qualified
beneficiaries.
Section 19. Incentives for Voluntary Offers
for Sales.
Landowners, other than banks and other
financial institutions, who voluntarily offer their
lands for sale shall be entitled to an additional
five percent (5%) cash payment.
Documentary Requirements:
1. Title or proof of ownership;
2. Tax Declaration; and
3. Approved Survey Plan
Association of Small Landowners in the
Philippines v. Honorable Secretary of
Agrarian Reform
G.R. No. 78742 dated July 14, 1989
Facts:
These are consolidated cases which involve
common legal, including serious challenges to
the constitutionality of the several measures
such as P.D. No. 27, E.O. No. 228, Presidential
Proclamation No. 131, E.O. No. 229, and the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988
(R.A. No. 6657).
I. G.R. No. 79777: The Petitioners assert
that in declaring the beneficiaries under
P.D. No. 27 to be the owners of the
lands occupied by them, E.O. No. 228
ignored judicial prerogatives and so
violated due process.
II. G.R. No. 79310: The Petitioners seek to
prohibit the implementation of Proc. No.
131 and E.O. No. 229 by contending
that taking must be simultaneous with
payment of just compensation (i.e., with
money, and in full).
III. G.R. No. 79744: The Petitioners argue
that E.O. Nos. 228 and 229 are violative
of the constitutional provision that no
private property shall be taken without
due process or just compensation.
IV. G.R. No. 78742: The Petitioners claim
they cannot eject their tenants, and so
are unable to enjoy their right of
retention because the Department of
Agrarian Reform failed to issue the
required implementing rules.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the State should first
distribute public agricultural lands in the
pursuit of agrarian reform instead of
immediately disturbing property rights
by forcibly acquiring private agricultural
lands;
2. Whether or not there is contravention of
the principle of eminent domain by
divesting the landowner of his property
even before actual payment to him in
full of just compensation
Held:
1. No. It is not correct to say that only
public agricultural lands may be covered
by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) as the Constitution
calls for "the just distribution of all
agricultural lands." In any event, the
decision to redistribute private
agricultural lands in the manner
prescribed by the CARP was made by
the legislative and executive
departments in the exercise of their
discretion. Courts are not justified in
reviewing that discretion in the absence
of a clear showing that it has been
abused.
2. No. The CARP Law, for its part,
conditions the transfer of possession and
ownership of the land to the government
on receipt by the landowner of the
corresponding payment or the deposit by
the DAR of the compensation in cash or
LBP bonds with an accessible bank.
Until then, title remains with the
landowner.
Roxas & Co., Inc., vs. The Honorable Court
of Appeals
G.R. No. 127876 dated December 17, 1999
Facts:
Petitioner Roxas & Co. is the registered owner
of haciendas Caylaway, Palico, and Banilad. A
voluntary offer to sell (VOS) Hacienda
Caylaway was filed by the petitioner with the
respondent DAR pursuant to the provisions
of E.O. No. 229 while Haciendas Palico and
Banilad were eventually placed under
compulsory acquisition in accordance with the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).
Eventually, the Petitioner instituted Case No. N-
0017-96-46 (BA) with respondent DAR
Adjudication Board (DARAB) praying for the
cancellation of the certificates of land ownership
award (CLOAs) issued by respondent DAR in
the name of several persons. Petitioner alleged
that the Municipality of Nasugbu, where the
haciendas are located, had been declared a
tourist zone, that the land is not suitable for
agricultural production, and that the
Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu had reclassified
the land to non-agricultural.
In a Resolution, respondent DARAB held that
the case involved the prejudicial question of
whether the property was subject to agrarian
reform, hence, this question should be submitted
to the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian
Reform for determination. Petitioners questioned
the expropriation of its properties under the
CARL and the denial of due process in the
acquisition of its landholdings.
Issues:
1. Whether or not the acquisition
proceedings over the three haciendas
were valid and in accordance with law;
and
2. Whether or not the Supreme Court has
the power to rule on whether the lots
were properly reclassified from
agricultural to non-agricultural
Held:
1. No. Under Section 16 of the CARL, the
first step in compulsory acquisition is
the identification of the land, the
landowners and the beneficiaries. Here,
the exact areas of the landholdings were
not properly segregated and delineated
before Notices of Acquisition were sent
to petitioner. Upon receipt of the latter,
the petitioner corporation had no idea
which portions of its haciendas were
subject to compulsory acquisition, and
which portions it could rightfully retain.
2. No. The court has no jurisdiction to rule
on the reclassification of land from
agricultural to non-agricultural. DAR’s
failure to observe due process does not
give the court the power to adjudicate
over petitioner’s application for land
conversion. DAR is charged with the
mandate of approving applications for
land conversion. They have the tools
and experience needed to evaluate such
applications; hence, they are the proper
agency with which applications for land
use conversion are lodged. DAR should
be given a chance to correct their defects
with regard to petitioner’s right to due
process.
B. Lands not covered by land acquisition
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”.
Section 6 of R.A. 6657
observes the right of the persons to own, or
retain:
 directly (personal cultivation) or
 indirectly (labor administration)
...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.
NOTE: The adding of SEC. 6-B. Review of
Limits of Land Size by R.A. No. 9700
(CARPER) is implied recognition that uniform
setting of 5 hectare limit for all agricultural
landholding may not be feasible because of the
economic differences for each agricultural
products.
EXEMPTION FROM COVERAGE AND
RETENTION LIMITS
The requisites for coverage under the Operation
Land Transfer (OLT) program Implemented
through P.D. 27 are the following:
(1) the land must be devoted to rice or corn
crops; and
(2) there must be a system of share-crop or
lease-tenancy obtaining therein.
If either requisite is absent, a landowner may
apply for exemption. If either of these requisites
is absent, the land is not covered under OLT.
Hence, a landowner need not apply for retention
where his ownership over the entire landholding
is intact and undisturbed.
If the land is covered by the OLT Program
which hence, renders the right of retention
operable, P.D. 27 – issued on October 21, 1972
– confers in favor of covered landowners who
cultivate or intend to cultivate an area of their
tenanted rice or corn land the right to retain an
area of not more than seven (7) hectares thereof.
Subsequently, or on June 10, 1998, Congress
passed R.A. 6657 which modified the retention
limits under PD 27. In particular, Section 6 of
R.A. 6657 states that covered landowners are
allowed to retain a portion of their tenanted
agricultural land not, however, to exceed an area
of five (5) hectares and, further thereto, provides
that an additional three (3) hectares may be
awarded to each child of the landowner, subject
to the following qualifications:
(1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age;
and
(2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly
managing the farm.
Moreover, if landowner chooses to retain 5
hectares under R.A. 6657, 7 hectares previously
retained under P.D. 27 shall be immediately
placed under CARP.
CAN SPOUSES RETAIN 5 HECTARES
EACH UNDER THE AGRARIAN REFORM
LAW
 Conjugal or Absolute Community –
spouses can only retain 5 hectares
 Separation of property – spouses can
retain 5 hectares each or a total of 10
hectares
LAND OWNER HAS RIGHT TO CHOSE
AREA TO BE RETAINED
 Land owners choice of area to be
retained prevails as long as:
o Chosen area must be compact or
contiguous
o Does not exceed retention
ceiling of 5 hectares
 Landowner must exercise his right of
retention within 60 days from receipt of
Notice of Coverage
FAILURE OF LANDOWNER TO EXERCISE
RIGHT OF RETENTION - Municipal Agrarian
Reform Officer will designate retained area for
landowner if landowner fails to exercise his right
of retention within allotted time
CAN A LANDOWNER EXERCISE RIGHT
TO RETENTION OVER THE LAND WHICH
HAS ALREADY BEEN COVERED BY AN
EMANCIPATION PATENT OR
CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP
AWARD
 Emancipation Patent or Certificate of
Land Ownership Award to beneficiaries
does not absolutely bar landowner from
retaining area covered
  If landowner is deprived of right to
retention, he may file a petition for
cancellation of EP or CLOA issued to
the tenants
 EP or CLOA may be cancelled if land
covered is found to be part of
landowner’s retained area
SUPPOSE THE RETENTION AREA CHOSEN
BY THE LANDOWNER IS TENANTED,
WHAT HAPPENS TO THE TENANT
 Tenant may choose:
o to remain therein or
o be a beneficiary in the same or
another agricultural land with
similar or comparable features
 Option must be exercised within a
period of 1 year from time landowner
manifests choice of area for retention
 Law refers to an Agricultural Tenant,
not just any settler on the land:
o substantial evidence of landlord
tenant relationship must exist
o mere occupation or cultivation
of an agricultural land will not
ipso facto make tiller an
agricultural tenant
IF THE TENANT CHOOSES TO REMAIN IN
THE RETAINED AREA, HE BECOMES AN
AGRICULTURAL LESSEE
 Tenant becomes an Agricultural Lessee,
not a tenant and is therefor no longer
qualified to be an agrarian reform
beneficiary
 Rights of Agricultural Lessee
o peaceful possession and
enjoyment of the land
o manage and work on land in a
manner and method of
cultivation and harvest which
conform to proven farm
practices
o mechanize all or any phase of
his farm work
o deal with millers and processors
and attend to issuance of
quedans and warehouse receipts
for the produce due him
o be afforded a home lot
o be indemnified for the cost and
expenses incurred in the
cultivation, planting or
harvesting and other expenses
incidental to improvement of his
crop in case he surrenders or
abandons his landholding for
just case or ejected therefrom
o buy the agricultural landholding
under reasonable terms and
condition in case the
agricultural lessor decides to
sell the same
o redeem the landholding at a
reasonable price and
consideration in case
agricultural lessor sold same to
a third person without his
knowledge
 Obligations of Agricultural Lessee
o Cultivate and take care of the
farm, growing crops and,
o other improvements on the
landholding as a good father of
a family and perform work in
accordance with proven farm
practices
o Inform agricultural lessor within
a reasonable time of any
trespass committed by 3rd
persons upon farm, without
prejudice to his direct action
against the trespasser
o Take reasonable care of work
animals and farm implements
delivered to him by agricultural
lessor and see that they are not
used for purposes other than
those intended or used by
another without the knowledge
and consent of the agricultural
lessor
o Notify agricultural lessor at
least 3 days before date of
harvesting or threshing
o Pay lease rental to agricultural
lessor when due
TERM OF THE LEASE- AGRICULTURAL
LEASEHOLD RELATION IS
EXTINGUISHED BY
 Abandonment or voluntary surrender of
land holding by lessee
 Absence of successor in event of death
or permanent incapacity of lessee
o Surviving Spouse
o Eldest direct descendant by
consanguinity
o Next eldest descendant or
descendants in order of their age
 Death or incapacity of the lessee does
not necessarily extinguish the leasehold
relation because the leasehold continues
between agricultural lessor and person
who can cultivate the landholding
personally
 Agricultural leasehold is not terminated
or extinguished by mere expiration of
the term or period in a leasehold
contract
 Not terminated by transfer of ownership
or legal possession of the landholding -
if agricultural lessor transfers ownership
or legal possession of landholding,
transferee becomes agricultural lessor
EFFECT IF THE TENANT CHOOSES TO BE
A BENEFICIARY - Tenant loses his right to be
a lessee of the land retained by the landowner
CHILDREN OF THE LANDOWNER ARE
ENTITLED TO 3 HECTARES EACH
 Land awarded to qualified children of
landowners cannot be sold, transferred,
conveyed within a period of 10 years
except:
o Hereditary succession
o To the government
o Land Bank of the Philippines
o other qualified beneficiaries
 Children or spouse can repurchase land
from government or land bank within 2
years from date of transfer
RIGHT OF HOMESTEADERS VIS-A-VIS
RIGHT OF TENANTS - a mode of acquiring
alienable and disposable lands of the public
domain for agricultural purposes conditioned
upon actual cultivation and residence
 Sec. 6, Art. XIII of the 1987
Constitution - 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 the 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.
 Sec. 6 of R.A. 6657 - 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
Agrarian Reform is a remedial measure pursuant
to social justice precept of the Constitution but it
was not meant to defeat the very purpose of the
enactment of C.A. 141/ Homestead Act:
 enacted for welfare and protection of the
poor
 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 substinence and
satisfaction of life’s other needs
EXPROPRIATION OF PRIVATE
AGRICULTURAL LANDS BY LGUs - if LGU
expropriates private agricultural land for actual,
direct and exclusive public purposes, DAR
should first subject it to agrarian reform
coverage
  land should first be acquired by the
national government through DAR
 DAR will pay just compensation to
landowner
 Thereafter, DAR will distribute the land
to agrarian reform beneficiaries
 after distribution, LGs will expropriate
the land and pay the agrarian reform
beneficiaries just compensation
LAND CLASSIFICATION IN THE TAX
DECLARATION IS NOT CONCLUSIVE
 tax declarations are not the sole basis of
land classification
 even if tax declaration classifies land as
agricultural, the tax declaration is still
refutable
REPUBLIC V. CA 2000
 Green City Estate and Development
Corp.: 112 hectares in Rizal
 Tax Declaration: Agricultural, and DAR
subject the land to CARP
 Landowners filed an application for
exemption from agrarian reform
 Non-agricultural because it is within the
residential and forest conservation zones
of the town plan/zoning ordinance
 DAR denied application based on tax
declaration
 RULING: DAR was wrong in denying
the application for exemption by mere
fact that the tax declaration classified
the land as agricultural;
 Tax declarations are not the sole basis
for the classification of land;
 DAR A.O. asks for other documents to
be submitted when applying for
exemption from CARP
LANDS CLASSIFIED AS NON
AGRICULTURAL PRIOR TO EFFECTIVITY
OF CARL ARE NOT COVERED
 Land already classified for residential,
commercial or industrial use by Housing
and land Use Regulatory Board
(HLRUB) prior to R.A. 6657 are not
subject to Agrarian Reform
 Lands converted prior to June 15, 1988;
DAR is bound by such conversions
LANDS WITH AT LEAST 18% SCOPE ARE
EXEMPTED FROM COVERAGE OF
AGRARIAN REFORM
 reason is to prevent adverse effects on
lowlands and streams due to soil
erosions
 considered permanent forests or forest
reserves, regardless of condition of
vegetative cover, occupancy or use of
any kind - not alienable or disposable
 if land with at least 18% slope was
previously classified as alienable or
disposable but not yet titled - reverted to
category of public forest
 if land has been covered by an approved
public land application or occupied
openly, continuously, adversely and
publicly for a period of not less than 30
years as effectivity of Forestry Reform
Code -remains as alienable or disposable
on condition that land is kept in
vegetative state sufficient to prevent
erosion and adverse effects on lowlands
and streams
SCHOOL SITES AND CAMPUSES
 Exempted if lands are
o actually, directly and
exclusively used and
o found necessary by the
SCHOOL for school sites and
campuses
 DAR has no right to substitute judgment
of discretion for the determination of the
necessity of the school
CMU V. DARAB
 Landowner: Central Mindanao
University, agricultural institution with
3000 hectares of land
 Livelihood program: leased 4 to 5
hectares each to faculty and employees
in groups of 5s
 lowland rice project
 Faculty and Employees filed a
complaint before DAR, asking DAR to
declare them as tenants under CARL, so
 that they could become agrarian reform land shall be considered as additional factors to
beneficiaries. DAR did not agree. determine its valuation.
 DAR then segregated 400 hectares of
suitable, compact and contiguous Jurisdiction
portions of CMU land and subjected it
to agrarian reform coverage for • It is DARAB which have the primary
distribution to qualified beneficiaries on jurisdiction while the RTC as a Special
the ground that it was not directly, Agrarian Court may review the
actually and exclusively used for school DARAB’s decision. Just compensation
site.
is essentially a judicial function.
 RULING: DAR WAS INCORRECT IN
(Landbank vs Dumlao, Landbank vs
SEGREGATING THE 400 HECTARES
OF CMU LAND. Orilla)
 CMU is a school established to promote
• PD No. 27 and EO No. 228 only
agriculture and industry, the need for a
vast track of land for future expansion is provides suppletory effect to RA 6657
obvious. insofar as they are not inconsistent with
 The determination of when and what the latter’s provisions.
lands are found to be necessary for use
the CMU, the school is in the best FORMULA (Landbank vs Dumlao, Landbank
postion to vs Barrido)
 resolve and answer the question and
pass upon the problem of its needs in
relation to its policies.

SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN
REFORM HAS JURISDICTION TO
EXEMPT A PROPERTY FROM
AGRARIAN REFORM COVERAGE

C. Land valuation

Section 17. Determination of Just Variations on Formula:

Compensation
— In determining just compensation, the cost of
acquisition of the land, the current value of the
like properties, its nature, actual use and income,
the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax
declarations, and the assessment made by
government assessors shall be considered. The
social and economic benefits contributed by the
farmers and the farmworkers and by the
Government to the property as well as the non-
payment of taxes or loans secured from any
government financing institution on the said
• If CS is not available: LV= (CNI x
0.9)+ (MV x 0.1)
• If CNI is not available: LV= (CS x
0.9)+ (MV x 0.1)
• If CS and CNI are not available: LV=
(MV x 2), but in no case it will exceed
the lowest value of land within the same
estate or within the same barangay or
municipality (in that order) approved by
LBP within 1 year from receipt of
claimfolder.
Factors to Determine Just Compensation per
Section 17, RA 6657
• Cost of acquisition of land
• Current value of properties
• Nature, actual use and income
• Sworn declaration of owners
• Tax declarations
• Assessments by government assessors
• Social and economic benefits
• Non-payment of taxes or loans of
landowners
Jurisprudence
• The Court has repeatedly held that if just
compensation was not settled prior to
the passage of RA 6657, it should be
computed in accordance with the said
law, although the property was acquired
under PD No. 27 (LBP vs Dumlao)
• In LBP vs Natividad and Lubrica vs
LBP, there is more than 30-year delay in
the payment of just compensation and it
is therefore more equitable to compute
for the compensation at the time of
payment, not at the time of taking.
• The date of taking should be reckoned
from the date of issuance of
emancipation patents in order to
conform to the Constitutional
requirement of just compensation as
real, substantial, full and ample (LBP vs
Dumlao)
• Principle of prompt payment is
satisfied by the concurrence of two
conditions:
a. deposits made in any accessible bank,
equivalent to DAR/LBP valuation as
provisional compensation, in cash and bonds,
not merely earmarked or reserved in trust
b. immediate release upon compliance
with the legal requirements under Sec
16 of RA 6657. ( LBP vs CA)
But in LBP vs Orilla, it does not end by
satisfying the two conditions. Verily, it
also encompasses the payment in full of
just compensation as finally determined
by courts. There is no prompt payment
when there is only a partial payment.
• Execution of judgment pending appeal
may only issue upon “good reasons”. Do
good reasons exist? Yes. Just
compensation must be released for the
following reasons: (a) It is in
consonance with justice, fairness and
equity; (b) To suspend payment will
prolong the agony of respondents
suffered during their deprivation and (c)
It is good and helpful to the economy.
(LBP vs Orilla)
• There is no reason for LBP to wait for
DAR to value the other properties, if the
courts has already determined just
compensation. To wait despite DAR’s
unreasonable neglect and delay is
violation of the rule that just
compensation payment must be made
within a reasonable period for taking of
property. (LBP vs Dumlao)
• In LBP vs Celada and LBP vs
Natividad, SAC has “original and
exclusive” jurisdiction over all petitions
for the determination of just
compensation to landowners. This
“original and exclusive” jurisdiction
would be undermined if DAR would
vest in administrative officials original
 jurisdiction in compensation cases and
make the RTC an appellate court for the
review of administrative decision. Just
compensation is essentially a judicial
function.
• Once the LBP agrees with the appraisal
of the DAR, which bears the approval of
the landowner, it becomes its legal duty
to finance the transaction. There is no
need for concurrence of the farmer-
beneficiaries. (LBP vs CA and Pascual)
Section 18. Valuation and Mode of
Compensation.
The LBP shall compensate the
landowner in such amounts as may be
agreed upon by the landowner and the
DAR and the LBP, in accordance with
the criteria provided for in Sections 16
and 17, and other pertinent provisions
hereof, or as may be finally determined
by the court, as the just compensation
for the land.
The compensation shall be paid on one
of the following modes, at the option of
the landowner:
(1) Cash payment, under the following
terms and conditions;
(a) For lands above fifty (50)
hectares, insofar as the excess hectares
is concerned.
• Twenty-five percent (25%)
cash, the balance to be paid in
government financial
instruments negotiable at any
time.
(b) For lands above twenty-four
(24) hectares and up to fifty (50)
hectares.
• Thirty percent (30%) cash, the
balance to be paid in
government financial
instruments negotiable at any
time.
(c) For lands twenty-four (24)
hectares and below.
• Thirty-five percent (35%) cash,
the balance to be paid in
government financial
instruments negotiable at any
time.
(2) Shares of stock in government-
owned or controlled corporations, LBP
preferred shares, physical assets or other
qualified investments in accordance
with guidelines set by the PARC;
(3) Tax credits which can be used
against any tax liability;
• (4) LBP bonds, which shall have the
following features:
(a) Market interest rates aligned with
91-day treasury bill rates. Ten percent
(10%) of the face value of the bonds
shall mature every year from the date of
issuance until the tenth (10th) year:
provided, that should the landowner
choose to forego the cash portion,
whether in full or in part, he shall be
paid correspondingly in LBP bonds;
(b) Transferability and negotiability.
Such LBP bonds may be used by the
landowner, his successors in interest or
his assigns, up to the amount of their
face value, for any of the following:
• Acquisition of land or other real
properties of the government, including
assets under the Asset Privatization
Program and other assets foreclosed by
 government financial institutions in the In case of extraordinary inflation, the
same province or region where the lands PARC shall take appropriate measures
for which the bonds were paid are to protect the economy.
situated;
Comparatives
• (ii) Acquisition of shares of stock of
government-owned or -controlled
corporations or shares of stocks owned
by the government in private
corporations;

• (iii) Substitution for surety or bail bonds

for the provisional release of accused
persons, or performance bonds;

• (iv) Security for loans with any

government financial institution,
provided the proceeds of the loans shall
be invested in an economic enterprise,
preferably in a small-and medium-scale
industry, in the same province or region
as the land for which the bonds are paid;
• (v) Payment for various taxes and fees
to government; provided, that the use of
these bonds for these purposes will be
limited to a certain percentage of the
outstanding balance of the financial
instruments: provided, further, that the
PARC shall determine the percentage
mentioned above;
• (vi) Payment for tuition fees of the
immediate family of the original
bondholder in government universities,
colleges, trade schools, and other
institutions;
• (vii) Payment for fees of the immediate
family of the original bondholder in
government hospitals; and
• (viii) Such other uses as the PARC may
from time to time allow.
D. Land redistribution
SECTION 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. — The
lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed
as much as possible to landless residents
[Landless Owners are those who own less than 3
hectares of land, not necessarily absolutely
landless] of the same barangay, or in the absence
thereof, landless residents of the same
municipality in the
following order of priority:
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;
(b) regular farmworkers; [A natural person
who is employed on a permanent basis by an
agricultural enterprise or farm (Sec. 3(h))]
(c) seasonal farmworkers; [A natural person
employed on a recurrent, periodic, or
intermittent basis by an agricultural enterprise or
farm, whether as a permanent or non- permanent
laborer such as “dumaan,” “sacada,” and the
like. (Sec. 3(f))].
(d) other farmworkers; [A farmworker who
is not a regular nor a seasonal farmworker (Sec.
3(j))].
 (e) actual tillers or occupants of public
lands;
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above
beneficiaries; and [Organizations composed
primarily of small agricultural producers,
farmers, farmworkers, or other agrarian reform
beneficiaries who voluntarily organize
themselves for the purpose of pooling land,
human, technological, financial or other
economic resources and operated on the
principle of one member, one vote. A juridical
person may be a member of a cooperative, with
the same rihts and duties as a normal person
(Sec. 3 (k))].
(g) others directly working on the land.
Provided, however, That the children of
landowners who are qualified under Section 6 of
this Act shall be given preference in the
distribution of the land of their parents [Before
any award is given to a farmer, the qualified
children of the landowner must receive their 3
hectare award]: and Provided, further, That
actual tenant-tillers in the landholdings shall not
be ejected or removed therefrom. Beneficiaries
under Presidential Decree No. 27 who have
culpably sold, disposed of, or abandoned their
land are disqualified to become beneficiaries
under this Program. A basic qualification of a
beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude,
and ability to cultivate and make the land as
productive as possible. The DAR shall adopt a
system of monitoring the record or performance
of each beneficiary, so that any beneficiary
guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any
support extended to him shall forfeit his right to
continue as such beneficiary. The DAR shall
submit periodic reports on the performance of
the beneficiaries to the PARC.
If, due to the landowner's retention rights or to
the number of tenants, lessees, or workers on the
land, there is not enough land to accommodate
any or some of them, they may be granted
ownership of other lands available for
distribution under this Act, at the option of the
beneficiaries. Farmers already in place and those
not accommodated in the distribution of
privately-owned lands will be given preferential
rights in the distribution of lands from the public
domain.
[Disqualifications of Beneficiaries]
(a) Beneficiaries under PD 27 who have
culpably sold, disposed of, or
abandoned their land;
(b) Beneficiaries guilty of negligence or
misuse of the land or any support
extended to them;
(c) Beneficiaries with at least 3 hectares of
agricultural land; and
(d) Beneficiaries whose land have been the
subject of foreclosure by the Landbank
of the Philippines [The LBP may
foreclose on the mortgages for non-
payment of an aggregate of 3 annual
amortizations.
QUALIFICATIONS OF AN AGRARIAN
REFORM BENEFICIARY
• Farmer (whether tenant, lessee or
worker) must be
1. Owns less than 3 hectares of
land
2. Filipino citizen
3. Resident of barangay where
landholding is located (or
municipality if there are no
sufficient number of qualified
Agrarian Reform
Beneficiaries in the barangay
 4. At least 15 years old at time
of identification, screening
and selection of farmer-
beneficiaries
5. Willing, able and equipped
with aptitude to cultivate and
make land productive
SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR FARM
WORKERS IN COMMERCIAL FARMS OR
PLANTATIONS
• if they were already employed as of
June 15, 1988 in the landholding
covered by the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law OF 1988, then
they can qualify as an agrarian
reform beneficiary
MANAGERIAL FARM WORKERS NOT
QUALIFIED TO BECOME BENEFICIARIES
• General Rule: farm workers holding
managerial or supervisory positions
as of June 15, 1988 are not qualified
to become an agrarian reform
beneficiary
EXCEPTION: farm workers promoted to
managerial or supervisory position after
they were identified, screened and selected
will remain to be qualified beneficiaries
SECTION 23. Distribution Limit. — No
qualified beneficiary may own
more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land.
SECTION 24. Award to Beneficiaries. — The
rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary
shall commence from the time the DAR makes
an award of the land
to him, which award shall be completed within
one hundred eighty (180) days from
the time the DAR takes actual possession of the
land. Ownership of the beneficiary
shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land
Ownership Award, which shall contain the
restrictions and conditions provided for in this
Act, and shall be recorded in the
Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on
the Certificate of Title.
SECTION 25. Award Ceilings for
Beneficiaries. — Beneficiaries shall be
awarded an area not exceeding three (3) hectares
which may cover a contiguous tract of land or
several parcels of land cumulated up to the
prescribed award limits.
For purposes of this Act, a landless beneficiary
is one who owns less than three
(3) hectares of agricultural land. The
beneficiaries may opt for collective ownership,
such as co-ownership or farmers cooperative or
some other form of collective organization:
Provided, That the total area that may be
awarded shall not exceed the total number of co-
owners or member of the cooperative or
collective organization multiplied by the award
limit above prescribed, except in meritorious
cases as determined by the PARC. Title to the
property shall be issued in the name of the co-
owners or the cooperative or collective
organization as the case may be.
SECTION 26. Payment by Beneficiaries. —
Lands awarded pursuant tot his Act shall be paid
for by the beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30)
annual amortizations at six percent (6%) interest
per annum. The payments for the first three (3)
years after the award may be at reduced amounts
as established by the PARC: Provided, That the
first five (5) annual payments may not be more
than five percent (5%) of the value of the annual
gross production as established by the DAR.
Should the scheduled annual payments after the
fifth year exceed ten percent (10%) of the annual
gross production and the failure to produce
accordingly is not due to the beneficiary's fault,
the LBP may reduce the interest rate or reduce
the principal obligations to make the repayment
affordable. The LBP shall have a lien by way of
mortgage on the land awarded to the beneficiary;
and this mortgage may be foreclosed by the LBP
for non-payment of an aggregate of three (3)
annual amortizations. The LBP shall advise the
DAR of such proceedings and the latter shall
subsequently award the forfeited landholdings to
other qualified beneficiaries. A beneficiary
whose land, as provided herein, has been
foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently
disqualified from becoming a beneficiary under
this Act.
SECTION 27. Transferability of Awarded
Lands. — Lands acquired by beneficiaries under
this Act may not be sold, transferred or
conveyed except through hereditary succession,
or to the government, or the LBP, or to other
qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10)
years: Provided, however, That the children or
the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to
repurchase the land from the government or LBP
within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of
the availability of the land shall be given by the
LBP to the Barangay Agrarian Reform
Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the
land is situated. The Provincial Agrarian Reform
Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) as herein
provided, shall, in turn, be given due notice
thereof by the BARC. If the land has not yet
been fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights to
the land may be transferred or conveyed, with
prior approval of the DAR, to any heir of the
beneficiary or to any other beneficiary who, as a
condition for such transfer or conveyance, shall
cultivate the land himself. Failing compliance
herewith, the land shall be transferred to the
LBP which shall give due notice of the
availability of the land in the manner specified
in the immediately preceding paragraph. In the
event of such transfer to the LBP, the latter shall
compensate the beneficiary in one lump sum for
the amounts the latter has already paid, together
with the value of improvements he has made on
the land.
SECTION 28. Standing Crops at the Time of
Acquisition. — The
landowner shall retain his share of any standing
crops unharvested at the time the
DAR shall take possession of the land under
Section 16 of the Act, and shall be given
a reasonable time to harvest the same.
Cases under Sec. 24
Mago et al. v. Barbin
GR 173923 October 12, 2009
Issue/s: WoN the petitioners’ titles indefeasible
*Indefeasible Title: Acquired in good faith and
for value, subject only to the encumbrances
annotated in the title. Registered under the
Torrens System, not subject to prescription and
collateral attack.
Facts:Barbin filed an action with PARAD
Camarines Norte an action for cancellation of
emancipation patents, disqualification of tenant-
beneficiary relationship, repossession of
property, and damages. Barbin alleges fee
simple ownership (Fee Simple is absolute
ownership) of an approximately 5-hectare area
of land. (Note: This land was placed under the
Operational Land Transfer Program pursuant to
PD 27) Petitioners are her tenants, and Barbin
alleges that the former failed to pay their lease
rentals for more than 2 years, which is a ground
for dispossession of the lots.
The petitioners prior to this however, entered
into a direct payment scheme with Barbin as
annotated in the deeds of transfer.
The petitioners claimed indefeasibility of their
title since their emancipation patents were
already registered with the Registry of Deeds
and that they have made the said payments.
The PARAD denied Barbin’s action since the
PARAD considered that Barbin had more land,
although those lands were coconut lands. On
appeal to the DARAB, the same was affirmed,
in addition to that, the DARAB ordered the
cancellation of the registered emancipation
patents of the other petitioners aside from Mago
due to default of payment.
The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Ruling: No. The mere issuance of an
emancipation patent does not put the ownership
of the agrarian reform beneficiary beyond attack
and scrutiny. These patents may be corrected
and cancelled for violations of agrarian laws,
rules, and regulations. Under the OLT program,
the tenant-beneficiary relationship ceased and
the payment of rentals were no longer necessary.
But sicence the petitioners themselves entered
into a direct payment scheme, they are obligated
to pay Barbin the lease rentals. Failure to pay is
a ground for cancellation of the patent under
AO-2 1994.
Padua v. CA
GR 153456 March 2, 2007
Issue/s: WoN the DAR has jurisdiction in
hearing the land dispute issue
Facts: Private respondents de la Cruz et al in this
case were the tenants of lots that were donated to
the municipality of Anao, Tarlac with the
condition that the lots would be used as school
sites. The projects never came into fruition and
so de la Cruz et al sought to have the properties
returned to them. The mayor however has
distributed the lots, each with a certificate of
land transfer. De la Cruz filed a petition for
cancellation of the CLT’s. Litigation followed,
but eventually, the Mayor waived his interest.
The DAR secretary then awarded the land to
Padua who has been occupying and paying
amortizations on the land to the Landbank of the
Philippines.
De la Cruz filed a letter with the DAR secretary
for the cancellation of the DAR award. This was
granted, directing the regional officer to restore
possession to de la Cruz. The Court of Appeals
affirmed the decision.
Ruling: Yes. Padua cannot claim the title as he is
yet paying the amortizations, his status thus
remains as a potential farmer-beneficiary whose
eligibilities the DAR may either confirm or
deny. The DAR is empowered to issue, recall, or
even cancel a Conditional Land Transfer, CARP
Beneficiary Certificate, Emancipation Patent, or
Certificate of Land Ownership Award issued to
a potential farmer-beneficiary but not yet
registered with the Register of Deeds.
Pasco v. Pison-Arceo Agricultural and
Development Corp.
GR 165501 March 28, 2006
Issue/s: WoN one who has been identified by the
DAR as potential agrarian reform beneficiary
may be ejected from the land where he is
identified as such, by the landowner, who has
already been notified by the DAR of the
coverage of his land by the CARP of the
government
Facts: The respondent corporation is the
registered owner of a parcel of land containing
more than 100 hectares. On the respondents land
stands houses occupied by its workers.
Petitioners used to work for the respondent until
1987, and after the cessation of their
employment they were asked to vacate. Their
refusal triggered a complaint for unlawful
detainer against them.
The petitioners claimed that the corporation built
the houses for the workers and that after a
typhoon destroyed the houses, the petitioners
rebuilt them, and since the demand was for them
to vacate, it was unjustified since they paid
rentals through salary/wage reductions. The
MTCC ruled in favor of the respondents. After
this decision, the MARO of Talisay advised
respondent that its land is now covered by the
CARP, regardless of this, the appeal taken by
the petitioners to the RTC, even considering the
subsequent turn of events still led to the RTC
affirming the MTCC ruling.
On appeal to the CA, the petitioners attached a
certification that they are potential CARP
beneficiaries. The CA still affirmed the RTC
decision.
Ruling: What the CARP provided the petitioners
was the status of being a potential CARP
beneficiary, there was no award yet vested to
them, this is a requirement under Sec 24 of RA
6657, absent this, they are mere potential
beneficiaries, they have no any better right to the
land than the other potential beneficiaries.
Cases under Sec. 27
Estrinillo et al v. DAR
GR 159674 June 30, 2006
Issue/s: WoN Certificates of Title issued in
pursuant to Emancipation Patents are as
indefeasible as TCTs issued in registration
proceedings
Facts: The petitioners are recepients of an
emancipation patent over forested lands denuded
by the operations of the Hacienda Maria Inc.
PD27 brought the lands under the coverage of
operation land transfer. HMI requested that
approximately 527 hectares be placed under the
coverage and to receive compensation from the
petitioners and occupants. HMI participated in
all proceedings until it ended in 1977 with HMI
executing a deed of assignment of rights in favor
of the petitioners.
In 1997, HMI filed a petition with RARAD
seeking the declaration of erroneous coverage of
approximately 277 hectares of its former
landholding claiming that the lands were not
dedicated to rice and corn. Although the
remainder of the lands also claimed to not be
dedicated to rice and corn went unquestioned.
The RARAD cancelled petitioners’ TCTs and
EPs. The DARAB affirmed, and so did the CA.
Ruling: Yes. Certificates of Title issued in
administrative proceedings are as indefeasible as
certificates issued in judicial proceedings. The
date of the issuance corresponds to the issuance
of the decree in ordinary registration cases
because the decree finally awards the land
applied for to the party entitled to it. After
compliance with the procedure and registration
of the patents, they become as indefeasible as if
they are ordinarily registered TCTs.
Estate of vda de Panlilio v. Dizon
GR 148777 October 18, 2007
Issue/s: WoN a subsequent affidavit revoke the
first affidavit that voluntarily surrenders a lot for
land acquisition under the CARP
Facts: Encarnacio vda. De Panlilio was the
owner of a land with an area of approximately
115 hectares. . Panlilio entered into a lease with
the wife of her neohew, this contract was
renewed twice. When PD27 took effect, the
DAR issued CLTs to Panlilio’s tenants. This
land primarily plants sugar, Panlilio issued an
affidavit in January 1977 that allows the entire
land to be covered under PD 27 and honoring
the wishes of the tenants to convert the crops to
palay. Panlilio died in 1986. The EPs were
issued to the tenants in 1993. In 1994, Lizares,
the administrator of the estate, filed an action
against the tenants before the PARAD. The
PARAD denied the petition stating that the lands
were placed under the coverage of PD 27 due to
the January 1977 affidavit. And that the
February 1977 affidavit of hers, which would
have revoked the earlier affidavit, was not
brought to the attention of the DAR and CAR.
The CA reversed the decision. A motion for
reconsideration was filed, the decision was
reversed by the CA.
Ruling: The second affidavit was nonexistent. If
it were, then it should have been brought to the
attention of the DAR to protect the landholdings
and the rights of the lessor. Furthermore, the
authentic January 1977 affidavit effectively
placed the entire parcel under PD 27 coverage; it
becomes inconsequential whatever crops are
planted on the land.
E. Improvement of Leasehold Relationship
Key Terms:
Tenant - defined as a person who, himself and
with the aid available from within his immediate
farm household, cultivates the land belonging to,
or possessed by, another, with the latter's
consent for purposes of production sharing the
produce with the landholder under the share
tenancy system, or paying to the landholder a
price certain in produce or in money or both,
under the leasehold tenancy system. (Trinidad
Gabriel vs. Eusebio Pangilinan)
When leasehold tenancy exists?
Leasehold tenancy exists
when a person, who either personally or with the
aid of labor available from members of his
immediate farm household, undertakes to
cultivate a piece of agricultural land susceptible
of cultivation by a single person together with
members of his immediate farm household,
belonging to, or legally possessed by, another in
consideration of a fixed amount in money or in
produce or in both.
When leasehold tenancy exists?
A person, in order to be considered a tenant,
must himself and with the aid available from his
immediate farm household cultivate the land.
Persons, therefore, who do not actually work the
land cannot be considered tenants; and he who
hires others whom he pays for doing the
cultivation of the land, ceases to hold, and is
considered as having abandoned the land as
tenant within the meaning of sections 5 and 8 of
Republic Act. No. 1199, and ceases to enjoy the
status, rights, and privileges of one. (Trinidad
Gabriel vs. Eusebio Pangilinan)
When leasehold tenancy exists?
Trinidad Gabriel vs. Eusebio Pangilinan
This was clarified in the foregoing case, the
fishpond was the agricultural land in contention.
However, assuming that there was a tenancy
relationship between the Trinidad and the elder
Pangilinan. At the time that he got ill and
stopped his work, that was the time he was
unable to fulfill the tenancy agreement. The
court therefore, held that its jurisdiction was in
the ambit of the regular courts and not the Court
of Agrarian relations.
Sec 12
Determination of Lease Rentals
Determination of Lease Rentals – In order to
protect and improve the tenurial and economic
status of the farmers in tenanted lands under the
retention limit and lands not yet acquired under
this Act, the DAR is mandated to determine and
fix immediately the lease rentals thereof in
accordance with Section 34 of the Republic Act
No. 3844, as amended: Provided, That the DAR
shall immediately and periodically review and
adjust the rental structure for different crops,
including rice and corn, or different regions in
order to improve progressively the conditions of
the farmer, tenant or lessee.
Sec 12
The DAR has fixed the rentals as follows:
a) For lands devoted to rice and other crops –
25% of the average normal harvest after
deducting the amount used for seeds and the cost
of harvesting, or threshing. If there have been no
normal harvests, then the estimated normal
harvest during the 3 agricultural years
immediately preceding the date the leasehold
was established
b) For sugar cane lands – 25% of average
normal harvest less the value of the cost of seeds
/ cane points, harvesting (cutting), loading,
hauling, and /or trucking fee and cost of
processing
c) For coconut lands – 25% of the average
normal harvest for specific area for the
preceding three (3) calendar years less the value
of production cost
Case Summaries:
A. GR No. 78214 Yolanda Caballes vs
DAR, Hon. Heherson T. Alvarez and
Bienvenido Abajon December 5, 1988 J.
Sarmiento
In relation to Section 12
In this case the tenant and the former owner of
the land agreed to pay rent of Two Pesos. The
former owner of the land allowed the tenant
Abajon to plant a portion of the land agreeing
that the produce thereof would be shared on a
fifty-fifty basis.
GR No. 78214 Yolanda Caballes vs DAR,
Hon. Heherson T. Alvarez and Bienvenido
Abajon December 5, 1988 J. Sarmiento
Prior to the sale of property totaling to 500
square meters situated at Lawaan, Talisay Cebu
by its previous owner, Andrea Millenes, to
spouses Yolanda Caballes, Millenes had a prior
arrangement with respondent Bienvenido
Abajon that allowed him to construct his house
on the said land. Abajon’s house was situated on
the said property which occupied a small area of
60 square meters only. The respondent Abajon
has agreed with Millenes payment of the above
rental and fifty-fifty basis in terms of share in its
produce. The respondent Abajon planted corn,
bananas and camote.
A. GR No. 78214 Yolanda Caballes vs
DAR, Hon. Heherson T. Alvarez and
Bienvenido Abajon December 5, 1988 J.
Sarmiento
Upon the execution of the sale between Millenes
and spouses Caballes sometime in March 1979,
the spouses initially informed the respondent
that they intended to use Abajon’s landholding
for poultry. They persuaded him to transfer at
the opposite side of the property. However,
Abajon was not convinced. This led to their
controversy in the Barangay Captain of Lawaan.
The spouses wanted to let Abajon immediately
vacate the said piece of land. However, Abajon
disagreed.
On April 1 1982, Yolanda Caballes filed
a criminal case of malicious mischief against the
occupant Abajon for maliciously cutting down
banana plants on said property that amounted to
P50.
GR No. 78214 Yolanda Caballes vs DAR,
Hon. Heherson T. Alvarez and Bienvenido
Abajon December 5, 1988 J. Sarmiento
The main issues were as follows:
a) Whether or not there is a valid tenancy
relationship between Spouses Caballes and
respondent Abajon?
b)Whether or not Abajon is guilty of malicious
mischief – a criminal offense?
Held:
No. There was no tenancy relationship between
the spouses Caballes and respondent Bienvenido
Abajon.
The court ruled that tenancy arises only if an
occupant of a parcel land has been given its
possession for the primary purpose of
agricultural production. The circumstances of
this case indicate that the respondent’s status is
more of a caretaker who was allowed by the
former owner out of benevolence or compassion
to live on the premises.
Agricultural production
Agricultural production as the primary purpose
being absent in the arrangement, it is clear that
Abajon was never a tenant. Consequently, Sec
10 of RA 3844 as amended does not apply.
Abajon’s criminal case was also dismissed. The
court resolved the criminal case to its finality
instead of remanding to the courts of lower
levels in the interest of speedy justice.
Furthermore, Abajon cannot be held liable for
malicious mischief in cutting the banana trees
worth P50.
It reasoned that as an authorized occupant or
possessor of the land and as planter of banana
trees, he owns the said crops including the fruits
thereof. He worked in the land in dispute with
the consent of the previous owner. Whatever the
respondent planted and cultivated on the piece of
property belonged to him and not the land
owner.
Finally, damages deliberately caused to the
property of another was absent because private
respondent merely cut down its own plantings.
Q: How do we distinguish a valid tenancy
claim vs a mere employer-employee
relationship?
Answer:
The judicial decision on Rafael Gelos vs the
Hon. Court of Appeals and Ernesto Alzona
clarified this.
Tenancy relationship is distinguished from
employer – farm worker relationship in that:
“… farm worker relationship, the lease is one of
labor with the agricultural laborer as the lessor
of his services and the farm employee as the
lessee thereof. In tenancy relationship, it is the
landowner who is the lessor, and the tenant the
lessee of the agricultural land. The agricultural
worker works for the farm employer and for his
labor he receives a salary or wage regardless of
whether the employer makes a profit. On the
other hand, the tenant derives his income from
the agricultural produce or harvest. “ (Rafael
Gelos vs. The Honorable CA and Ernesto
Alzona)
Rafael Gelos vs. The Honorable CA and
Ernesto Alzona
GR No. 86186 involved the resolution of such
dispute between Rafael Gelos who acquired
ownership of the land vs. Ernesto Alzona who
consented to be a hired laborer. In this case,
Alzona claimed for protection under the laws as
he averred that there was a valid tenancy
agreement.
Upon review of the Supreme Court, the bench
held that the parties did not enter into a tenancy
agreement but only a contract of employment.
The agreement was a lease of service, not of the
land in dispute. This has been proven by their
earlier agreement in which Alzona merely
intended to cultivate the land himself instead of
placing it under tenancy.
F. Variations in Land Acquisition
Sec 31 – Corporate Landowners
Corporate landowners may voluntarily transfer
ownership over their agricultural landholdings to
the Republic of the Philippines pursuant to
Section 20 hereof or to qualified beneficiaries,
under such terms and conditions, consistent with
this Act, as they may agree upon, subject to
confirmation by the DAR.
Upon certification by the DAR,
corporations owning agricultural lands may give
their qualified beneficiaries the right to purchase
such proportion of the capital stock of the
corporation that the agricultural land, actually
devoted to agricultural activities, bears in
relation to the company’s total assets, under
such terms and conditions as may be agreed
upon by them. In no case shall the compensation
received by the workers at the time the shares of
stocks are distributed be reduced. The same
principle shall be applied to associations, with
respect to their equity or participation.
Corporations or associations which voluntarily
divest a proportion pf their capital stock, equity
or participation in favor of their workers or other
qualified beneficiaries under this section shall be
deemed to have complied with the provisions of
this Act: Provided, that the following conditions
are complied with:
a) In order to safeguard the right of
beneficiaries who own shares of stocks to
dividends and other financial benefits, the books
of the corporation or association shall be subject
to periodic audit by certified public accountants
chosen by the beneficiaries
b) Irrespective of the value of their equity
in the corporation or association, the
beneficiaries shall be assured of at least 1
representative in the board of directors, or in a
management or executive committee, if one
exists, of the corporation or association and
c) Any shares acquired by such workers
and beneficiaries shall have the same rights and
features as all other shares
d) Any transfer of shares of stocks by the
original beneficiaries shall be void ab initio
unless said transaction is in favor of a qualified
and registered beneficiary within the same
corporation.
Sec. 31
If within 2 years from the approval of this Act,
the land or stock transfer envisioned above is not
made or realized or the plan for such stock
distribution approved by the PARC within the
same period, the agricultural land of the
corporate owners or corporation shall be subject
to the compulsory coverage of this Act.
The schemes under Sec 31 are no longer
operative
2 Schemes under said provision which are
available to land corporate land owners
 Voluntary land transfer
 Stock Distribution
Note: Sec 7 of the CARL as amended by RA
9700 allowed voluntary land transfers and stock
distribution only up to June 30, 2009. After June
30 2009, modes of acquisition are limited to the
foregoing modes.
G. Production Sharing
Legal Basis: Sec 32
Production Sharing – Pending final land
transfer, individuals or entities owning or
operating under lease of management contract,
agricultural lands are hereby mandated to
execute a production sharing plan with their
farmworkers or farmworker’s organization, if
any, whereby 3% of the gross sales from the
production of such lands are distributed within
60 days of the end of the fiscal year as
compensation to regular and other farmworkers
in such lands over and above the compensation
they currently receive: Provided, that these
individuals or entities realize gross sales in
excess of a five million pesos per annum unless
the DAR, upon proper application, determines a
lower ceiling.
In the event that the individual or entity realizes
a profit, an additional 10% of the net profit after
tax shall be distributed to said regular and other
farmworkers within 90 days of the end of the
fiscal year.
To forestall any disruption in the normal
operation of lands to be turned over to the
farmworker-beneficiaries mentioned above, a
transitory period, the length of which shall be
determined by the DAR, shall be established.
During this transitory period, at least one percent
of the gross sales of the entity shall be
distributed to the managerial, supervisory and
technical group in place at the time of the
effectivity of this Act, as compensation for such
transitory managerial and technical functions as
it will perform, pursuant to an agreement that the
farmworker-beneficiaries and the managerial,
supervisory and technical group may conclude,
subject to approval of the DAR.
Note: Provision applies only while land transfer
is being processed and finalized.
Declared unconstitutional with respect to
livestock and poultry
It simply requires individuals or entities owning
or operating an agricultural land under lease or
management contract to adopt a production
sharing with farm workers in the following
manner:
a) If more than P5M gross sales / year –
a. 3% of the gross sales – to be distributed to
regular and other farm workers (on top of the
compensation received)
b. 1% of the gross sales – to be distributed to
the managerial, supervisory and technical
employees
b) If profits are realized – additional 10% of the
net profit after tax, to be distributed to regular
and other farmworkers.
Production Sharing is exemplified in the
Hacienda Luisita Case.
On May 11, 1989, a Stock Distribution Option
Agreement was entered into by TADECO, HLI
and the 5848 qualified farm worker
beneficiaries. This was approved by the
Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC).
Per the Stock Distribution Option Agreement,
included as part of the distribution plan are:
a) Production sharing equivalent to three
(3%) of gross sales from the production of the
agricultural land payable to the farm worker
beneficiaries in cash dividends or incentive
bonus, irrespective of whether the HLI makes
money or not
b) Distribution of free homelots of not more
than 240 square meters each to family
beneficiaries.
LAND FOR THE LANDLESS
The Issues on the Hacienda Luisita Case are as
follows:
a) Does the PARC have jurisdiction, power and
authority to nullify or revoke the Stock
Distribution Option Agreement?
b) Was the PARC Correct in nullifying or
revoking the Stock Distribution Option
Agreement?
c) Was the PARC correct in including the lands
that RCBC and LIPCO had acquired from HLI
in the coverage of the agrarian reform program?
d) Should the 80.51 hectare land transferred to
the government for use as part of the SCTEX be
excluded from the compulsory agrarian reform
coverage?
Hacienda Luisita Court Ruling:
a) PARC has jurisdiction, power and authority to
nullify or revoke the Stock Distribution Option
Agreement. Its basis was the Doctrine of
Necessary Implication wherein the conferment
of express power to approve a plan for stock
distribution of the agricultural land of corporate
owners necessarily includes the power to revoke
or recall the approval of the plan.
b) PARC was correct in nullifying or
revoking the Stock Distribution Option
Agreement. It cited that HLI was not fully
compliant with the agreement. As for the
homelots, those which have already been
provided will no longer be revoked. HLI was
asked to JUSTLY COMPENSATE those who
were not awarded the homelots brought by the
revocation with finality of the Stock Distribution
Plan.
Furthermore, the basis of the shares of the 6,296
beneficiaries were on the “man days” or
“number of days worked by the beneficiaries in
a year’s time”. Per HLI, a beneficiary had to
work for at least 37 days in a fiscal year before
he or she becomes entitled to HLI shares. If it
falls below 37 days, the beneficiary
unfortunately, does not get any share at the year
end. The court ruled that the violation of the
agreement was tantamount to watering down or
the dilution of their due share entitlement.
Furthermore, the basis of the shares of the 6,296
beneficiaries were on the “man days” or
“number of days worked by the beneficiaries in
a year’s time”. Per HLI, a beneficiary had to
work for at least 37 days in a fiscal year before
he or she becomes entitled to HLI shares. If it
falls below 37 days, the beneficiary
unfortunately, does not get any share at the year
end. The court ruled that the violation of the
agreement was tantamount to watering down or
the dilution of their due share entitlement.
c) PARC was incorrect in including the lands
that RCBC and LIPCO had acquired from HLI
in the coverage of the agrarian reform program.
The court held that RCBC and LIPCO bought
the land in good faith. The Doctrine of Operative
Fact applied to the sale of the land. Rendering
the sale void will affect the trust in the issuance
of titles in a Torrens System. Although HLI has
the liability to share the value received for the
sale of the 200 hectare land.
d) Lastly, the 80.51 hectare land
transferred to the government as part of the
SCTEX, should have been excluded from the
compulsory agrarian reform coverage
considering the transfer was an exercise of
power of eminent domain. But HLI is liable to
share the sale of the land’s value to the
beneficiaries as it came after the compulsory
coverage has taken place.
H. Alternative Business Arrangements (Joint
Economic Enterprises in a Post Distribution
Scenario: Making Landowner-Farmer
Partnership Work)
(DAR Adm. Order No. 9, s. 2006)
The Department of Agrarian Reform issued
Adm. Order No. 9, s. 2006 in order to augment
the support services extended by the government
to the agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs), via
the formation of agribusiness venture
arrangements (AVAs) is encouraged as a means
by which investment of financial and other
resources by the private sector can be channeled
to agrarian reform areas through productive and
collaborative ventures between the private sector
and the ARBs. It also encourages the
sustainability of such partnerships and the
gradual transformation of the ARBs into rural
entrepreneurs with improved managerial
capabilities and business savvy. The
administrative order also protects ARBs from
abuse and at the same time protects the business
interests of the investors.
In order to ensure that the rights and welfare of
the ARBs and their cooperative/association are
protected, the DAR shall be a signatory to the
AVA contract, subject to the review and
favorable endorsement by the NAEC or the
AVA-Task Force (TF) at the DAR Provincial
Office (DARPO), as the case may be.
Definition of terms:
 Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries
(ARBs) refer to qualified individual
beneficiaries under Presidential Decree
(P.D.) No. 27 or R.A. No. 6657, or their
cooperative or association duly
registered with the Cooperative
Development Authority (CDA), the
Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) or the Bureau of Rural Workers
(BRW) of the Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE).
 Agribusiness Venture Arrangement
(AVA) refers to entrepreneurial
collaboration between ARBs and
investors to implement an agribusiness
venture involving lands distributed
under CARP.
 Arbitration is a method of voluntary
conciliation whereby the contending
parties submit their dispute to an arbitral
committee who, in turn, shall conduct
hearings and make final decisions
binding upon both parties.
 Association refers to ARBs who
voluntarily form a group duly
recognized by the SEC or BRW and
organized for the purpose of entering
into an AVA with a common investor,
among others.
 Cooperative refers to a group of ARBs
duly organized under R.A. No. 6938,
otherwise known as the "Cooperative
Code of the Philippines", for the
purpose of pooling land, human,
technological, financial and/or other
economic resources to achieve social
and economic ends, and to make
equitable contributions and accept fair
risks and benefits of the cooperative's
undertakings.
 Joint Venture Corporation (JVC) is a
corporation formed by the investor and
the ARB cooperative/association and is
governed by the joint venture
agreement. It has all the powers and
attributes of a duly organized and
registered corporation pursuant to Batas
Pambansa (B.P.) Blg. 68, otherwise
known as the "Corporation Code of the
Philippines", provided that, agricultural
lands contributed by the ARBs to the
JVC are subject to the restriction on
transferability of awarded lands under
Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657.
Multiple types of AVAs are covered in the
administrative order, but it also recognized that
there may be some types of novel or emerging
AVAs, that while not expressly enumerated, are
still covered by the administrative order. Some
of the types have specific policies associated
with them which include:
 Joint Venture Agreement. — The ARBs
and investors shall form a joint venture
corporation (JVC) to manage farm
operations. The beneficiaries shall
contribute use of the land held
individually or in common and the
facilities and improvements, if any,
while the investor shall furnish capital
and technology for production,
processing and marketing of agricultural
goods, or construction, rehabilitation,
upgrading and operation of agricultural
capital assets, infrastructure and
facilities.The JVC shall acquire merely
 usufructuary, but not ownership, rights
over the land for an agreed period,
subject to the limitations provided for
under Art. 605 of the Civil Code, and
subject, further to the condition that it
shall preserve the form and substance
thereof. Ownership of the land remains
with the ARBs and the property cannot
be used to settle obligations of the JVC
in the event of insolvency or
bankruptcy.
 Production/Contract
Growing/Growership/Marketing
Contract. — In production/contract
growing/growership, the ARBs shall
commit to produce certain crops which
the investor buys at pre-agreed terms
(e.g., volume, quality standard, selling
price) and maintain ownership of the
land.
 Lease Agreement. — The beneficiaries
shall bind themselves to give the former
landowner or any other investor general
control over the use and management of
the land for a certain amount and for a
definite period.However, leaseback
arrangements should be the last
resort/option pursuant to Sec. 3 of R.A.
No. 7905. The ARBs and the investor
shall first consider other types of
agribusiness arrangements before
deciding to enter into a lease agreement.
They shall submit document/s (e.g.,
economic and social justification of
lease arrangement, matrix of
comparative analysis of all applicable
AVAs) as proof that other types of
AVAs were considered in the
negotiation.
 Management Contract. — The ARBs
shall hire the services of a contractor
who may be an individual, partnership,
or corporation to assist in the
management and operation of the farm
for the purpose of producing high value
crops or other agricultural crops in
exchange for a fixed wage and/or
commission. The farms shall remain
under the control and possession of the
ARBs and the management contractor
shall receive a fixed compensation,
commission or other forms of
remuneration for his services, to be
stipulated in the contract.All income
from the operation of the farm shall
accrue exclusively to the ARBs.
 Service Contract. — The ARBs shall
engage the services of a contractor for
mechanized land preparation,
cultivation, harvesting, processing, post-
harvest operations and/or other farm
activities for a fee. Again, the farms
shall remain under the control and
possession of the ARBs while the
service contractors provide the
necessary equipment, facilities or other
services for a period of time and at
specifications stipulated in the service
contract.
 Build-Operate-Transfer. (BOT) — The
investor may build, rehabilitate or
upgrade, at his own cost, capital assets,
infrastructure and facilities applied to
the production, processing and
marketing of agricultural products.
He/She shall operate the same at his/her
expense for an agreed period after which
the ownership thereof is conveyed to the
ARBs who own the land where such
improvements and facilities are located.
National Ava Evaluation Committee (NAEC)
and Provincial Ava Task Force
The National AVA Evaluation Committee
(NAEC) to evaluate specific AVA applications
and recommend their approval/disapproval to
the PARC/PARC ExCom, and review the
recommendations of the NAEC-Technical
Working Group (NAEC-TWG) regarding the
petitions for cancellation/revocation of the
AVA. Initial evaluation of all proposals and
monitoring of all AVAs implemented shall be
undertaken by the AVA Task Force.
All AVAs which will require transfer of or allow
the use and possession of the land in favor of the
investor or former landowner, such as lease
agreement, joint venture agreement, build-
operate-transfer and combination or phased
implementation of these schemes, or other
schemes/arrangements analogous to the above
shall be reviewed/evaluated by the National
AVA Evaluation Committee (NAEC) upon
endorsement by the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) and shall
be approved by the Presidential Agrarian
Reform Council (PARC) or PARC Executive
Committee (ExCom).
All other AVAs such as production/contract
growing/growership, marketing contract,
management contract, service contract and other
emerging schemes where there is no transfer in
the use and possession of the land in favor of the
investor or former LO shall be reviewed by the
Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO).
These shall not be required to go through the
NAEC and PARC or PARC ExCom review and
approval process under the Order.
Parameters for Approving Agribusiness
Venture Arrangement Contracts
The approval of AVAs shall depend on the
following considerations:
 Economic Viability
 Legal Enforceability
 Ecological Soundness
 ARBs Skills Development
 Non-transferability
Notwithstanding Sec. 27 of R.A. No. 6657, there
shall be no provision in the AVA contract
stipulating the sale or transfer of land ownership
from the ARBs to the management
contractor/lessee/investor firm during the term
of the AVA or in the renewal thereof.
The approval of AVAs shall depend on the
financial and organizational capability of the
investor and ARB cooperative/association. Some
of these criteria are:
1. good financial standing for the past
three (3) years
2. must have established stable business
relations/undertaking or good track
record with major business partners
3. possess enough liquid assets
4. roof of its capability to manage and
operate the AVA undertaking
Resolution of Disputes
Voluntary conciliation methods shall be
preferred in resolving disputes arising from the
execution of AVA contracts. The AVA contract
shall provide that any dispute arising from the
execution of the AVA contract shall be resolved
first through mediation and, if unsuccessful,
through arbitration. During the mediation
process, the PARO or his duly authorized
representative shall act as the mediator and the
contending parties shall settle the dispute/s
through discussions and negotiations.
If the parties fail to arrive at an agreement
through mediation, their second recourse is to
submit their dispute for arbitration in accordance
with R.A. No. 876, also known as the
"Arbitration Law," as amended by R.A. No.
9285 or the Alternative Dispute Resolution
System Act of 2004 or other pertinent arbitration
laws, as the case may be. For this purpose, the
AVA contract shall contain prior consent by
both parties to submit themselves to arbitration
when the need arises.

If the parties fail to settle their dispute through
voluntary conciliation, the aggrieved party may
file its protests or complaints with the
appropriate agency.
The cases involving AVAs shall be under the
jurisdiction of the following, depending on the
principal cause of action:
 DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), if
it involves interpretation and
enforcement of an agribusiness
agreement or an agrarian dispute as
defined in Sec. 3 (d) of R.A. No. 6657
 Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC), if the issues involved are
corporate in nature and consistent with
the provisions of the Corporation Code
of the Philippines and the Securities
Regulation Code
 Regional Trial Court (RTC), if within
the jurisdiction as defined under Section
5.2 of R.A. No. 8799 or the Securities
Regulations Code
 Cooperative Development Authority
(CDA), if it involves an internal
cooperative dispute
 National Labor Relations Commission
(NLRC), if it involves employer-
employee relations
The DAR Secretary, in his/her capacity as
Chairman of the PARC Executive Committee,
may issue orders, as may be appropriate, to
maintain the status quo and preserve peace and
order in the farm subject of AVAs, particularly
in the following cases pursuant to Sec. 5 (b) in
relation to Sec. 7 of E.O. No. 129-A:
a. Where there is clear and imminent threat
to life or property;
b. Where the dispute will cause serious and
irreparable damage to either party or to
the AVA
c. Where, in the Secretary's judgment,
there is an urgent need to protect the
national interest.
Reporting and Monitoring of Agribusiness
Venture Arrangement
The DARPO, through the AVA-TF shall
conduct monitoring of the AVAs implemented.
If findings in the monitoring report so warrant,
the DARPO, through the AVA-TF, may
motuproprio file a case against the adverse
party.
Revocation/Cancellation of Agribusiness
Venture Arrangement Contracts
The PARC or PARC ExCom or the DARAB,
after due process may revoke/cancel and
terminate the implementation of the AVA
contracts based on the following:
 Gross violation or non-compliance to
the terms and conditions of the contract,
such as:
o Non-implementation of the
human resources development
plan provisions
o Non-employment of the ARBs
o Concealment of the true
financial status of the enterprise
o Fraud
 When, without justifiable reasons, the
AVA fails to provide benefits and
incentives stipulated in the
approved/witnessed AVA contracts,
such as but not limited to, dividends
accruing to ARB's equity shares,
production and quality incentives. For
this purpose, situations/conditions
beyond the control of the investor such
as force majeure are considered
justifiable reasons
 When the AVA is no longer financially
and economically viable
  When a portion of the commercial farm
subject of the AVA is converted or
fragmented into non-agricultural use
without prior written consent of the
general membership of the cooperative
or association or a majority of the ARBs
 Action resulting to the transfer of
ownership of the landholding subject of
AVA to the investors
Any party in interest may file a petition for
revocation/cancellation to the PARO, which
shall forward the petition to the AVA-TF, then
submit a report to the NAEC-TWG, which shall
review the report and submit its
recommendation to the NAEC. The NAEC shall
now approve or disapprove of the
recommendation of the TWG and submit it to
the PARC or PARC ExCom.
Expiration of Agribusiness Venture
Arrangement Contracts
shall allow the lease and development of
such areas: Provided, That the declaration
shall not apply to environmentally critical
projects and areas as contained in title (A)
sub-paragraph two, (B-5) and (C-1) and title
(B), number eleven (11) of Proclamation No.
2146, entitled "Proclaiming Certain Areas
and Types of Projects as Environmentally
Critical and Within the Scope of the
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
System established under Presidential Decree
No. 1586," to ensure the protection of river
systems, aquifers and mangrove vegetations
from pollution and environmental
degradation: Provided, further, That the
approval shall be in accordance with a set of
guidelines to be drawn up and promulgated
by the DAR and the BFAR: Provided,
furthermore, That small-farmer cooperatives
and organizations shall be given preference
in the award of the Fishpond Lease
Agreement (FLAs).

Upon expiration of the AVA contract, the

No conversion of more than five (5)
individual ARBs/cooperative/association may
hectares of private lands to fishpond and
then assume full control and management of the
prawn farms shall be allowed after the
land, have the option to renew the contract, or
passage of this Act, except when the use of
enter into another contract with a new investor.
the land is more economically feasible and
sound for fishpond and/or prawn farm, as
I. Conversion of Agricultural Lands
certified by the Bureau of Fisheries and
(Section 65, amended by Sec. 5,
Aquatic Resources (BFAR), and a simple and
RA 7881)
absolute majority of the regular farm workers
or tenants agree to the conversion, the
A. Conversion into Fishpond and Prawn
Department of Agrarian Reform, may
Farms:
approve applications for change in the use of
The provincial government, with
the land: Provided, finally, That no piecemeal
the concurrence of the Bureau of Fisheries
conversion to circumvent the provisions of
and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) declares a
this Act shall be allowed. In these cases
coastal zone as suitable for fishpond
where the change of use is approved, the
development before pubic agricultural lands
provisions of Section 32-A hereof on
are allowed to be converted into fishponds
incentives shall apply. (as added by Section
and prawn farms.
5, RA 7881)
In such case, the Department of
B. Inventory
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)
 The BFAR shall undertake and
finish an inventory of all government and
private fishponds and prawn farms, and
undertake a program to promote the
sustainable management and utilization of
prawn farms and fishponds. No lease under
Section 65-A hereof may be granted until
after the completion of the said inventory.
The sustainable management and
utilization of prawn farms and fishponds
shall be in accordance with the effluent
standards, pollution charges and other
pollution control measures such as, but not
limited to, the quantity of fertilizers,
pesticides and other chemicals used, that may
be established by the Fertilizer and Pesticide
Authority (FPA), the Environmental
Management Bureau (EMB), and other
appropriate government regulatory bodies,
and existing regulations governing water
utilization, primarily Presidential Decree No.
1067, entitled "A Decree Instituting A Water
Code, Thereby Revising and Consolidating
the Laws Governing the Ownership,
Appropriation, Utilization, Exploitation,
Development, Conservation and Protection
of Water Resources.” (as added by Section 5,
RA 7881)
C. Protection of Mangrove Areas
In existing Fishpond Lease
Agreements (FLAs) and those that will be
issued, a portion of the fishpond area fronting
the sea, sufficient to protect the environment,
shall be established as a buffer zone and be
planted to specified mangrove species to be
determined in consultation with the regional
office of the DENR. The Secretary of
Environment and Natural Resources shall
provide the penalties for any violation of this
undertaking as well as the rules for its
implementation. (as added by Section 5, RA
7881)
D. Change of Crops
The change of crops to commercial
crops or high value crops shall not be
considered as a conversion in the use or
nature of the land. The change in crop
should, however, not prejudice the rights of
tenants or leaseholders should there be any
and the consent of a simple and absolute
majority of the affected farm workers, if any,
shall first be obtained. (as added by Section
5, RA 7881)
CASES
CREBA vs Sec. of Agrarian Reform
FACTS:
This case is a Petition for Certiorari and
Prohibition (with application for temporary
restraining order and/or writ of preliminary
injunction) under Rule 65 of the 1997 Revised
Rules of Civil Procedure, filed by herein
petitioner Chamber of Real Estate and
Builders Associations, Inc. (CREBA) seeking
to nullify and prohibit the enforcement of
Department of Agrarian Reform(DAR)
Administrative Order (AO) No. 01-02, as
amended by DAR AO No. 05-07, and DAR
Memorandum No. 88, for having been issued by
the Secretary of Agrarian Reform with grave
abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess
of jurisdiction as some provisions of the
aforesaid administrative issuances are illegal and
unconstitutional.
The Secretary of Agrarian Reform issued DAR
AO No. 07-97, entitled ―Omnibus Rules and
Procedures Governing Conversion of
Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses,‖
which
consolidated all existing implementing
guidelines related to land use conversion. The
aforesaid
rules embraced all private agricultural lands
regardless of tenurial arrangement and
commodity produced, and all untitled
agricultural lands and agricultural lands
reclassified by Local Government Units
(LGUs) into non-agricultural uses after 15
June 1988. Subsequently, DARAO No. 01-99,
entitled ―Revised Rules and Regulations on the
Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-
agricultural Uses, was also issued amending and
updating the previous rules on landuse
conversion. Its coverage includes the following
agricultural lands, among others, (1) those to be
converted to residential, commercial, industrial,
institutional and other non-agricultural purposes.
The Secretary issued another Administrative
Order, i.e., DAR AO No. 01-02, entitled―2002
Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion,
which further amended DAR AO No.07-97 and
DAR AO No. 01-99, and repealed all issuances
inconsistent therewith. The aforesaid DAR AO
No. 01-02 covers all applications for conversion
from agricultural to non-agriculturaluses or to
another agricultural use. Thereafter the Secretary
of Agrarian Reform amended certain provisions
of DAR AO No. 01-02 by formulating DAR AO
No. 05-07, particularly addressing land
conversion in time of exigencies and calamities.
To address the unabated conversion of prime
agricultural lands for real estate development,
the Secretary further issued Memorandum No.
88 on 15 April 2008, which temporarily
suspended the processing and approval of all
land use conversion applications. By reason
thereof, petitioner claims that there is an actual
slowdown of housing projects, which, in turn,
aggravated the housing
shortage,unemployment and illegal squatting
problems to the substantial prejudice not only of
thepetitioner and its members but more so of the
whole nation.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the DAR Secretary has
jurisdiction over lands that have been
reclassified as
residential, commercial, industrial, or for other
non-agricultural uses.
HELD:
Executive Order No. 129-A vested upon the
DAR the responsibility of implementing the
CARP. Pursuant to the said mandate and to
ensure the successful implementation of the
CARP, Section 5(c) of the said executive order
authorized the DAR to establish and
promulgate operational policies, rules and
regulations and priorities for agrarian reform
implementation. Section 4(k) thereof
authorized the DAR to approve or disapprove
the
conversion, restructuring or readjustment of
agricultural lands into non-agricultural
uses. Similarly, Section 5(l) of the same
executive order has given the DAR the
exclusive
authority to approve or disapprove
conversion of agricultural lands for
residential,
commercial, industrial, and other land uses as
may be provided for by law. Section 7 of
the aforesaid executive order clearly provides
that ―the authority and responsibility for the
exercise of the mandate of the [DAR] and the
discharge of its powers and functions shall be
vested in the Secretary of Agrarian Reform x xx.
Under DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended,
―lands not reclassified as residential,
commercial,
industrial or other non-agricultural uses before
15 June 1988‖ have been included in the
definition of agricultural lands. In so doing, the
Secretary of Agrarian Reform merely acted
within the scope of his authority stated in the
aforesaid sections of Executive Order No. 129-
A,
which is to promulgate rules and regulations for
agrarian reform implementation and that
includes the authority to define agricultural
lands for purposes of land use conversion.
Further,
the definition of agricultural lands under DAR
AO No. 01-02, as amended, merely refers to the
category of agricultural lands that may be the
subject for conversion to non-agricultural uses
and is not in any way confined to agricultural
lands in the context of land redistribution as
provided for under Republic Act No. 6657.
Any reclassification of agricultural lands to
residential, commercial, industrial or other
nonagricultural uses either by the LGUs or by
way of Presidential Proclamations enacted on
or
after 15 June 1988 must undergo the process of
conversion, despite having undergone
reclassification, before agricultural lands may be
used for other purposes.
It is different, however, when through
Presidential Proclamations public agricultural
lands have
been reserved in whole or in part for public use
or purpose, i.e., public school, etc., because in
such a case, conversion is no longer necessary.
Clearly from the foregoing, the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform did not act without jurisdiction
or in excess of jurisdiction or with grave abuse
of discretion amounting to lack or excess of
jurisdiction in (1) including lands not
reclassified as residential, commercial,
industrial or othernon-agricultural uses before
15 June 1988 in the definition of agricultural
lands under DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended,
and; (2) issuing and enforcing DAR AO No. 01-
02, as amended, subjecting to DAR‘s
jurisdiction for conversion lands which had
already been reclassified as residential,
commercial, industrial or for other non-
agricultural uses on or after 15 June 1988.
Similarly, DAR AO No. 01-02, as amended,
providing that the reclassification of agricultural
lands by LGUs shall be subject to the
requirements of land use conversion procedure
or that DAR‘s approval or clearance must be
secured to effect reclassification, did not violate
the
autonomy of the LGUs.
Sta. Rosa vs. CA
Facts:
Petitioner was the registered owner of two
parcels of land, MARO issued a notice of
coverage to petitioner and invited its officials or
representatives to a conference. During the
meeting it was the consensus and
recommendation of the assembly that the
landholding of SRRDC be placed under
compulsory acquisition. Petitioner filed a
“Protest and Objection” to the compulsory
acquisition of the property. Secretary of
Agrarian Reform sent two notices of
acquisition to petitioner, stating that petitioner’s
landholdings covered by TCT Nos. 81949 and
84891, containing an area of 188.2858 and
58.5800 hectares, valued at P4,417,735.65 and
P1,220,229.93, respectively, had been placed
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program. petitioner SRRDC in two letters 2
separately addressed to Secretary Florencio B.
Abad and the Director, Bureau of Land
Acquisition and Distribution, sent its formal
protest, protesting not only the amount of
compensation offered by DAR for the property
but also the two (2) notices of acquisition.
Secretary Abad referred the case to the DARAB
for summary proceedings to determine just
compensation. Petitioner sent a letter to the
Land Bank of the Philippines stating that its
property under the aforesaid land titles were
exempt from CARP coverage because they
had been classified as watershed area and
were the subject of a pending petition for
land conversion. Office of the Secretary, DAR,
through the Undersecretary for Operations
(Assistant Secretary for Luzon Operations) and
the Regional Director of Region IV, submitted a
report answering the two issues raised.
According to them, firstly, by virtue of the
issuance of the notice of coverage on August 11,
1989, and notice of acquisition on December 12,
1989, the property is covered under compulsory
acquisition. Secondly, Administrative Order No.
1, Series of 1990, Section IV D also supports the
DAR position on the coverage of the said
property. During the consideration of the case
by the Board, there was no pending petition
for land conversion specifically concerning
the parcels of land in question. The Board sent
a notice of hearing to all the parties interested,
setting the hearing for the administrative
valuation of the subject parcels of land.
However, SRRDC submitted a petition to the
Board for the latter to resolve SRRDC’s petition
for exemption from CARP coverage before any
administrative valuation of their landholding
could be had by the Board. The initial DARAB
hearing of the case was held and subsequently,
different dates of hearing were set without
objection from counsel of SRRDC.
ISSUE:
Whether the respondents complied with the
procedural requirement of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law?
HELD:
No, we held that they failed to comply with the
requirements of the CARP Law. For its part,
conditions the transfer of possession and
ownership of the land to the government on
receipt of the landowner of the corresponding
payment or the deposit by the DAR of the
compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an
accessible bank. Until then, title also remains
with the landowner. No outright change of
ownership is contemplated either. DAR has
executed the taking of the property in
question. However, payment of just
compensation was not in accordance with the
procedural requirement. The law required
payment in cash or LBP bonds, not by trust
account as was done by DAR. Therefore, the
Land Bank of the Philippines is ordered to
convert the trust account in the name of Sta.
Rosa Realty Development Corporation to a
deposit account, subject to a 12% interest per
annum from the time the LBP opened a trust
account up to the time said account was actually
converted into cash and LBP bonds deposit
accounts.Such conversion should be
retroactive in application in order to rectify
the error committed by the DAR in opening a
trust account and to grant the landowners the
benefits concomitant to payment in cash or LBP
bonds. The interest earnings accruing on the
deposit account of landowners would suffice to
compensate them pending payment of just
compensation.
Ros vs. DAR
FACTS:
Petitioners are the owners/developers of
several parcels of land located in Arpili,
Balamban, Cebu. By virtue of Municipal
Ordinance No. 101 passed by the Municipal
Council, these lands were reclassified as
industrial lands. On 03 April 1995, the
Provincial Board of Cebu approved Balamban’s
land use plan and adopted en toto Balamban’s
Municipal Ordinance No. 101 with the passage
of Resolution No. 836-95 and Provincial
Ordinance No. 95-8, respectively. As part of
their preparation for the development of the
subject lands as an industrial park,
petitioners secured all the necessary permits
and appropriate government certifications.
Despite these permits and certifications,
petitioner received a letter from Director of
the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
Regional Office for Region 7, informing him
that the DAR was disallowing the conversion
of the subject lands for industrial use and
directed him to cease and desist from further
developments on the land to avoid the
incurrence of civil and criminal liabilities.
Petitioners were thus constrained to file with the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Toledo City
for Injunction with Application for
Temporary Restraining Order and a Writ of
Preliminary Injunction. The RTC, ruling that
it is the DAR which has jurisdiction,
dismissed the Complaint for lack of
jurisdiction. At the Court of Appeals, the public
respondents were ordered to file their Comments
on the petition. Two sets of comments from the
public respondents, one from the Department of
Agrarian Reform Provincial Office and another
from the Office of the Solicitor General, were
submitted, to which petitioners filed their
Consolidated Reply. The Court of Appeals
rendered a decision affirming the Order of
Dismissal issued by the RTC. A motion for
reconsideration filed by the petitioners was
denied in a resolution dated 30 January 1998.
ISSUE:
Whether the reclassification of the subject lands
to industrial use by LGU pursuant to its
authority has the effect of taking such lands out
of the coverage of the CARP and beyond the
jurisdiction of the DAR?
HELD:
No, after the passages of Republic Act No.
6657 (CARP), agricultural lands, though
reclassified, have to go through the process of
conversion, jurisdiction over which is vested
in the DAR. However, agricultural lands
already reclassified before the effectivity of Rep.
Act No. 6657 are exempted from conversion.
The agricultural lands must go through the
required process of conversion despite of having
undergone reclassification. In the current case,
there is no final order of conversion. The
subject landholding was merely reclassified.
Conversion is different from reclassification.
Conversion is the act of changing the current
use of a piece of agricultural land into some
other use as approved by the Department of
Agrarian Reform. Reclassification, on the
other hand, is the act of specifying how
agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-
agricultural uses such as residential, industrial,
and commercial, as embodied in the land use
plan, subject to the requirements and procedure
for land use conversion. Accordingly, a mere
reclassification of agricultural land does not
automatically allow a landowner to change its
use and thus cause the ejectment of the
tenants. He has to undergo the process of
conversion before he is permitted to use the
agricultural land for other purposes.
Fortich Vs. Corona
FACTS:
This case involves a 144-hectare land located
at San Vicente, Sumilao, Bukidnon, owned by
the Norberto Quisumbing, Sr. Management and
Development Corporation (NQSRMDC). In
October, 1991, the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) placed the entire 144-hectare
property under compulsory acquisition and
assessed the land value at P2.38 million.
NQSRMDC resisted the DAR’s action. In
February, 1992, it sought and was granted by
the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB),
through its Provincial Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (PARAD). In the meantime, the
Provincial Development Council (PDC) of
Bukidnon, headed by Governor Carlos O.
Fortich, passed Resolution No. 6, dated
January 7, 1993, designating certain areas
along Bukidnon-Sayre Highway as part of the
Bukidnon Agro-Industrial Zones where the
subject property is situated. Notwithstanding the
foregoing favorable recommendation, however,
on November 14, 1994, the DAR, thru
Secretary Garilao, invoking its powers to
approve conversion of lands under Section 65
of R.A. No. 6657, issued an Order denying the
instant application for the conversion of the
subject land from agricultural to agro-
industrial and, instead, placed the same
under the compulsory coverage of CARP and
directed the distribution thereof to all qualified
beneficiaries. Governor Carlos O. Fortich of
Bukidnon appealed the order of denial to the
Office of the President and prayed for the
conversion/reclassification of the subject land as
the same would be more beneficial to the people
of Bukidnon. After a careful evaluation of the
petition vis-a-vis the grounds upon which the
denial thereof by Secretary Garilao was based,
we find that the instant application for
conversion by the Municipality of Sumilao,
Bukidnon is impressed with merit. DAR filed a
motion for reconsideration of the OP decision.
On June 23, 1997, an Order was issued by then
Executive Secretary Ruben D. Torres denying
DAR’s motion for reconsideration for having
been filed beyond the reglementary period of
fifteen (15) days. On October 9, 1997, some
alleged farmer-beneficiaries began their hunger
strike in front of the DAR Compound in Quezon
City to protest the OP Decision of March 29,
1996. On November 7, 1997, the Office of the
President resolved the strikers’ protest by
issuing the so-called “Win/Win” Resolution
penned by then Deputy Executive Secretary
Renato C. Corona. In seeking the nullification of
the “Win-Win” Resolution, the petitioners claim
that the Office of the President was prompted to
issue the said resolution was purely political
decision to appease the ‘farmers,’ by reviving
and modifying the Decision of 29 March 1996
which has been declared final and executory in
an Order of 23 June 1997. Thus, petitioners
further allege, respondent then Deputy
Executive Secretary Renato C. Corona
committed grave abuse of discretion and acted
beyond his jurisdiction when he issued the
questioned Resolution of 7 November 1997.
They availed of this extraordinary writ of
certiorari “because there is no other plain,
speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary
course of law.” They never filed a motion for
reconsideration of the subject Resolution
“because (it) is patently illegal or contrary to law
and it would be a futile exercise to seek a
reconsideration.
ISSUE:
Whether the Public Petitioner is required to
obtain the approval of the DAR to convert or
reclassify Private Petitioners’ property from
agricultural to non-agricultural use.
HELD:
No, the Public Petitioner is need not to obtain
approval of the DAR to convert or reclassify
Private Petitioners’ property from agricultural to
non-agricultural use. Specifically, the issue of
whether or not the power of the local
government units to reclassify lands is subject to
the approval of the DAR having been decided by
this Court in the case of Province of Camarines
Sur, et al. vs. Court of Appeals wherein we held
that local government units need not obtain
the approval of the DAR to convert or
reclassify lands from agricultural to non-
agricultural use.
J. Mechanisms for implementing the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(Sections 41-49)
Section 41. The Presidential Agrarian Reform
Council (PARC)
Composed of:
 The President of the Philippines –
Chairman
  Secretary of Agrarian Reform – Vice-
Chairman
 Secretaries of:
o Department of Agriculture
o DENR
o DBM
o DILG
o DPWH
o DTI
o Department of Finance
o DOLE
 Director-General of NEDA
 President of the Land Bank of the
Philippines
 Administrator of the National Irrigation
Administration
 3 representatives of affected landowners
to represent Luzon, Visayas and
Mindanao
 6 representatives of ARBs, 2 each from
Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao,
Provided, That at least one (1) of them
shall be from the indigenous peoples:
Provided, further, That at least one (1)of
them shall come from a duly recognized
national organization of rural women or
a national organization of agrarian
reform beneficiaries with a substantial
number of women members: Provided,
finally, That at least twenty percent
(20%) of the members of the PARC
shall be women but in no case shall they
be less than two (2). (as amended by
Section 17, RA 9700)
Section 42. The Executive Committee (PARC-
ExCom)
The PARC-ExCom shall have the Secretary of
the DAR as Chairman, and other members as the
President may designate. Unless otherwise
directed by PARC, the PARC-ExCom may meet
and decide on any and all matters in between
meetings of the PARC: provided, however, that
its decisions must be reported to the PARC
immediately and not later than the next meeting.
Section 43. The Secretariat
The Secretariat shall be headed by the Secretary
of Agrarian Reform who shall be assisted by an
Undersecretary and supported by a staff whose
composition shall be determined by the PARC
Executive Committee and whose compensation
shall be chargeable against the Agrarian Reform
Fund. All officers and employees of the
Secretariat shall be appointed by the Secretary of
Agrarian Reform.
The Secretariat shall provide general support
and coordinative services such as inter-agency
linkages; program and project appraisal and
evaluation and general operations monitoring for
the PARC.
Section 44. Provincial Agrarian Reform
Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM)
A PARCCOM is created in each province, with
its chairman as appointed by the President upon
recommendation of the ExCom, the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Officer as Executive Officer,
and one (1) representative each from:
 Departments of Agriculture
 DENR
 Land Bank of the Philippines
 One (1) representative each from
existing farmers' organizations,
agricultural cooperatives and non-
governmental organizations in the
province
 Two (2) representatives from
landowners, at least one (1) of whom
shall be a producer representing the
principal crop of the province
 Two (2) representatives from farmers
and farmworkers or beneficiaries, at
least one (1) of whom shall be a farmer
or farmworker representing the principal
crop of the province, as members:
Provided, that in areas where there are
 cultural communities, the latter shall
likewise have one (1) representative.
The PARCCOM shall coordinate and monitor
the implementation of the CARP in the
province. It shall provide information on the
provisions of the CARP, guidelines issued by
the PARC and on the progress of the CARP, in
the province; in addition, it shall recommend to
the PARC the following:(as amended by Section
3, RA 7905)
 Market prices to be used in determining
the profit sharing arrangement
 Adoption of direct payment scheme
between landowner and farmer and/or
farmworker
 Processing of applications for leaseback,
joint ventures and other arrangements
Section 45. Province implementation
The PARC shall provide guidelines for the
province-by-province implementation of the
CARP, taking into account the peculiarities and
needs of each place, kind of crops, land
distribution, workload, among others, with the
10-year program of distribution adjusted from
year-to-year by the province PARCCOM. (as
amended by Section 4, RA 7905)
Section 46. Barangay Agrarian Reform
Committee (BARC)
Pursuant to E.O no. 229, on matters related to
agrarian reform, the DAR shall convene at the
barangay level, a Barangay Agrarian Reform
Council. The BARC shall be operated on a self-
help basis and will be composed of the
following:
a) Representative/s of farmers and
farmworkers beneficiaries;
b) Representative/s of farmer and
farmworkers non-beneficiaries;
c) Representative/s of agricultural
cooperatives;
d) Representative/s of other farmer
organizations;
e) Representative/s of the Barangay
Council;
f) Representative/s of non-government
organizations (NGOs);
g) Representative/s of landowners;
h) DA official assigned to the barangay;
i) DENR official assigned to the area;
j) DAR Agrarian Reform Technologist
assigned to the area who shall act as the
Secretary; and
k) Land Bank of the Philippines
representative.
Section 47. Functions of the BARC
(a) Mediate and conciliate between parties
involved in an agrarian dispute including matters
related to tenurial and financial arrangements;
(b) Assist in the identification of qualified
beneficiaries and landowners within the
barangay;
(c) Attest to the accuracy of the initial parcellary
mapping of the beneficiary's tillage;
(d) Assist qualified beneficiaries in obtaining
credit from lending institutions;
(e) Assist in the initial determination of the
value of the land;
(f) Assist the DAR representatives in the
preparation of periodic reports on the CARP
implementation for submission to the DAR;
(g) Coordinate the delivery of support services
to beneficiaries; and
(h) Perform such other functions as may be
assigned by the DAR.
The BARC shall endeavor to mediate, conciliate Sources of funding or appropriations shall
and settle agrarian disputes lodged before it include the following:
within thirty (30) days from its taking a. Proceeds of the sales of the
cognizance thereof. If after the lapse of the thirty Privatization and Management
day period, it is unable to settle the dispute, it Office;
shall issue a certificate of its proceedings and b. All receipts from assets
shall furnish a copy thereof upon the parties recovered and from sales of ill-gotten
wealth recovered
within seven (7) days after the expiration of the
through the PCGG excluding
thirty-day period.
the amount appropriated for
compensation to victims of
Section 48. Legal Assistance human rights violations under
the applicable law;
The BARC or any member thereof may, c. Proceeds of the disposition
whenever necessary in the exercise of any of its and development of the
functions hereunder, seek the legal assistance of properties of the Government
the DAR and the provincial, city, or municipal in foreign countries, for the
government. specific purpose of financing
production credits,
Section 49. Rules and Regulations infrastructure ab doter support
services required by this Act;
The PARC and the DAR shall have the power to d. All income and collections of
issue rules and regulations, whether substantive whatever form and nature
arising from the agrarian
or procedural, to carry out the objects and
reform operations, projects
purposes of this Act.
and programs of the DAR and
other CARP implementing
K. Financing of the Comprehensive agencies;
e. Portion of amounts accruing to
K. Financing of the Comprehensive the Philippines from all
sources of official foreign aid
Agrarian Reform Program grants and concessional
Sec. 63. Funding Source – The amount needed financing from all countries, to
to further implement the CARP as provided in be used for the specific
purposes of financing
this Act, until June 30, 2014, upon expiration of
productions, credits,
funding under RA 8532 and other pertinent
infrastructures, and other
laws, shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform support services required by
Fund and other funding sources in the amount of this Act;
at least P150,000,000,000.00. f. Yearly appropriations of no
less that P5,000,000,000.00
Additional amounts are hereby from the General
authorized to be appropriated as and when Appropriations Act;
needed to augment the Agrarian Reform Fund in g. Gratuitous financial assistance
order to fully implement the provisions of this from legitimate sources; and
Act during the 5- year extension period. h. Other government funds not
otherwise appropriated.
 All funds appropriated to
implement the provisions of this
Act shall be considered continuing
appropriations during the period of
its implementation
Notes:
The just compensation payments to landowners
can only be sourced from the Agrarian Reform
Fund. If the annual budget for the reform fund is
not sufficient, the just compensation payments
shall be charged against the debt service
program of the national government, or any
unprogrammed item in the GAA
. writs through sheriffs or other duly deputized
Sec. 64. – Financial Intermediary for
the CARP – The Land Bank of the Philippines
shall be the financial intermediary for the
CARP, and shall insure that the social justice
objective of the CARP shall enjoy a preference
among its priorities.
Notes:
The Land Bank is the financial arm of the
agrarian reform program. The determination of
just compensation commences with Land Bank
determining the value of the lands. Using the
valuation of Land Bank, the DAR makes an
offer to the landowner.
L. Resolution of Agrarian Disputes
SEC. 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the
DAR. - The DAR is hereby vested with primary
jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian
reform matters and shall have exclusive original
jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of agrarian reform, except those
falling under the exclusive
jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture
(DA) and the DENR.
It shall not be bound by technical
rules of procedure and evidence but shall
proceed to hear and decide all cases, disputes or
controversies in a most expeditious manner,
employing all
reasonable means to ascertain the facts
of every case in accordance with justice
and equity and the merits of the case.
Toward this end, it shall adopt a uniform
rule of procedure to achieve a just, expeditious
and inexpensive determination of every action or
proceeding before it.
It shall have the power to summon witnesses,
administer oaths, take testimony, require
submission of reports,
compel the production of books and documents
and answers to interrogatories and issue
subpoena, and
subpoena duces tecum and to enforce its
officers. It shall likewise have
the power to punish direct and indirect
contempts in the same manner and
subject to the same penalties as provided
in the Rules of Court.
Responsible farmer leaders shall be allowed to
represent themselves, them fellow farmers, or
their organizations in any proceedings before the
DAR.
Provided, however, that when there are two or
more representatives for any individual or group,
the representatives should choose only one
among themselves to represent such party or
group before any DAB proceedings.
Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of
Appeals, the decision of the DAR shall be
immediately executory except a decision or a
portion thereof involving solely the issue of just
compensation.
SEC. 50-A. Exclusive
Jurisdiction on Agrarian Dispute. – No court
or prosecutor's office shall take cognizance of
cases pertaining to the
implementation of the CARP except
those provided under Section 57 of
Republic Act No. 6657, as amended. If
there is an allegation from any of the
parties that the case is agrarian in nature and one
of the parties is a farmer, farmworker, or tenant,
the case shall be automatically referred by the
judge or the prosecutor to the DAR which shall
determine and certify within fifteen (15) days
from referral whether an agrarian dispute exists:
Provided, that from the determination of the
DAR, an aggrieved party shall have judicial
recourse. In cases referred by the municipal trial
court and the prosecutor's office, the appeal shall
be with the proper regional trial court, and in
cases referred by the regional trial court, the
appeal shall be to the Court of Appeals.
In cases where regular courts or quasi-judicial
bodies have competent jurisdiction, agrarian
reform beneficiaries or identified beneficiaries
and/or their associations shall have legal
standing and interest to intervene concerning
their individual or collective rights and/or
interests under the CARP.
The fact of non-registration of such associations
with the Securities and Exchange Commission,
or Cooperative Development Authority, or any
concerned government agency shall not be used
against them to deny the existence of their legal
standing and interest in a case filed before such
courts and quasi-judicial bodies.
Notes:
Two-fold Jurisdiction of the DAR:
1.) The first essentially executive and
pertains to the enforcement and
administration of the laws, carrying
them into practical operation and
enforcing their due observance; and
2.) The second is judicial and involves the
determination of rights and obligations
of the parties.
DAR Secretary & Regional Offices vs.
DARAB:
1.) DAR Secretary & Regional Offices
concerns the implementation of agrarian
refom laws;
2.) Department of Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board (DARAB),
Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator
(PARAD), Regional Agrarian Reform
Adjudicator (RARAD) concerns
adjudication of agrarian reform cases.
The first is executive in nature because it
pertains to the enforcement and administration
of the laws, carrying them into practical
operation. The second is judicial in nature,
involving as it does the determination of rights
and obligations of the parties. There is no
concurrent jurisdiction between the DAR
regional offices and
theDARAB/PARAD/RARAD (Cabral v. CA)
The Doctrine of Primary Jurisdiction:
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction precludes
the courts from resolving a controversy over
which jurisdiction has initially been lodged in an
administrative body of special competence (Sta.
Ana v. Carpo).
When the DARAB had jurisdiction:
For DARAB to have jurisdiction over a case,
there must exist a tenancy relationship between
the parties. In order for a tenancy agreement to
take hold over a dispute, it would be essential to
establish all its indispensable elements to wit: 1)
that the parties are the landowner and the tenant
or agricultural lessee; 2) that the subject matter
of
the relationship is an agricultural land; 3) that
there is consent between the parties to the
relationship; 4) that the purpose of the
relationship is to bring about agricultural
production; 5) that there is personal cultivation
on
the part of the tenant or agricultural lessee; and
6) that the harvest is shared between the
landowner and the tenant or agricultural lessee
(Laguna Estate v. CA).
But a case involving an agricultural land does
not automatically make such case an agrarian
dispute upon which the DARAB has
jurisdiction.
The mere fact that the land is agricultural does
not ipso facto make the possessor an agricultural
lessee of tenant. The law provides for conditions
or requisites before he can qualify as one and the
land being agricultural is only one of them. The
law states that an agrarian dispute must be a
controversy relating to a tenurial arrangement
over lands devoted to agriculture. And as
previously mentioned, such arrangement may be
leasehold, tenancy or stewardship. If the
occupancy and possession was by mere
tolerance, there is no agrarian dispute to speak of
(Isidro v. CA).
When the controversy pertains to ownership,
there is no agrarian dispute, hence, the matter is
beyond the jurisdiction of the DARAB (Heirs of
Herman Ray Santos v. CA).
The issue of a right of way or easement over
private property without tenancy relations is
outside the jurisdiction of the DARAB. This is
not
an agrarian issue. Jurisdiction is vested in a court
of general jurisdiction (Laguna Estate v. CA).
When the DAR Secretary has jurisdiction:
The DARAB has no jurisdiction to identify who
between the parties should be recognized as the
beneficiaries of the land in dispute, as it was a
purely administrative function of the DAR
(Concha v. Rubio).
Issues with respect to the retention rights of the
respondents as landowners and the
exclusion/exemption of the subject land from the
coverage of agrarian reform are issues not
cognizable by the PARAD and the DARAB, but
by the DAR Secretary (Sta. Ana v. Carpo).
The term reserved for residential does not
change the nature of the land from agricultural
to
non-agricultural. As aptly explained by the DAR
Secretary, the term reserved for residential
simply reflects the intended land use. It does not
denote that the property has already been
reclassified as residential, because the phrase
reserved for residential is not a land
classification category.
The exclusive jurisdiction to classify and
identify
landholdings for coverage under the CARP is
reposed in the DAR Secretary. The matter of
CARP coverage, like the instant case for
application for exemption, is strictly part of the
administrative implementation of the CARP, a
matter well within the competence of the DAR
Secretary (Alangilan v. OP).
The finding of the MARO declaring petitioners
as
beneficiaries of the land in dispute must,
therefore, be accorded respect. It should also be
equally binding on the DARAB for the simple
reason that the latter has no appellate jurisdiction
over the former. The DARAB cannot review,
much less reverse, the administrative findings of
DAR. Instead, the DARAB would do well to
defer to DAR’s expertise when it comes to the
identification and selection of beneficiaries
(Concha v. Rubio).
When the RTC has jurisdiction:
The Regional Trial Courts have not, however,
been completely divested of jurisdiction over
agrarian reform matters. Section 56 of RA 6657,
on the other hand, confers “special jurisdiction”
on “Special Agrarian Courts,” which are
Regional Trial Courts designated by the
Supreme Court— at least one (1) branch within
each province—to act as such. These Regional
Trial Courts acting as Special Agrarian Courts
have, according to Section 57 of the same law,
original and exclusive jurisdiction over: 1) “all
petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowners,” and 2) “the
prosecution of all criminal offenses under x x
[the] Act.” (Vda. De Tangub v. CA).
However, all doubts should be resolved in favor
of the DAR, since the law has granted it special
and original authority to hear and adjudicate
agrarian matters. The DAR could not be ousted
from its authority by the simple expediency of
appending an allegedly constitutional or legal
dimension to an issue that is clearly agrarian
(DAR v. Cuenca).
Sec. 51. Finality of Determination. —
Any case or controversy before it shall be
decided within thirty (30) days after it is
submitted for resolution. Only one (1) motion
for reconsideration shall be allowed. Any order,
ruling or decision shall be final after the lapse of
fifteen (15) days from receipt of a copy thereof.
Sec. 52. Frivolous Appeals. — To discourage
frivolous or dilatory appeals from the decisions
or orders on the local or provincial levels, the
DAR may impose reasonable penalties,
including but not limited to fines or censures
upon erring
parties.
Sec. 53. Certification of the BARC. —
The DAR shall not take cognizance of any
agrarian dispute or controversy unless a
certification from the BARC that the dispute has
been submitted to it for mediation and
conciliation without any success of settlement is
presented: provided, however, that if no
certification is issued by the BARC within thirty
(30) days after a matter or issue is submitted to it
for mediation or conciliation the case or dispute
may be brought before the PARC.
Notes:
BARC certification is not necessary in the
following cases:
1. Where the issue involves the valuation
of land to determine just compensation
for its acquisition;
2. Where on party is a public or private
corporation, partnership, association or
juridical person, or a public officer or
employee and the dispute relates to the
performance of his official functions;
3. Where the DAR Secretary directly refers
the matter to the DARAB or
Adjudicator; or
4. Where the MARO certifies the
nonexistence or inability of the BARC.
BARC certification is also not required
for cases filed with the RTC acting as a
special agrarian court.
Rule XIII, Sections 1, 2 and 3 of the DARAB
New Rules of Procedure provides, thus:
SECTION 1. Appeal to the Board.
a) An appeal may be taken from an order,
resolution or decision of the Adjudicator to the
Board by either of the parties or both, orally or
in writing, within a period of fifteen (15) days
from the receipt of the order, resolution or
decision appealed from, and serving a copy
thereof on the adverse party, if the appeal is in
writing.
b) An oral appeal shall be reduced into
writing by the Adjudicator to be signed by the
appellant, and a copy thereof shall be served
upon the adverse party within ten (10) days from
the taking of the oral appeal.
SECTION 2. Grounds. The aggrieved party
may appeal to the Board from a final order,
resolution or decision of the Adjudicator on
any of the following grounds:
a) That errors in the findings of facts or
conclusions of laws were committed which, if
not corrected, would cause grave and irreparable
damage or injury to the appellant;
b) That there is a grave abuse of
discretion on the part of the Adjudicator; or
c) That the order, resolution or decision is
obtained through fraud or coercion.
SECTION 3. Where to File. The notice of
appeal shall be filed with the Adjudicator
concerned in three (3) legibly written copies.
SECTION 4. Caption. In all cases appealed to
the Board, the party appealing shall be called
the “appellant” and the adverse party the
“appellee,” and the case shall be assigned a
docket number.
SECTION 5. Requisites and Perfection of the
Appeal.
 a) The Notice of Appeal shall be filed
within the reglementary period as provided for
in Section 1 of this Rule. It shall state the date
when the appellant received the order or
judgment appealed from and the proof of service
of the notice to the adverse party;
b) An appeal fee of Five Hundred Pesos
(P500.00) shall be paid by the appellant within
the reglementary period to the DAR Cashier
where the Office of the Adjudicator is
situated. A pauper litigant shall, however, be
exempt from the payment of the appeal fee.
Non-compliance with the above-mentioned
requisites shall be a ground for the dismissal of
the appeal.
N. Authority of the DAR Secretary to nullify
titles under the CARP
SEC. 24. Paragraph 4, Section 24 of RA 6657 as
amended by RA No. 9700
"All cases involving the cancellation of
registered emancipation patents, certificates of
land ownership award, and other titles issued
under any agrarian reform program are within
the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the
Secretary of the DAR.”
The legal instruments that secure the ownership
and tenure of the farmers to the land are the
following
 Emancipation Patents of PD27
 Certificate of Land Ownership or CLOA
 Other applicable laws
Grounds for Cancellation of CLOA
Certificates of Land Ownership Award may be
cancelled on the following grounds:
 Abandonment of the land;
 Neglect or misuse of land;
 Failure to pay three annual amortizations
 Misuse or diversion of financial and support
services
 Sale, transfer, or conveyance of the right to
use the land; and
 Illegal conversion of the land
P. Support Services
Section 36 – Funding for Support Services
25% of all appropriations for agrarian reform
shall cover the expenses and cost of support
services. These support services that are to be
the recipient of this fund will are all provided in
Section 35 of RA 6657.
This section was amended by Section 2 of RA
7905. The definition of an Agrarian Reform
Community was added to RA 6657.
Agrarian Reform Community – a barangay or
cluster of barangays primarily composed and
managed by agrarian reform beneficiaries who
shall be willing to be organized and undertake
the integrated development of an area and their
cooperative.
This section was further amended by Section 13
of RA 9700, raising the percentage of the fund
set aside for the expenses and cost of support
services to 40% of all appropriations for agrarian
reform. The amendment also stated that a
minimum of two Agrarian Reform Communities
would now be established, instead of a minimum
of one.
The Department of Agrarian Reform was also
tasked to form an integrated plan about how to
deliver the support services hand-in-hand with
the land acquisition and distribution.
Section 37 – Support Services to Beneficiaries
The goal of this section is to provide agrarian
reform beneficiaries an easy access to loans and
grants that will serve as their capital for their
farming business. These beneficiaries will need
financial assistance in order to improve the
farmlands.
This section provided for the support services
that these beneficiaries should receive. They are:
 Land surveys and titling
 Liberalized terms on credit facilities and
production loans
 Extension services by way of planting,
cropping production and post-harvest
technology transfer, as well as
marketing and management assistance
and support to cooperatives and farmers’
organizations
 Infrastructure such as access trails, mini-
dams, public utilities, marketing and
storage facilities
 Research, production and use of organic
fertilizers and other local substances
necessary in farming and cultivation
 Direct and active Department of
Agrarian Reform assistance in the
education and organization of actual and
potential agrarian reform beneficiaries
The Department of Agrarian Reform, the
Department of Finance, and the Bangko Sentral
ng Pilipinas were tasked to initiate reforms in
order to give these beneficiaries easy access to
credit that will serve as their capital.
Section 14 of RA 9700 provided a more definite
breakdown of how the fund for support services
to these beneficiaries should be spent. 30% of all
appropriations for support services shall be for
the beneficiaries and one-third of which shall be
for their initial capitalization and the other two-
thirds shall be allocated to give them access to
socialized credit. The 15% will be earmarked for
farm inputs such as seeds, seedlings and/or
planting materials, organic fertilizers, pesticides,
herbicides, farm animals, and
implements/machineries. The other 5% will be
for seminars, trainings and the like to help
empower agrarian reform beneficiaries.
Section 15 of RA 9700 added Section 37-A
which provides for equal support services for
rural women. The priority of this provision is to
ensure that all qualified women members of the
agricultural labor force are guaranteed and
assured of the following:
 Equal right to ownership of the land
 Equal shares of the farm’s produce
 Representation in advisory or
appropriate decision-making bodies
These women may not participate in the
cultivation of the land directly. Their
participation may be in the form of taking care
of the household or cooking food for the
laborers.
Section 38 – Support Services for the
Landowners
This section provides for the support services
that are to be given to the landowners and are:
 Investment information, financial and
counseling assistance, particularly
investment information on government-
owned and/or controlled corporations
and disposable assets of the government
in pursuit of national industrialization
and economic independence
 Facilities, programs and schemes for the
conversion or exchange of bonds issued
for payment of the lands acquired with
stocks and bonds issued by the National
Government, the BSP and other
government institutions and
instrumentalities
 Marketing of agrarian reform bonds, as
well as promoting the marketability of
said bonds in traditional and non-
traditional financial markets and stock
exchanges
  Other services designed to utilize
productively the proceeds of the sale of
such lands for rural industrialization
This section is focused on assisting the
landowners about their investments in rural-
based industries. The Land Bank of the
Philippines is tasked to provide investment
options that come with incentives to these
landowners.
Section 39 – Land Consolidation
Land consolidation is necessary in order to
promote equal distribution of landholdings, to
provide the needed infrastructures in agriculture,
and to conserve soil fertility and prevent erosion.
This section also aims to reduce the costs for
support services by strategically rearranging
fragmented farmlands.
Q. Prohibited Acts and Omissions
Section 73 – Prohibited Acts and Omissions
 Unjustified, willful, and malicious act
by a responsible officer or officers of the
government through the following:
o Denial of notice and/or reply to
landowners
o Deprivation of retention rights
o Undue or inordinate delay in the
preparation of claim folders
o Any undue delay, refusal or
failure in the payment of just
compensation
 Undue delay or unjustified failure of the
DAR, LBP, PARC, PARCCOM, and
any concerned government agency,
official, or employee involving the
implementation of this act
 Undue delay in the compliance with
Section 7 of RA 6657
Section 73-A provides for the exception that the
sale or transfer of a mortgaged agricultural land
as a result of a bank’s foreclosure is not a
criminal violation of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.

The Criminal Violations against RA 6657 are:

 Ownership or possession of agricultural

lands in excess of the total retention
limits or award ceilings
 Forcible entry or illegal detainer
 Conversion of agricultural land into any
non-agricultural use
 Willful prevention or obstruction of the
implementation of CARP
 Sale, transfer, or conveyance of the
nature of lands outside of urban centers
and city limits after the effectivity of
this Act
 Sale, transfer, or conveyance by a
beneficiary of the right to use or any
other usufructuary right
ADDITIONAL NOTES: performance of the beneficiaries to the
PARC.
CHAPTER VII If, due to the landowner's retention rights or
Land Redistribution to the number of tenants, lessees, or
SECTION 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. — workers on the land, there is not enough
The lands covered by the CARP shall be land to accommodate any or some of them,
distributed as much as possible to landless they may be granted ownership of other
residents of the same barangay, or in the lands available for distribution under this
absence thereof, landless residents of the Act, at the option of the beneficiaries.
same municipality in the following order of Farmers already in place and those not
priority: accommodated in the distribution of
(a) agricultural lessees and share privately-owned lands will be given
tenants; preferential rights in the distribution of lands
from the public domain.
(b) regular farmworkers;
(c) seasonal farmworkers;
WHO ARE ELIGIBLE TO BECOME
(d) other farmworkers; AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES?
(e) actual tillers or occupants of • Must be a landless resident of the
public lands; same barangay, or same
municipality
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the
above beneficiaries; and LANDLESS RESIDENT
(g) others directly working on the • Refers to a Farmer or tiller who
land. owns less than 3 hectares of land
Provided, however, that the children of 1. agricultural lessees and
landowners who are qualified under Section share tenants
6 of this Act shall be given preference in the 2. regular farmworkers
distribution of the land of their parents: and 3. seasonal farm workers
provided, further, that actual tenant-tillers in 4. other farm workers
the landholdings shall not be ejected or 5. actual tillers or occupants of
removed therefrom. public lands
6. collectives or cooperatives of
Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No.
above beneficiaries
27 who have culpably sold, disposed of, or
7. others directly working on the
abandoned their land are disqualified to
land
become beneficiaries under this Program.
A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be
his willingness, aptitude, and ability to
cultivate and make the land as productive QUALIFICATIONS OF AN AGRARIAN
as possible. The DAR shall adopt a system REFORM BENEFICIARY
of monitoring the record or performance of
each beneficiary, so that any beneficiary • Farmer (whether tenant, lessee or
guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or worker) must be
any support extended to him shall forfeit his 1. Owns less than 3 hectares of
right to continue as such beneficiary. The land
DAR shall submit periodic reports on the 2. Filipino citizen
 3. Resident of barangay where
landholding is located (or
municipality if there are no
sufficient number of qualified
Agrarian Reform
Beneficiaries in the barangay
4. At least 15 years old at time
of identification, screening
and selection of farmer-
beneficiaries
5. Willing, able and equipped
with aptitude to cultivate and
make land productive
SPECIAL QUALIFICATIONS FOR FARM
WORKERS IN COMMERCIAL FARMS OR
PLANTATIONS
• if they were already employed as of
June 15, 1988 in the landholding
covered by the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Law OF 1988, then
they can qualify as an agrarian
reform beneficiary
MANAGERIAL FARM WORKERS NOT
QUALIFIED TO BECOME BENEFICIARIES
• General Rule: farm workers holding
managerial or supervisory positions
as of June 15, 1988 are not qualified
to become an agrarian reform
beneficiary
• EXCEPTION: farm workers
promoted to managerial or
supervisory position after they were
identified, screened and selected will
remain to be qualified beneficiaries
WHO ARE DISQUALIFIED TO BECOME
AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES
• The following tenants, lessees or
farm workers:
1. Those who do not meet the
basic qualifications
2. Those who have waived their
right to become an agrarian
reform beneficiary in
exchange for compensation,
provided that waiver has not
been questioned in proper
government entity
3. Those who have not paid an
aggregate of 3 annual
amortizations
4. Those who have failed to
exercise right of
redemption/repurchase
within 2 years resulting in
foreclosure of mortgage by
Land Bank of the Philippines
of a previously awarded land
5. Those who refused to pay 3
annual amortizations for land
acquired through voluntary
land transfer or direct
payment scheme, resulting in
repossession by landowner
6. Those who have been
dismissed for cause
7. those who have retired or
voluntarily resigned from
employment
8. those who have misused the
land or diverted the financial
support services extended by
the government
9. those who have
misrepresented material
facts in basic qualifications
10. those who have sold,
disposed, or abandoned the
lands awarded to them by
the government
11. those who have converted
agricultural lands to non
agricultural use without prior
approval from DAR
12. those who have been finally
adjudged guilty of forcible
entry or unlawful detainer
over the property
13. those who have violated
agrarian reform laws and
regulations
14. Landowners and their
children, in connection with
foreclosed landholdings
15. Landowners who have
voluntarily offered their
landholdings for coverage
 under the Comprehensive award ceiling for each agricultural
Agrarian Reform Programs, lessee, tenant, or regular
in connection with other farmworker, then the landholding
landholdings shall be divided equally among them
• If the area of a particular landholding
is inadequate to provide each
SECTION 22-A. Order of Priority. - A landholding of aagricultural
landownerlessee,
shall be distributed
tenant, first to qualified
or regular
beneficiaries under Section 22, subparagraphs (a) and (b) of that same landholding
farmworker with land more than up to a maximum of three
(3) hectares each. Only when these beneficiaries have1,000 all received three (3) hectares
sq.m, said lessee, tenant, or each, shall the
remaining portion of the landholding, if any, be distributed to other beneficiaries
regular farmworker shall be under Section 22,
subparagraphs (c), (d), (e), (f), and (g). (as added by Section 8, RA 9700)
awarded 1,000 sq.m of land taking
ORDER OF DISTRIBUTION into account length of lease or
1. Children of landowner enjoy first service as the case may be.
preference in distribution of • Should an area of less than 1,000
landholding. Each child is entitled to sq.m. be left in the course of the
3 hectares if: award, this remaining area shall
• Filipino Citizen then be distributed equally among
• 15 years old these beneficiaries who had
• actually tilling the land or received 1,000 sq.m.
directly managing the farm • Other qualified beneficiaries who are
2. After the children, 3 hectares each is displaced after distribution of all
given to: available land to agricultural lessee,
• Agricultural lessees and tenant, or regular farmworker, may
share tenants still qualify as beneficiaries in other
• Regular farm workers lands covered under the CARP.
3. remaining portion • if landholding is more than enough
• seasonal farm workers to accommodate 3 hectare limit for
• other farm workers each agricultural lessee or tenant,
• actual tillers or occupants of excess will be distributed to agrarian
public lands reform beneficiaries in the following
• collectives or cooperatives of order of priority:
above beneficiaries • seasonal farm workers
• others directly working on the • other farm workers
land • actual tillers or occupants of
public lands
• collectives or cooperatives of
SECTION 23. Distribution Limit. — No above beneficiaries
qualified beneficiary may own more than • Others directly working on
three (3) hectares of agricultural land. the land
• Excess areas after the allocation
MAXIMUM AREA THAT CAN BE OWNED
mentioned earlier, these shall be
BY OR AWARDED TO BENEFICIARIES
awarded to collectives or
• 3 hectares cooperatives of above beneficiaries
• Therefore, if a tenant or farm worker (tenants of areas should be given
already owns 2 hectares, he can still reasonable time to harvest produce
be awarded 1 hectare of their crop subject to the rules on
EQUITTABLE ALLOCATION (pursuant to standing crops)
order of distribution) • if beneficiaries opt for collective
ownership, such farmers
• if particular landholding is not cooperative, total area must coincide
enough to meet then 3 hectare
 with total number of members or co ben
owners multiplied by 3 hectare limit Act
usu
FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN soo
DETERMINING THE SIZE OF LAND TO and
BE AWARDED pen
or t
1. type of crop
2. type of soil All
3. weather patterns em
4. other pertinent factors critical for ow
success of beneficiaries any
exc
Sec
SECTION 24. Award to Beneficiaries. —
RA
The rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall The rights and responsibilities of the beneficiaries
commence from the time the DAR makes an award of shall commence from their receipt of a duly
the land to him, which award shall be completed registered emancipation patent or certificate of
within one hundred eighty (180) days from the time land ownership award and their actual physical
the DAR takes actual possession of the land. TRANSFER
possession OF OWNERSHIP
of the awarded TO THEland. Such award
BENEFICIARIES NOT AUTOMATIC
Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a shall be completed in not more than one hundred
Certificate of Land Ownership Award, which shall •eighty (180) days
Compulsory from the
acquisition doesdate
notof registration of
contain the restrictions and conditions provided for in themean title automatic
in the name of
transfer of the Republic of the
this Act, and shall be recorded in the Register of Philippines: Provided,
ownership of land to the tenant, That the emancipation
Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of patents, lesseethe certificates of land ownership award,
or farmworker
Title. and other titles
• title and ownership issued overunder any be
land can agrarian reform
program
transferred to beneficiaries only imprescriptible
shall be indefeasible and
after
upon onefull(1) year from
payment of justits registration with the
Office of the Registry
compensation to land owner of Deeds, subject to the
conditions, limitations and qualifications of this
Act, the property registration decree, and other
WHEN DOES DAR
pertinent laws.ISSUE CERTIFICATE patents or the
The emancipation
OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD
certificates of land ownership award being titles
brought under the operation of the Torrens
• DAR will issue CLOA only upon full
system, are conferred with the same
payment of amortization by farmer
indefeasibility and security afforded to all titles
beneficiary
under the said system, as provided for by
• CLOA becomes basis for issuance
Presidential Decree No. 1529, as amended by
in his name of original or transfer
Republic Act No. 6732.
certificate of title
It is the ministerial duty of the Registry of Deeds
to register theOF
INDEFEASIBILITY title of the land in the name of the
CLOA
Republic of the Philippines, after the Land Bank
•of CLOA
the Philippines (LBP) hasand
becomes indefeasible certified that the
necessary deposit in the
imprescriptible after one year fromname of the landowner
constituting
its registrationfull payment
with the in cashofor in bond with
Office
duethenotice
Registryto the landowner and the registration
of Deeds
of the •certificate
subject to ofconditions,
land ownership award issued
to the beneficiaries,
limitations and and to cancel previous titles
qualifications
pertainingunder thereto.
CARL, Property
Identified and qualified agrarian reform
 Registration Decree and
other laws
CANCELLATION OF CLOA
• all cases for cancellation of CLOAs
and other titles issued under
agrarian reform program are within
the exclusive and original
jurisdiction of Secretary of DAR
GROUNDS FOR CANCELLATION OF
CLOA
1. Abandonment of land
2. Neglect or misuse of land
3. Failure to pay 3 annual
amortizations
4. Misuse or diversion of financial and
support services
5. Sale, transfer or conveyance of right
to use the land
6. Illegal conversion of land
WHEN THE RIGHTS AND OBLIGTIONS
OF BENEFICIARIES COMMENCE
• from receipt of duly registered CLOA
and actual physical possession of
awarded land
• pending issuance of CLOA, the
identified and qualified agrarian
reform beneficiaries have
usufructuary rights over awarded
land which DAR has taken
possession
CRIMINAL VIOLATION
• CARL prohibits:
• Sell, transfer or convey his
right to use or any other
usufructuary right over the
land he acquired by virtue of
being a beneficiary if done to
circumvent the law
OBLIGATIONS OF AGRARIAN REFORM
BENEFICIARIES
1. Exercise due diligence in the use,
cultivation and maintenance of land,
including improvements thereon
2. Pay land bank 30 annual
amortizations with 6% interest per
anum
3. Pay the real property taxes due on
their awarded lands
• amortization will start 1 year
from date of registration of
CLOA
• however, if actual occupancy
of land takes place after
registration of CLOA, 1 year
period shall be reckoned
from actual occupation of
land by beneficiary
CASES
Mago et al. v. Barbin
GR 173923 October 12, 2009
Doctrine: The mere issuance of an
emancipation patent does not put the
ownership of the agrarian reform beneficiary
beyond attack and scrutiny.
Facts:
Barbin filed an action with PARAD
Camarines Norte an action for cancellation
of emancipation patents, disqualification of
tenant-beneficiary relationship,
repossession of property, and damages.
Barbin alleges fee simple ownership (Fee
Simple is absolute ownership) of an
approximately 5-hectare area of land. (Note:
This land was placed under the Operational
Land Transfer Program pursuant to PD 27)
Petitioners are her tenants, and Barbin
alleges that the former failed to pay their
lease rentals for more than 2 years, which is
a ground for dispossession of the lots.
The petitioners prior to this however,
entered into a direct payment scheme with
Barbin as annotated in the deeds of
transfer. The petitioners claimed
indefeasibility of their title since their
emancipation patents were already
registered with the Registry of Deeds and
that they have made the said payments.
The PARAD denied Barbin’s action
since the PARAD considered that Barbin
had more land, although those lands were
coconut lands. On appeal to the DARAB,
the same was affirmed, in addition to that,
the DARAB ordered the cancellation of the
registered emancipation patents of the other
petitioners aside from Mago due to default
of payment. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issue/s:
W/N the Emancipation Patents and
Transfer Certificates of Title issued to
petitioners which were already registered
with the Register of Deeds have already
become indefeasible and can no longer be
cancelled.
Ruling:
No. The mere issuance of an
emancipation patent does not put the
ownership of the agrarian reform beneficiary
beyond attack and scrutiny. These patents
may be corrected and cancelled for
violations of agrarian laws, rules, and
regulations. Under the OLT program, the
tenant-beneficiary relationship ceased, and
the payment of rentals were no longer
necessary. But since the petitioners
themselves entered into a direct payment
scheme, they are obligated to pay Barbin
the lease rentals. Failure to pay is a ground
for cancellation of the patent under AO-2
1994.
Padua v. CA
GR 153456 March 2, 2007
Doctrine: DAR is empowered to issue,
recall, or even cancel a Conditional Land
Transfer, CARP Beneficiary Certificate,
Emancipation Patent, or Certificate of Land
Ownership Award issued to a potential
farmer-beneficiary but not yet registered
with the Register of Deeds.
Facts:
Private respondents de la Cruz et al
in this case were the tenants of lots that
were donated to the municipality of Anao,
Tarlac with the condition that the lots would
be used as school sites. The projects never
came into fruition and so de la Cruz et al
sought to have the properties returned to
them. The mayor however has distributed
the lots, each with a certificate of land
transfer. De la Cruz filed a petition for
cancellation of the CLT’s. Litigation
followed, but eventually, the Mayor waived
his interest. The DAR secretary then
awarded the land to Padua who has been
occupying and paying amortizations on the
land to the Landbank of the Philippines.
De la Cruz filed a letter with the DAR
secretary for the cancellation of the DAR
award. This was granted, directing the
regional officer to restore possession to de
la Cruz. The Court of Appeals affirmed the
decision.
Issue/s:
W/N the DAR has jurisdiction in
hearing the land dispute issue
Ruling:
Yes. Padua cannot claim the title as
he is yet paying the amortizations, his status
thus remains as a potential farmer-
beneficiary whose eligibilities the DAR may
either confirm or deny. The DAR is
empowered to issue, recall, or even cancel
a Conditional Land Transfer, CARP
Beneficiary Certificate, Emancipation
Patent, or Certificate of Land Ownership
Award issued to a potential farmer-
beneficiary but not yet registered with the
Register of Deeds.
Pasco v. Pison-Arceo Agricultural and
Development Corp.
GR 165501 March 28, 2006
Doctrine: What the CARP provided the
petitioners was the status of being a
potential CARP beneficiary, there was no
award yet vested to them, this is a the land where he is identified as such, by
requirement under Sec 24 of RA 6657, the landowner, who has already been
absent this, they are mere potential notified by the DAR of the coverage of his
beneficiaries, they have no any better right land by the CARP of the government. What
to the land than the other potential the CARP provided the petitioners was the
beneficiaries. status of being a potential CARP
beneficiary, there was no award yet vested
Facts: to them, this is a requirement under Sec 24
The respondent corporation is the of RA 6657, absent this, they are mere
registered owner of a parcel of land potential beneficiaries, they have no any
containing more than 100 hectares. On the better right to the land than the other
respondent’s land stands the houses potential beneficiaries.
occupied by its workers. Petitioners used to
work for the respondent until 1987, and after
the cessation of their employment they were SECTION 25. Award Ceilings for
asked to vacate. Their refusal triggered a Beneficiaries. —
complaint for unlawful detainer against
them. Beneficiaries shall be awarded an area not exceeding Ben
three (3) hectares which may cover a contiguous tract thre
The petitioners claimed that the of land or several parcels of land cumulated up to the trac
corporation built the houses for the workers prescribed award limits. to t
and that after a typhoon destroyed the the
houses, the petitioners rebuilt them, and cro
since the demand was for them to vacate, it per
was unjustified since they paid rentals crit
through salary/wage reductions. The MTCC
ruled in favor of the respondents. After this For purposes of this Act, a landless beneficiary is one For
decision, the MARO of Talisay advised who owns less than three (3) hectares of agricultural who
respondent that its land is now covered by land. lan
the CARP, regardless of this, the appeal The beneficiaries may opt for collective ownership, Wh
taken by the petitioners to the RTC, even such as co-ownership or farmers cooperative or some agr
considering the subsequent turn of events other form of collective organization: provided, that coo
still led to the RTC affirming the MTCC the total area that may be awarded shall not exceed coo
ruling. On appeal to the CA, the petitioners the total number of co-owners or members of the loca
attached a certification that they are cooperative or collective organization multiplied by ben
potential CARP beneficiaries. The CA still the award limit above prescribed, except in join
affirmed the RTC decision. meritorious cases as determined by the PARC. Title incl
to the property shall be issued in the name of the co- agr
Issue/s: owners or the cooperative or collective organization cor
W/N one who has been identified by as the case may be. boa
the DAR as potential agrarian reform pro
beneficiary may be ejected from the land
where he is identified as such, by the In g
landowner, who has already been notified sho
by the DAR of the coverage of his land by one
the CARP of the government cum

Ruling:
NO. The one who has been The
identified by the DAR as potential agrarian suc
reform beneficiary may not be ejected from oth
 issuance of collective ownership titles: Provided, That und
the total area that may be awarded shall not exceed own
the total number of co-owners or members of the the
cooperative or collective organization multiplied by abo
the award limit above prescribed, except red in
meritorious cases as determined by the PARC. lan
prio
The conditions for the issuance of collective titles are to
as follows: imm
(a) The current farm management system exc of
the land covered by CARP will not be exis
appropriate for individual farming of farm coll
parcels; ma
byS
(b) The farm labor system is specialized,
where the farmworkers are organized by
functions and not by specific parcels such as
spraying, weeding, packing and other similar
INDIVIDUALfunctions;
TITLES FOR EVERY
BENEFICIARY
(c) The potential beneficiaries are currently
• General not farming
Rule: Landindividual
shouldparcels
be but collectively
workto
awarded onindividual
large contiguous
farmer areas; and
beneficiary and covered by an
(d) The farm consists of multiple crops being
individual title
farmed in an integrated manner or includes
• Exception:
non-crop production areas that are necessary
for the viability of farm operations, such as
•packing
if beneficiaries opt for areas, dikes, and
plants, storage
collective ownership,
other similar facilities that cannot be
collectiveorownership
subdivided assigned to titleindividual
may farmers.
be issued in name of co-
For idle andowners abandoned
or collective lands or underdeveloped
agriculturalorganization
lands to be covered by CARP, collective
ownership shall be allowed only if the beneficiaries
opt for it and  names
there is a of clear development plan that
beneficiaries
would require collective farming should or integrated farm
be listed in same
operations exhibiting the conditions described above.
Otherwise, the land certificate
awarded of land
to a farmer-beneficiary
should be in the form of anaward
ownership individual title, covering
one (1) contiguous tract or several parcels of land
cumulated up to a maximum of three (3) hectares.
CONDITIONS FOR ISSUANCE OF
In case ofTITLES
COLLECTIVE collective ownership, title to the property
shall be issued in the name of the co-owners or the
1. Farm management
cooperative or collectivesystem of land
organization as the case
covered is not appropriate for
may be. If the certificates of land ownership award
areindividual
given tofarming
cooperatives then the names of the
2. farm labor ismust
beneficiaries specialized
also be listed in the same
• of
certificate i.e., where
land the farmworkers
ownership award.
are organized by functions
With regard andtonotexisting collective
by specific parcels certificates of land
ownershipsuch award, the DAR
as spraying, should immediately
weeding,
 packing and other similar may be foreclosed by the LBP for non-payment of an lan
functions aggregate of three (3) annual amortizations. The LBP ma
3. beneficiaries are currently not shall advise the DAR of such proceedings and the agg
farming individual parcels but latter shall subsequently award the forfeited sha
collectively work on large contiguous landholdings to other qualified beneficiaries. A latt
areas beneficiary whose land, as provided herein, has been lan
4. Farm consists of multiple crops foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently ben
being farmed in an integrated disqualified from becoming a beneficiary under this fore
manner or includes non- crop Act. disq
production areas that are necessary Act
for viability of farm operations
• ex. packing plants, storage
areas, dikes and other similar SCHEDULE OF PAYMENT
facilities that cannot be
subdivided or assigned to • Cost of awarded land is payable to
individual farmers Land Bank by beneficiaries in 30
TITLES MUST INDICATE THAT IT IS AN annual amortizations with 6%
EMANCIPATION PATENT OR CLOA interest per annum
• payment starts 1 year from
• applies to both title of land awarded 1. date of registration of CLOA
and any subsequent transfer title or
2. date of actual occupancy
• if occupancy took
SECTION 26. Payment by place after
Beneficiaries. — registration of CLOA
Lands awarded pursuant to this Act shall be paid for Lands awarded pursuant to this Act shall be paid for
by the beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual by OF
BASIS the AMORTIZATION
beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual
amortizations at six percent (6%) interest per annum. amortizations at six percent (6%) interest per
The payments for the first three (3) years after the •annum.The
maximumannual amortization is 5% of shall start one (1)
amortization
award may be at reduced amounts as established by year from the date of as
annual gross production the certificate of land
established
the PARC: provided, that the first five (5) annual ownership by DAR
award registration. However, if the
payments may not be more than five percent (5%) of •occupancy
After 5th year,
took interest
place afterrate and/or
the certificate of land
the value of the annual gross production as ownership principal obligation may be reduced
award registration, the amortization
established by the DAR. Should the scheduled shall by Land Bank one
start to make(1) repayment
year from actual
annual payments after the fifth year exceed ten occupancy.affordable The payments for the first three (3)
• ifthe
percent (10%) of the annual gross production and the years after dueaward
to failure
shallofbe production,
at reduced amounts as
scheduled
failure to produce accordingly is not due to the established by the PARC: Provided, annual payments That the first five
exceed 10% of annual
beneficiary's fault, the LBP may reduce the interest (5) annual payments may not be more than five gross
rate or reduce the principal obligations to make the percent (5%) production
of the value of the annual gross
repayment affordable. •
productionfailure to produce by
as established is not
thedueDAR. Should the
to beneficiaries fault
scheduled annual payments after the fifth (5th) year
exceed ten percent (10%) of the annual gross
production
EFFECT OF FAILUREand theTO failure
PAY to THE produce accordingly is
not due to the
ANNUAL AMORTIZATIONS beneficiary's fault, the LBP shall reduce
the interest rate and/or reduce the principal obligation
•to Land
makeBank the can forfeit landholding
repayment affordable. (As amended
by and award
Section 11,it RA
to other
9700) qualified
beneficiaries
The LBP shall have a lien by way of mortgage on the • The beneficiary whose land has
land awarded to the beneficiary; and this mortgage Thebeen LBPforeclosed
shall haveora forfeited
lien by way will of
bemortgage on the
 permanently disqualified from SALE OR TRANSFER OF AWARDED
becoming a beneficiary LANDS PROHIBITED
• General Rule: Beneficiaries cannot,
SECTION 27. Transferability of Awarded within a period of 10 years, sell or
Lands. — transfer ownership of the land
awarded to the
Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act or
not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through • other Exceptions
agrarian reform laws shall not be sold,
hereditary succession, or to the government, or the transferred or conveyed except through hereditary
1. Through hereditary
LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or
successions
ten (10) years: provided, however, that the children or to other qualified beneficiaries through the DAR for a
2. To the Government
the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to period of ten (10) years: Provided, however, That the
3. To the Land Bank of the
repurchase the land from the government or LBP children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a
Philippines
within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of the right to repurchase the land from the government or
4. To other qualified
availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to the LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of
beneficiaries
Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) of the the availability of the land shall be given by the LBP
barangay where the land is situated. The Provincial to the BARC of the barangay where the land is
Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee situated. The
HEREDITARY PARCCOM, as herein provided, shall,
SUCCESSION
(PARCCOM) as herein provided, shall, in turn, be in turn, be given due notice thereof by the BARC.
given due notice thereof by the BARC. • Succession by intestate succession
Theor title oftothe
by will theland awarded
compulsory under the agrarian
heirs
reform must indicate that it is an emancipation
patent• orDoe not
a certificate pertain
of to
land ownership award
succession to other persons
and the subsequent transfer title must also
indicate• that it is an stems
RATIONALE: emancipation
from the patent or a
certificatepolicy
of landofownership
governmentawardto
develop generations of
farmers to attain its avowed
goal to have an adequate
and sustained agricultural
If the land has not yet been fully paid by the
If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary, production with certitude-
the rights to the land may be transferred
beneficiary, the rights to the land may be transferred or conveyed, such will not see the light of
with prior approval of the DAR, to any
or conveyed, with prior approval of the DAR, to any heir of the day if lands covered by
beneficiary or to any other beneficiary
heir of the beneficiary or to any other beneficiary who, who, as aagrarian reform can easily be
condition for such transfer or conveyance,
converted
as a condition for such transfer or conveyance, shall shall cultivate the to nonagricultural
landhimself/herself. Failing
purposes
cultivate the land himself. Failing compliance compliance herewith, the land shall be transferred to
herewith, the land shall be transferred to the LBP the LBP which shall give due notice of the availability
which shall give due notice of the availability of the of the land in the manner specified in the
land in the manner specified in the immediately EFFECT OF SALE
immediately OR TRANSFER
preceding paragraph. TO
preceding paragraph. THE GOVERNMENT OR LAND BANK
In the event of such transfer to the LBP, the latter
• shall
Thecompensate
children or thethebeneficiary
spouse of inthe one lump sum
In the event of such transfer to the LBP, the latter fortransferor can repurchase the land
the amounts the latter has already paid, together
shall compensate the beneficiary in one lump sum for with within two of
the value years from the date
improvements of has made on
he/she
the amounts the latter has already paid, together with thetransfer
land. (as amended by Section 12, RA 9700)
the value of improvements he has made on the land.
SALE OF LAND THAT HAS NOT BEEN
FULLY PAID
• If land has not yet been fully paid by
the beneficiary, he may sell, transfer,
 or convey his rights under the
following conditions:
1. Approval of DAR must first
be obtained
2. Land should be sold only to
an heir of the beneficiary or
any other qualified
beneficiary
3. The transferee must
undertake to cultivate the
land himself, otherwise, the
Land Bank will take the land
for proper disposition
• If the sale, transfer or conveyance of
rights complies with the conditions
above, the Land Bank will
compensate the beneficiary in one
lump sum for the amounts he has
already paid, together with the value
of improvements made on the land
LEASE BY BENEFICIARY TO ANOTHER
PERSON
• LAW- prohibits the transfer of
ownership, not transfer of
possession
• Beneficiary can lease the land to
another person, provided that the
lease is also for agricultural
purposes
• If nonagricultural purpose- seek
first the approval of DAR
LEASE BY BENEFICIARY TO FORMER
LANDOWNER
• Beneficiary can lease the land to its
former owner provided that the
beneficiary obtains approval from
DAR through the Provincial Agrarian
Reform Coordinating Committee
CASES
Estrinillo et al v. DAR
GR 159674 June 30, 2006
Doctrine: Certificates of Title issued in
administrative proceedings are as
indefeasible as certificates issued in judicial
proceedings.
Facts:
The petitioners are recipients of an
emancipation patent over forested lands
denuded by the operations of the Hacienda
Maria Inc. PD27 brought the lands under
the coverage of operation land transfer. HMI
requested that approximately 527 hectares
be placed under the coverage and to
receive compensation from the petitioners
and occupants. HMI participated in all
proceedings until it ended in 1977 with HMI
executing a deed of assignment of rights in
favor of the petitioners.
In 1997, HMI filed a petition with
RARAD seeking the declaration of
erroneous coverage of approximately 277
hectares of its former landholding claiming
that the lands were not dedicated to rice
and corn. Although the remainder of the
lands also claimed to not be dedicated to
rice and corn went unquestioned. The
RARAD cancelled petitioners’ TCTs and
EPs. The DARAB affirmed, and so did the
CA.
Issue/s:
W/N Certificates of Title issued in
pursuant to Emancipation Patents are as
indefeasible as TCTs issued in registration
proceedings
Ruling:
Yes. Certificates of Title issued in
administrative proceedings are as
indefeasible as certificates issued in judicial
proceedings. The date of the issuance
corresponds to the issuance of the decree
in ordinary registration cases because the
decree finally awards the land applied for to
the party entitled to it. After compliance with
the procedure and registration of the
patents, they become as indefeasible as if Issue/s:
they are ordinarily registered TCTs.
W/N a subsequent affidavit revoke
the first affidavit that voluntarily surrenders a
lot for land acquisition under the CARP
Estate of vda de Panlilio v. Dizon
GR 148777 October 18, 2007
Ruling:
The second affidavit was
Doctrine: the two (2) provisions can be nonexistent. If it were, then it should have
made compatible by maintaining the rule in been brought to the attention of the DAR to
PD 27 that lands acquired under said protect the landholdings and the rights of
decree can only be transferred to the heirs the lessor. Furthermore, the authentic
of the original beneficiary or to the January 1977 affidavit effectively placed the
Government. Second, PD 27 is the specific entire parcel under PD 27 coverage; it
law on agrarian reform while EO 228 was becomes inconsequential whatever crops
issued principally to implement PD 27. This are planted on the land.
can easily be inferred from EO 228 which
provided for the mode of valuation of lands
subject of PD 27 and the manner of
payment by the farmer-beneficiary and
mode of compensation to the land owner
Facts:
Encarnacio vda. De Panlilio was the
owner of a land with an area of
approximately 115 hectares. . Panlilio
entered into a lease with the wife of her
nephew, this contract was renewed twice.
When PD27 took effect, the DAR issued
CLTs to Panlilio’s tenants. This land
primarily plants sugar, Panlilio issued an
affidavit in January 1977 that allows the
entire land to be covered under PD 27 and
honoring the wishes of the tenants to
convert the crops to palay. Panlilio died in
1986. The EPs were issued to the tenants in
1993. In 1994, Lizares, the administrator of
the estate, filed an action against the
tenants before the PARAD. The PARAD
denied the petition stating that the lands
were placed under the coverage of PD 27
due to the January 1977 affidavit. And that
the February 1977 affidavit of hers, which
would have revoked the earlier affidavit,
was not brought to the attention of the DAR
and CAR.
The CA reversed the decision. A
motion for reconsideration was filed, the
decision was reversed by the CA.