DOJ OPINION NO. 044, s.
1990 said department's express duty and function to execute and enforce the said statute that any
March 16, 1990
Secretary Florencio Abad
Department of Agrarian Reform
Diliman, Quezon City
S i r:
This refers to your letter of the 13th instant stating your "position that prior to the passage of R.A. 6657, the
Department of Agrarian Reform had the authority to classify and declare which agricultural lands are suitable for
non-agricultural purposes, and to approve or disapprove applications for conversion from agricultural to non-
agricultural uses."
In support of the foregoing view, you contend that under R.A. No. 3844, as amended, the Department of
Agrarian Reform (DAR) is empowered to "determine and declare an agricultural land to be suited for residential,
commercial, industrial or some other urban purpose" and to "convert agricultural land from agricultural to non-
agricultural purposes"; that P.D. No. 583, as amended by P.D. No. 815 "affirms that the conversion of agricultural
lands shall be allowed only upon previous authorization of the [DAR]; with respect to tenanted rice and corn
lands"; that a Memorandum of Agreement dated May 13, 1977 between the DAR, the Department of Local
Government and Community Development and the then Human Settlements Commission "further affirms the
authority of the [DAR] to allow or disallow conversion of agricultural lands"; that E.O. No. 129-A expressly invests
the DAR with exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversion of agricultural lands for residential,
commercial, industrial and other land uses'; and that while in the final version of House Bill 400, Section 9 thereof
provided that lands devoted to "residential, housing, commercial and industrial sites classified as such by the
municipal and city development councils as already approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, in
their respective zoning development plans" be exempted from the coverage of the Agrarian Reform program, this
clause was deleted from Section 10 of the final version of the consolidated bill stating the exemptions from the
coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
We take it that your query has been prompted by the study previously made by this Department for Executive
Secretary Catalino Macaraig Jr. and Secretary Vicente Jayme (Memorandum dated February 14, 1990) which
upheld the authority of the DAR to authorize conversions of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses as of June
15, 1988, the date of effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657). it is your position that
the authority of DAR to authorize such conversion existed even prior to June 15, 1988 or as early as 1963 under
the Agricultural Land Reform Code (R.A. No. 3844; as amended).
It should be made clear at the outset that the aforementioned study of this Department was based on facts
and issues arising from the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). While there
is no specific and express authority given to DAR in the CARP law to approve or disapprove conversion of
agricultural lands to non- agricultural uses, because Section 65 only refers to conversions effected after five years
from date of the award, we opined that the authority of the DAR to approve or disapprove conversions of
agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses applies only to conversions made on or after June 15, 1988, the date of
effectivity of R.A. No. 6657, solely on the basis of our interpretation of DAR's mandate and the comprehensive
coverage of the land reform program. Thus, we said:
"Being vested with exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of
agrarian reform, it is believed to be the agrarian reform law's intention that any conversion of a private
agricultural land to non- agricultural uses should be cleared beforehand by the DAR. True, the DAR's
express power over land use conversion is limited to cases in which agricultural lands already awarded
have, after five years, ceased to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the
locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential,
commercial or industrial purposes. But to suggest that these are the only instances when the DAR can
require conversion clearances would open a loophole in the R.A. No. 6657, which every landowner may
use to evade compliance with the agrarian reform program. Hence, it should logically follow from the
reclassification of a private land as a residential, commercial or industrial property should first be cleared
by the DAR."
It is conceded that under the laws in force prior to the enactment and effective date of R.A. No. 6657, the
DAR had likewise the authority, to authorize conversions of agricultural lands to other uses, but always in
coordination with other concerned agencies. Under R.A. No. 3344, as amended by R.A. No. 6389, an agricultural
lessee may, by order of the court, be dispossessed of his landholding if after due hearing, it is shown that the
"landholding is declared by the [DAR] upon the recommendation of the National Planning Commission to be suited
for residential, commercial, industrial or some other urban purposes."
Likewise, under various Presidential Decrees (P.D. Nos. 583, 815 and 946) which were issued to give teeth to
the implementation of the agrarian reform program decreed in P.D. No. 27, the DAR was empowered to authorize
conversions of tenanted agricultural lands, specifically those planted to rice and/or corn, to other agricultural or
to non-agricultural uses, "subject to studies on zoning of the Human Settlements Commissions" (HSC). This non-
exclusive authority of the DAR under the aforesaid laws was, as you have correctly pointed out, recognized and
reaffirmed by other concerned agencies, such as the Department of Local Government and Community
Development (DLGCD) and the then Human Settlements Commission (HSC) in a Memorandum of Agreement
executed by the DAR and these two agencies on May 13, 1977, which is an admission that with respect to land
use planning and conversions, the authority is not exclusive to any particular agency but is a coordinated effort of
all concerned agencies.
It is significant to mention that in 1978, the then Ministry of Human Settlements was granted authority
to review and ratify land use plans and zoning ordinance of local governments and to approve development
proposals which include land use conversions (see LOI No. 729 [1978]). This was followed by P.D. No. 648 (1981)
which conferred upon the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (the predecessors of the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board [HLURB] the authority to promulgate zoning and other land use control standards and
guidelines which shall govern land use plans and zoning ordinances of local governments, subdivision or estate
development projects of both the public and private sector and urban renewal plans, programs and projects; as
well as to review, evaluate and approve or disapprove comprehensive land use development plans and zoning
components of civil works and infrastructure projects, of national, regional and local governments, subdivisions,
condominiums or estate development projects including industrial estates.
P.D. No. 583, as amended by P.D. No. 815, and the 1977 Memorandum of Agreement, abovementioned,
cannot therefore, be construed as sources of authority of the DAR; these issuances merely affirmed whatever
power DAR had at the time of their adoption.
With respect to your observation that E.O. No. 129-A also empowered the DAR to approve or disapprove
conversions of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses as of July 22, 1987, it is our view that E.O. No. 129-A
likewise did not provide a new source of power of DAR with respect to conversion but it merely recognized and
reaffirmed the existence of such power as granted under existing laws. This is clearly inferrable from the following
provision of E.O. No. 129-A to wit:
"Sec. 5. Powers and Functions. Pursuant to the mandate of the Department, and in order to ensure
the successful implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, the Department is
hereby authorized to:
1) Have exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversion of
agricultural lands for residential, commercial, industrial and other
land uses as may be provided by law" (Emphasis supplied.)
Anent the observation regarding the alleged deletion of residential, housing, commercial and industrial sites
classified by the HLURB in the final version of the CARP bill, we fail to see how this circumstances could
substantiate your position that DAR's authority to reclassify or approve conversions of agricultural lands to non-
agricultural uses already existed prior to June 15, 1988. Surely, it is clear that the alleged deletion was necessary
to avoid a redundancy in the CARP law whose coverage is expressly limited to "all public and private agricultural
lands" and "other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture" (Sec. 4, R.A. No. 6657). Section 3(c) of R.A.
No. 6657 defines "agricultural land" as that "devoted to agricultural activity as defined in the Act and not classified
as mineral forest, residential, commercial or industrial land."
Based on the foregoing premises, we reiterate the view that with respect to conversions of agricultural lands
covered by R.A. No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses, the authority of DAR to approve such conversions may be
exercised from the date of the law's effectivity on June 15, 1988. This conclusion is based on a liberal interpretation
of R.A. No. 6657 in the light of DAR's mandate and the extensive coverage of the agrarian reform program.
Very truly yours,
FRANKLIN M. DRILON
Secretary
DOJ OPINION NO. 181, s. 1990
October 19, 1990
Secretary Benjamin T. Leong
Department of Agrarian Reform
Diliman, Quezon City
Sir:
This has reference to your request for opinion on the applicability of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program ("CARP") upon the estate of the late Alfonso J. Doronila.
It appears that in 1974, Presidential Proclamation No. 1283 segregated a certain portion of land from the
Watershed Reservation in Antipolo, Rizal and reserved said area for townsite purposes; that in 1977, Presidential
Proclamation No. 1673 increased the size of the aforesaid townsite reservation (designated as Lungsod Silangan
Townsite) and revised its technical description so as to include other lands in the municipalities of Antipolo, San
Mateo and Montalban; that to implement the development plan of the Lungsod Silangan Townsite, Letter of
Instructions No. 625, inter alia, directed the Solicitor General to institute condemnation proceedings for the
acquisition of private lands found therein; that consequently, the said official filed in 1978 with the Court of First
Instance of Rizal an expropriation case against the landholdings of Alfonso Doronila; that nine years later, the
Solicitor General and the Strategic Investment Development Corporation (formerly, the Human Settlements
Development Corporation), by separate motions, requested the dismissal of the expropriation proceedings
against the Doronila Estate citing, as grounds thereof, the abolition of the Ministry of Human Settlements and the
exclusion of the Strategic Investment Development Corporation from the government's housing and shelter
program; and that in an order dated September 18, 1987, the court dismissed the said expropriation case.
You state that the Doronila landholding were brought under CARP coverage, but that the administrator of the
Doronila Estate is seeking exemption of said properties from CARP coverage on the bases of the abovementioned
Presidential Proclamations and Letter of Instructions. You now pose the following queries for your guidance in
evaluation the said request for exemption, to wit:
"(a) What is the legal effect of the dismissal of the expropriation proceedings on the townsite
reservation created under the aforesaid proclamations and letter of instruction?"
"(b) With the passage of RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, are these proclamation
deemed superseded?"
With respect to the first query, it is believed that the dismissal of the expropriation case against the Doronila
properties did not adversely affect the continuing enforceability of Proclamations Nos. 1283 and 1637 and LOI No.
625. Hence, the status of subject properties as being embraced within a townsite reservation is still valid and
subsisting. It is noted that the ground for the dismissal of the condemnation proceedings did not involve the
legality of the abovementioned executive issuance. Thus, pursuant to Section 3, Article XVIII of the Constitution,
which provides that all proclamations, letters of instructions and other executive issuances, among others, existing
at the time of the Charter's effectivity which are "not inconsistent with this Constitution shall remain operative
until amended, repealed or resolved", the said executive issuances remain operative until now. LOI No. 625
expressly states that the Lungsod Silangan Townsite was designed "to absorb the population overspill in the
Greater Manila Area", an objective which is consistent with the constitutional mandate for the State to undertake
"a continuing program of urban land reform and housing which will make available at affordable cost decent
housing and basic services to underprivileged and homeless citizens" (Sec. 9, Article XIII, Constitution). Moreover,
we are not aware of any issuance by the incumbent President revoking or repealing the Proclamations and the
LOI under consideration. prcd
As regards the second query, neither Proclamation No. 1283 nor Proclamation No. 1673 has been expressly
repealed by R.A. No. 6657 (see Sec. 76 thereof). Thus, any allegation that the Proclamations have been superseded
by R.A. No. 6657 must perforce be premised upon an inconsistency between them. But we do not see any
repugnancy between the aforesaid Proclamations and R.A. No. 6657; indeed, the statute implicitly recognizes the
legal effect of the Proclamations. Thus, Section 3(c) of R.A. 6657 defines an "agricultural land" as such lands as not
having been previously classified as "mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land". Moreover,
Administrative Order No. 61, series 1990 of that Department (Revised Rules and Regulations Governing
Conversion of Private Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses) provides that said rules do not cover lands
previously classified in town plans and pertinent zoning ordinances as having been approved by the Housing and
Land Use Regulatory Board and its predecessor authorities prior to June 15, 1988 for residential, commercial or
industrial uses. Since the lands covered by the two Proclamations in question have been reserved for townsite
purposes to be developed as human settlements by the proper land and housing agency, the same are not deemed
"agricultural lands" within the meaning and intent of Section 3(c) of R.A. No. 6657 and are beyond the purview of
A.O. No. 61.
Wherefore, your queries are answered accordingly.
Very truly yours,
FRANKLIN M. DRILON
Secretary
[REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7881]
AN ACT AMENDING CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657, ENTITLED “AN ACT INSTITUTING A
COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM TO PROMOTE SOCIAL JUSTICE AND INDUSTRIALIZATION,
PROVIDING THE MECHANISM FOR ITS IMPLEMETATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES”
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:
SECTION 1. Section 3, Paragraph (b) of Republic Act No. 6657 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SECTION 3. Definitions. – For the purpose of this Act, unless the context indicates otherwise:
“(b) Agriculture, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity means the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops,
(growing of fruit trees, including the harvesting of such farm ‘products, and other farm activities and practices
performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by persons whether natural or juridical.”
SEC. 2. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SECTION 10. Exemptions and Exclusions.
“a) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries
and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.
“b) Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds shall be exempt from the
coverage of this Act: Provided, That said prawn farms and fishponds have not been distributed and Certificate of
Land Ownership Award (CLOA) issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program.
“In cases where the fishponds or prawn farms have been subjected to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
by voluntary offer to sell, or commercial farms deferment or notices of compulsory acquisition, a simple and
absolute majority of the actual regular workers or tenants must consent to the exemption within one (1) year
from the effectivity of this Act When the workers or tenants do not agree to this exemption the fishponds or prawn
farms shall be distributed collectively to the worker-beneficiaries or tenants who shall form a cooperative or
association to manage the same.
“In cases where the fishponds or prawn farms have not been subjected to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law the consent of the farm workers shall no longer be necessary’ however, the provision of Section 32-A hereof
on incentives shall apply.”
“c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for national defense, school sites and
campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes,
seeds and seedlings research and pilot production center, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, mosque
sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal
farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and quarantine centers and all lands with
eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed, shall be exempt from the coverage of
this Act.”
SEC. 3. Section 11, Paragraph 1 is hereby amended to read as follows:
“SECTION 11. Commercial Farming. – Commercial farms, which are private agricultural lands devoted to saltbeds,
fruit farms, orchards, vegetable and cut-flower farms, and cacao, coffee and rubber plantations, shall be subject
to immediate compulsory acquisition and distribution after ten (10) years from the effectivity of this Act.In the
case of new farms, the ten-year period shall begin from the first year of commercial production and operation, as
determined by the DAR.During the ten-year period, the Government shall initiate steps necessary to acquire these
lands, upon payment of just compensation for the land and the improvements thereon, preferably in favor of
organized cooperatives or associations which shall thereafter manage the said lands for the workers-
beneficiaries.”
SEC. 4. There shall be incorporated after Section 32 of Republic Act No. 6657 a new section to read as follows:
“SECTION 32-A. Incentives. – Individuals or entities owning or operating fishponds and prawn farms are hereby
mandated to execute within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act an incentive plan with their regular
fishpond or prawn farmworkers or fishpond or prawn farm workers’ organization, if any, whereby seven point five
percent (7.5%) of their net profit before tax from the operation of the fishpond or prawn farms are distributed
within sixty (60) days at the end of the fiscal year as compensation to regular and other pond workers in such
ponds over and above the compensation they currently receive.
“In order to safeguard the right of the regular fishpond or prawn farm workers under the incentive plan, the books
of the fishpond or prawn farm owners shall be subject to periodic audit or inspection by certified public
accountants chosen by the workers.
“The foregoing provision shall not apply to agricultural lands subsequently converted to fishpond or prawn farms
provided the size of the land converted does not exceed the retention limit of the landowner.”
SEC. 5. There shall be incorporated after Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6657 new sections to read as follows:
“SECTION 65-A. Conversion into Fishpond and Prawn Farms. – No conversion of public agricultural lands into
fishponds and prawn farms shall be made except in situations where the provincial government with the
concurrence of the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR) declares a coastal zone as suitable for
fishpond development. In such case, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) 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. 21-+6, 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 Agreements (FLAs).
“No conversion of more than five (5) hectares of private lands to fishponds and prawn farms shall be allowed after
the passage of this Act, except when the use of the land is more economically feasible and sound for fishpond
and/or prawn farm, as certified by the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), and a simple and
absolute majority of the regular farm workers or tenants agree to the conversion, the Department of Agrarian
Reform, may approve applications for change in the use of the land: Provided, finally, That no piecemeal
conversion to circumvent the provisions of this Act shall be allowed. In these cases where the change of use is
approved, the provisions of Section 32-A hereof on incentives shall apply.”
“SECTION 65-B. Inventory. – Within one (1) year from the effectivity of this Act, 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.”

“SECTION 65-C. Protection of Mangrove Areas. – In existing Fishpond Lease Agreements (FLAs) and those that will
be issued after the effectivity of this Act, 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.”

“SECTION 65-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.”

SEC. 6. There shall be incorporated after Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6657 a new section to read as follows:

“SECTION 73-A. Exception. –The provisions of Section 73, paragraph (E), to the contrary notwithstanding, the sale
and/or transfer of agricultural land in cases where such sale, transfer or conveyance is made necessary as a result
of a bank’s foreclosure of the mortgaged land is hereby permitted.”

SEC. 7. Separability Clause. – If, for any reason, any section or provision of this Act is declared null and void, no
other section, provision or part thereof shall be affected and the same shall remain in full force and effect.

SEC. 8 Effectivity Clause. – This Act shall take effect fifteen (15) days after its publication in at least two (2)
newspapers of general circulation.