Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CQRP Impl3m3ntors
CQRP Impl3m3ntors
SARDIC PUBLICATION
AGRARIAN LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
PREFACE
This book has inauspicious beginnings. The original intent of the UNDP-
SARDIC project, which eventually bore this book, was to map out special areas
for policy reform in agrarian reform law. But as the project team delved deeper
into the subject, the long unaddressed need for an organized and systematic
presentation of agrarian law and existing jurisprudence was again put to fore. In
response to that problem, the project team and the UNDP-SARDIC project
decided to widen the scope of the project and, thus, what came of it was not only
a map of the difficult problem areas in the law's implementation but also this
book. TcHCDI
Any foray into the complicated, and often contentious, arena that is agrarian
reform law necessitates a complete and well-grounded grasp of the basics. If
anything, our study revealed that, even after decades, agrarian reform law
remains vastly misunderstood and under-appreciated not only by stakeholders
but by agrarian reform law implementors themselves.
This is largely due to the dearth of materials on the matter. Over the years,
laws and their implementing rules have been refined and promulgated to reflect
the lessons learned and the changing times. Simultaneously, the Supreme Court
issued rulings that elucidate and interpret the law, as well as repudiate portions
thereof. The rights and obligations of the different stakeholders have been
constantly redefined and readjusted.
Despite these exciting developments, however, there has been little done to
mesh all these pieces of knowledge into an organized whole.
This book is an effort towards that end.
In a nutshell, this book is a humble attempt in summing up years of agrarian
reform law implementation. This book intends to reach out to all sectors and
stakeholders to heighten their understanding and appreciation of the agrarian
reform in the Philippines, and hopefully help refine the terms of the ongoing
debates among them. This book hopes to appeal to both familiar and unfamiliar
on the subject. It attempts to present, in an academic fashion, all relevant
agrarian reform laws, DAR implementing rules, and pertinent judicial declarations
on the matter. Hopefully, this will provide a holistic framework for understanding
agrarian law.
Extra effort was also exerted to demonstrate agrarian reform in action by
giving concrete illustrations and discussion from an operational perspective.
Interspersed with the theoretical discussions are the various operational —
issues and difficulties that DAR implementors faced or are still facing.
The authors would like to thank —
• the UNDP-SARDIC project management team for providing the
financial and logistic support to see this project through.
• the members of DAR's management committee who shared with the
project team their invaluable insights and experience in agrarian reform
implementation. Their contribution in making this book complete and
insightful is immeasurable.
• the DAR-PPLAO support staff for providing administrative and
secretariat support; and
• Antonio Ramos who served as auditor for this project.
This is but a first step. We derive inspiration from the words of T.S. Eliot:
— THE AUTHORS
CHAPTER 1
Coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
SEC. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program
founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to
own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other
farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State
shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands,
subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may
prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity
considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In
determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small
landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-
sharing.
The constitutionality of RA 6657 has been upheld in Association of Small
Landowners v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 342 (1989) and
companion cases. The Supreme Court held that the requirement of public use
has already been settled by the Constitution itself. It noted that "[n]o less than the
1987 Charter calls for agrarian reform which is the reason why private
agricultural lands are to be taken from their owners, subject to the prescribed
retention limits." (at 378)
While RA 6657 itself has been held constitutional, the Supreme Court in a
subsequent case, Luz Farms v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 192 SCRA 51
(1990), declared unconstitutional Sec. 3 (b), 10 and 11 thereof in so far as they
include lands devoted to the raising of livestock, swine and poultry within its
coverage. As a result of this ruling, Congress enacted RA 7881 (1995) amending
these provisions and incorporating new provisions to existing ones. The
amendments adopted the Luz doctrine by removing livestock, swine and poultry
farms from CARP coverage.
Scope of CARP
The Constitution in Sec. 4, Art. XIII, mandates the just distribution of all
agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits that
the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental or
equity considerations and subject to the payment of just compensation.
Prior to RA 6657, the operative law on land distribution was PD 27 (1972).
However, PD 27 is limited in scope, covering only tenanted private agricultural
lands primarily devoted to rice and corn operating under a system of share-crop
or lease tenancy, whether classified as landed estate or not. The constitutional
provision therefore expanded the scope of agrarian reform to cover all
agricultural lands.
RA 6657 operationalized this constitutional mandate and provides in Sec. 4
thereof that the CARP shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and
commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands, as provided
in Proclamation No. 131 and EO 229including other lands of the public domain
suitable for agriculture. More specifically, the following lands are covered by
CARP:
a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to
or suitable for agriculture;
b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as
determined by Congress in Sec. 4 (a) of RA 6657;
c) All other lands owned by the government devoted to or suitable for
agriculture; and
d) All private lands devoted or suitable for agriculture regardless of the
agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon (Rep. Act No.
6657 [1988], Sec. 4).
Definition of agricultural land
Sec. 3 (c) of RA 6657 defines agricultural lands as follows:
(c) Agricultural Land refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in
this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial
land.
Sec. 3 (b) of RA 6657, as amended by RA 7881 (1995), defines "agricultural
activity" as follows:
(b) Agriculture, Agriculture Enterprise or Agricultural Activity means cultivation
of soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, including the harvesting of such
farm products, and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in
conjunction with such farming operations done by persons whether natural or
juridical.
In Natalia v. DAR, 225 SCRA 278 (1993), the Supreme Court held:
Facts:
Petitioner Natalia Realty, Inc. is the owner of a 125.0078-ha land set aside by
Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 (1979) as townsite area for the Lungsod
Silangan Reservation. Estate Developers and Investors Corporation (EDIC), the
developer of the area, was granted preliminary approval and locational clearances
by the then Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (HSRC) for the
establishment of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision therein. In November 1990, a
Notice of Coverage was issued by DAR on the undeveloped portion of the
landholding. The developer filed its objections and filed this case imputing grave
abuse of discretion to respondent DAR for including the undeveloped portions of
its landholding within the coverage of CARP.
Issue:
Are lands already classified for residential, commercial or industrial use, and
approved by HLURB and its precursor agencies prior to 15 June 1988, covered by
RA 6657?
Held:
Sec. 4 of RA 6657 states that the CARL covers "regardless of tenurial
arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private and agricultural
lands" and as per the transcripts of the Constitutional Commission, "agricultural
lands" covered by agrarian reform refers only to those which are "arable and
suitable lands" and "do not include commercial, industrial and residential lands."
The land subject of the controversy has been set aside for the Lungsod Silangan
Reservation by Proclamation No. 1637 prior to the effectivity of RA 6657 and in
effect converted these lands into residential use. Since the Natalia lands were
converted prior to 15 June 1988, DAR is bound by such conversion, and thus it
was an error to include these within the coverage of CARL.
Exemptions and Exclusions
Sec. 10 of RA 6657, as amended by RA 7881 (1995), specifically enumerates
the exemptions and exclusions from CARP, as follows:
a) Lands actually, directly or exclusively used for parks and wild-life,
forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds,
watersheds and mangroves (Rep. Act No. 6657 [1988], sec. 10 [a], as
amended by Rep. Act No. 7881[1995]).
b) Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms
and fishponds: Provided, That said prawn farms and fishponds have not
been distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) issued to
agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) under CARP (Sec. 10 [b]).
c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be
necessary for national defense, school sites and campuses, including
experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for
educational purposes, seeds and seedling research and pilot production
center, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and
Islamic centers appurtenant thereto, communal burial grounds and
cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates,
government and private research and quarantine centers and all lands with
eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed
(Sec. 10 [c]).
Lands devoted to raising of livestock, swine and poultry. The
Luz Farms Case.
Before its amendment by RA 7881, Sec. 3(b) of RA 6657 included in its
definition of agricultural activity the "raising of livestock, poultry or fish". Likewise,
the original Sec. 11 ofRA 6657 on commercial farming provided that "lands
devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising shall be subject to
compulsory acquisition within ten (10) years from the effectivity of the Act."
However, the Supreme Court in Luz Farms vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,
supra, held that Sec. 3 (b) and Sec. 11 of RA 6657 (along with Sec. 13 and 32)
are unconstitutional in far as they include the raising of livestock and swine in the
coverage of CARP.
Facts:
Petitioner Luz Farms is a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry business. It
seeks to nullify Sec. 3 (b) and Sec. 11 of RA 6657 in so far as they apply to
livestock and poultry business.
Held:
Sec. 3 (b) and Sec. 11 of RA 6657 are unconstitutional in so far as they include
lands devoted to raising livestock, swine and poultry within its coverage. The use
of land is incidental to but not the principal factor or consideration of productivity in
this industry. The Supreme Court held that:
The transcripts of deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the
meaning of the word "agricultural," clearly show that it was never the intention of
the framers of the Constitution to include livestock and poultry industry in the
coverage of the constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform program of the
government.
The Committee adopted the definition of "agricultural land" as defined under
Section 166 of RA 3844, as land devoted to any growth, including but not limited
to crop lands, saltbeds, fishponds, idle and abandoned land (Record, CONCOM,
August 7, 1986, Vol. III, p. 11).
The Supreme Court noted that the intention of the Committee to limit the
application of the word "agriculture" is further shown by the proposal of
Commissioner Jamir to insert the word "arable" to distinguish this kind of
agricultural land from such lands as commercial and industrial lands and
residential properties. The proposal, however, was not considered because the
Committee contemplated that agricultural lands are limited to arable and suitable
agricultural lands and therefore, do not include commercial, industrial and
residential lands (Record, CONCOM, 7 August 1986, Vol. III, p. 30).
Moreover, in his answer to Commissioner Regalado's interpellation,
Commissioner Tadeo clarified that the term "farmworker" was used instead of
"agricultural worker" in order to exclude therein piggery, poultry and livestock
workers (Record, CONCOM, August 2, 1986, Vol. II, p. 621).
DAR AO 9 (1993) imposes two (2) conditions in order that these lands may be
exempted: (a) that the land or portion thereof is exclusively, directly, or actually
used for livestock, poultry and swine raising as of 15 June 1988; and (b) the farm
must satisfy the ratios of land, livestock, poultry and swine, as follows:
cattle, carabao and horse raising maximum of 1 head to 1 hectare; 21
heads for every 1.7815 hectares of
infrastructure
sheep and goat raising 7 heads to 1 hectare; 147 heads for
every 0.7205 hectare of infrastructure
swine raising 21 heads of hogs for every 0.5126
hectare of infrastructure
poultry raising 500 layers for every 0.53 hectare of
infrastructure or 1000 boilers for every
1.428 hectares of infrastructure
Fishponds and prawn ponds
With the amendment of Sec. 3 (c), 10 and 11 of RA 6657 by RA 7881,
fishponds and prawnponds are also exempted from the coverage of CARP,
provided that said lands have not been distributed to ARBs and no CLOAs have
been issued.
To be exempted, the agricultural land must have been actually, directly and
exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds as of 12 March 1995, the date of
effectivity of RA 7881. To avail of the exemption, a landowner or his authorized
representative still has to file a written application for land exemption/exclusion
with the DAR Provincial Office (DAR Adm. O. No. 3 [1995]).
In cases were the fishponds or prawn farms have been subjected to CARP,
by voluntary offer to sell, commercial farms deferment or notice of compulsory
acquisition, they can be exempt from CARP if a simple and absolute majority of
the actual regular workers or tenants consent to the exemption within one (1)
year from the effectivity of RA 7881 or on 12 March 1995. In cases where the
fishponds or prawnponds have not been subjected to CARP, the consent of the
farm workers shall no longer be necessary (Rep. Act No. 6657[1988], sec. 10[b],
as amended).
Sec. 4 of RA 7881 also amended RA 6657 by introducing a new provision
mandating the introduction of an incentive plan for employees of all fishponds
and prawn farms. Operators and entities owning or operating fishponds and
prawn farms are directed to execute within six (6) months from its effectivity an
incentive plan with their regular fishpond or prawn farm worker's organization, if
any, whereby seven point five percent (7.5%) of net profits before tax from the
operation of the fishpond or prawn farms are distributed within sixty (60) days at
the end of the fiscal year as compensation to regular and other pond workers
over and above their current compensation. This incentive plan requirement,
however, does not apply to agricultural lands subsequently converted to
fishponds or prawn farms provided that the size of the land converted does not
exceed the retention limit of the landowner.
Lands used for academic or educational use. The CMU case.
In Central Mindanao University vs. DARAB, 215 SCRA 85 (1992), the
Supreme Court passed upon the exemption of lands directly, actually and
exclusively used and found to be necessary for school sites and campuses,
including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for
educational purposes provided for under Sec. 10 of RA 6657, as amended.
Facts:
On 16 January 1958, President Carlos Garcia issued Proclamation No. 467
reserving for the Mindanao Agricultural College, now the CMU, a piece of land to
be used as its future campus. In 1984, CMU embarked on a project titled
"Kilusang Sariling Sikap" wherein parcels of land were leased to its faculty
members and employees. Under the terms of the program, CMU will assist faculty
members and employee groups through the extension of technical know-how,
training and other kinds of assistance. In turn, they paid the CMU a service fee for
use of the land. The agreement explicitly provided that there will be no tenancy
relationship between the lessees and the CMU.
When the program was terminated, a case was filed by the participants of the
"Kilusang Sariling Sikap" for declaration of status as tenants under the CARP. In
its resolution, DARAB, ordered, among others, the segregation of 400 hectares of
the land for distribution under CARP. The land was subjected to coverage on the
basis of DAR's determination that the lands do not meet the condition for
exemption, that is, it is not "actually, directly, and exclusively used" for educational
purposes.
Issue:
Is the CMU land covered by CARP? Who determines whether lands reserved for
public use by presidential proclamation is no longer actually, directly and
exclusively used and necessary for the purpose for which they are reserved?
Held:
The land is exempted from CARP. CMU is in the best position to resolve and
answer the question of when and what lands are found necessary for its use. The
Court also chided the DARAB for resolving this issue of exemption on the basis of
"CMU's present needs." The Court stated that the DARAB decision stating that for
the land to be exempt it must be "presently, actively exploited and utilized by the
university in carrying out its present educational program with its present student
population and academic faculty" overlooked the very significant factor of growth
of the university in the years to come. SHECcT
The CMU case is unique as it involves land transferred by the state to CMU
through PD 467 which provided for its commitment to a specific use and purpose.
Thus, the said land was already set aside for a specific purpose and, in effect,
was taken outside the coverage of agrarian reform by law. It is submitted that a
more accurate basis for the exemption should have been that the exclusive use
of the land — both present and future — has been determined by law, and not
because of the determination of the CMU of what it needs and how it intends to
use it.
In ruling that the CMU is in the best position to determine the use of the land
and not DAR, the Supreme Court seems to have overlooked EO 407 (1990), as
amended by EO 448 (1991), which provides that DAR is vested with the power to
determine whether lands reserved for public uses by presidential proclamation is
no longer actually, directly and exclusively used and necessary for the purpose
for which they are reserved. Said EO provides that:
Sec. 1-A. All lands or portions thereof reserved by virtue of Presidential
proclamations for specific public uses by the government, its agencies and
instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations suitable
for agriculture and no longer actually, directly and exclusively used or necessary
for the purposes for which they have been reserved, as determined by the
Department of Agrarian Reform in coordination with the government agency or
instrumentality concerned in whose favor the reservation was established, shall be
segregated from the reservation and transferred to the Department of Agrarian
Reform for distribution to qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program.
Thus, DAR in coordination with the agency or department involved, can
determine whether the purpose or use for which the lands reserved continues to
exist and therefore establish if they continue to be exempt from CARP coverage.
The Supreme Court's statement that lands of universities and academic
institutions need not be actually, directly and exclusively used for educational or
research purposes at the time of the effectivity of the RA 6657 to be exempt from
CARP also fails to consider Sec. 10 of RA 6657. Sec. 10 is explicit that only
those lands that are "actually, directly, and exclusively" used and found
necessary for the uses enumerated therein are exempt from CARP coverage. A
literal interpretation of the provision implies that the exemption applies only to
those lands already committed for the enumerated purposes at the date of the
effectivity of law on 15 June 1988. Thus, agricultural land acquired by academic
institutions for academic, educational, or research purposes after 15 June 1988,
or those owned by them but not committed exclusively, actually, and directly to
the abovementioned uses before or on such date, are covered by CARP. For its
exclusion from acquisition and distribution, and for its commitment to said
purposes, the institution may file before DAR for clearance to convert these lands
into non-agricultural use.
Lands with 18% slope
Lands with 18% slope or over are exempt from CARP coverage unless these
are found to be agriculturally developed as of 15 June 1988.
This rule on exemption is based on PD 705 (1975), or the "Revised Forestry
Code of the Philippines," which provides that lands with a slope of 18% or over
are generally reserved as forest lands. Sec. 15 thereof states that "no land of the
public domain eighteen per cent (18%) in slope or over shall be classified as
alienable and disposable" and that "lands eighteen per cent (18%) in slope or
over which have already been declared as alienable and disposable shall be
reverted to the classification of forest lands by the Department Head, to form part
of the forest reserves, unless they are already covered by existing titles or
approved public land application, or actually occupied openly, continuously,
adversely and publicly for a period of not less than thirty (30) years as of the
effectivity of this Code, where the occupant is qualified for a free patent under
the Public Land Act.
If the land has 18% slope or over and is agriculturally developed as of 15
June 1988, the same shall be allocated to the qualified applicants in the following
manner:
a) If land is classified as forest land, and therefore is inalienable and
indisposable, this shall be allocated by the DENR under its Integrated
Social Forestry Program;
b) If classified as alienable and disposable, this shall be allocated by
the Land Management Bureau-DENR and DAR pursuant to the provisions
of CA 141 and theJoint DAR-DENR AO 2 (1988); and
c) If private agricultural land, this shall be acquired in accordance with
the provisions of RA 6657 (DAR Adm. O. No. 13 [1990], item E, part II).
Effects of exemption
Sec. 10 of RA 6657 provides that exempted or excluded lands are removed
from the coverage of CARP. However, there are two (2) contending views on
whether these exempted or excluded lands are perpetually taken out from
coverage of the CARP.
The first view is that lands exempted or excluded from the law are
permanently taken out from coverage of the CARP. The basis of this
interpretation is the phraseology of Sec. 10 which states that exempted lands are
"exempt from the coverage of the law." The legal effect of this interpretation is
that the owner can use and dispose the land as he deems fit without the need for
any clearance from DAR.
The second view is that excluded and exempted lands can be covered by
CARP when the reason for their exemption ceases to exist. Thus, when the
reason for exemption ceases to exist for lands exempt under the Luz
Farms ruling or Sec. 10, as amended by RA 7881 (except lands with 18% slope),
they are removed from the exemption and are treated like any other agricultural
land.
It must be remembered that the lands subject of exemption under Sec. 10
of RA 6657and the Luz Farms ruling are considered agricultural lands as defined
by Sec. 3 (c) of RA 6657, that is, they are in fact suitable to agriculture and not
classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial lands, but are
exempt or excluded from CARP by reason of their actual use and their necessity
for other purposes. Thus, in the event that these lands cease to be used or
necessary for the purposes for which they are exempted, they are removed from
the application of Sec. 10 and are then subject to CARP coverage.
The second view is anchored on the spirit and intent of the law to
cover all agricultural lands suitable to agriculture. Moreover, as RA 6657 is a
social welfare legislation the rules of exemptions and exclusions must be
interpreted restrictively and any doubts as to the applicability of the law should be
resolved in favor of inclusion.
In either case, the security of tenure of tenants enjoyed prior to 15 June 1988
shall be respected even when the lands are exempted. As to farmworkers, the
exemption of the land shall not cause the loss of the benefits to which they are
entitled under other laws. In addition, they are granted preference in the award of
other lands covered by CARP (DAR Adm. O. No. 13 [1990], part II).
Homesteads
In Alita vs. CA, the Supreme Court stated that homesteads are exempt from
agrarian reform.
Facts:
Subject matter of the case consists of two (2) parcels of land acquired by
respondents' predecessors-in-interest through homestead patent under the
provisions of CA 141. Respondents wanted to personally cultivate these lands, but
the petitioners refused to vacate, relying on the provisions of PD 27 and PD 316
and appurtenant regulations issued by the then Ministry of Agrarian Reform.
Issue:
Are lands obtained through homestead patent covered under PD 27?
Held:
No. While PD 27 decreed the emancipation of tenants from the bondage of
the soil and transferring to them ownership of the land they till, the same
cannot be invoked to defeat the very purpose of the enactment of the Public
Land Act or CA 141. In Patricio v. Bayog, 112 SCRA 45, it was held that:
The Homestead Act has been enacted for the welfare and
protection of the poor. The law gives a needy citizen a piece of land
where he may build a modest house for himself and family and plant
what is necessary for subsistence and for the satisfaction of life's other
needs. The right of the citizens to their homes and to the things
necessary for their subsistence is as vital as the right to life itself. They
have a right to live with a certain degree of comfort as become human
beings, and the State which looks after the welfare of the people's
happiness is under a duty to safeguard the satisfaction of this vital
right.
In this regard, Sec. 6 of Article XIII of the 1987 Constitution provides:
Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian
reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in
the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands
of public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture,
subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the
rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral lands.
Moreover, Sec. 6 of RA 6657 contains a proviso supporting the inapplicability
of PD 27 to lands covered by homestead patents like those of the property in
question, reading:
Section 6. Retention Limits. . . . Provided further, That
original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still
own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall
retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said
homestead.
xxx xxx xxx
While homestead lots are declared exempt under PD 27, they are not
expressly declared as such under RA 6657. However, Sec. 6 of RA
6657 provides that homesteaders are allowed to retain the total homestead lot
subject to the conditions provided in the same section and as set DAR MC 4
(1991), to wit:
a) That the original homestead grantee or his/her direct compulsory
heirs still own the land on 15 June 1988;
b) The original homestead grantee or his or her compulsory heirs
cultivate the land as of 15 June 1988 and continue to cultivate the same.
It also provides that the tenants of lands covered by homestead patents
exempted fromPD 27 or retained under RA 6657 shall not be ejected therefrom
but shall remain as leaseholders therein.
Schedule of Implementation
Sec. 7 of RA 6657 lays out the schedule of acquisition and distribution of all
agricultural lands through a period of ten (10) years from the effectivity of the Act:
The award to the child is not to be taken from the retained land of the
landowner and is awarded to the child in his own right as a beneficiary. Thus, the
award is not automatic. The child is merely given a preference over other
beneficiaries.
As the right of the child is derived from his being a beneficiary, he must not
only meet the requirements of preference laid out in Sec. 6 of RA 6657, but also
all the other qualifications of a beneficiary enumerated under Sec. 22 of RA
6657. Thus, he must also be landless, a resident of the barangay or municipality
where the land is located, and must have the willingness, aptitude and ability to
cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. Moreover, he is subject to
the same liabilities, responsibilities and limitations imposed on all agrarian reform
beneficiaries.
Exceptions to the 5-hectare retention limit
The five (5)-hectare retention limit under RA 6657 does not apply to original
homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs at the time of the approval
of RA 6657 who continue to cultivate the same, and to those entitled to retain
seven (7) hectares under PD 27.
In the Association cases, the Supreme Court held that landowners who failed
to exercise their rights to retain under PD 27 can avail of their rights of retention
under Sec. 6 of RA 6657 and retain only five (5) hectares. However, in the
resolution of the Supreme Court on the motion for consideration in the said case,
the Court qualified that those who, prior to the promulgation of RA 6657,
complied with the requirements under Letter of Instruction (LOI) Nos.
41, 45 and 52 regarding the registration of the landholdings, shall be allowed to
enjoy the seven (7) hectare retention limit. All those who refused to comply with
the requirements cannot, in view of the passage of CARL, demand that their
retention limit be determined under PD 27.
Thus, the following OLT owners are still entitled to retain seven (7) hectares
even if they exercised their right of retention under PD 27 after 15 June 1988:
. . . Thus, it has been held that there should be no distinction in the application
of the law where non is indicated therein (SSS vs. City of Bacolod, 115 SCRA
412) . . . By said rule, the term "private agricultural lands" in the
aforementioned section should be interpreted as including all private lands,
whether titled or untitled. . . .
RA 6657 has created an overlapping of jurisdictions between the DENR and
the DAR over the disposition of these lands. RA 6657 mandates DAR to acquire
and distribute these public lands to agrarian beneficiaries while CA 141 vests
upon the DENR the power to control, survey, classification, lease, sale or any
other form of concession or disposition and management of the lands of the
public domain.
To resolve the overlapping mandates of the DENR and DAR in the disposition
and distribution of public lands for CARP purposes, the two agencies issued Joint
DAR-DENR MC 9 (1995) which recognizes that lands of the public domain are
under the jurisdiction of the DENR unless placed by law and/or by executive
issuances under the jurisdiction of other government departments or entities.
Under the said circular, the disposition of non-registrable lands of the public
domain is the exclusive responsibility of the DENR under its various programs
(i.e., the Integrated Social Forestry). In this instance, the role of the DAR is to
assist the DENR in identifying and screening of farmer beneficiaries. The
responsibility and authority of DAR to distribute public lands shall be limited to
the following:
a) Lands proclaimed by the President as DAR Resettlement Projects
and placed under the administration of the DAR for distribution to qualified
farmer beneficiaries under CARP;
b) Lands which are placed by law under the jurisdiction of DAR; and
c) Lands previously proclaimed for the various government
departments, agencies and instrumentalities and subsequently turned over
to the DAR pursuant toEO 407 (1990), as amended by EO 448 and 506.
Untitled public alienable and disposable lands are still within the exclusive
jurisdiction of DENR pursuant to CA 141. However, in accordance with DOJ
Opinion No. 176 (1992), Joint DAR-DENR MC 14 (1997) provides that all untitled
public alienable and disposable lands are deemed "private" if the criteria
specified in RA 6940 for the determination of whether or not a person has
already acquired a recognizable private right over a landholding is met, namely:
a) Continuous occupancy and cultivation by oneself or through one's
predecessors-in-interest for at least thirty (30) years prior to the effectivity
of RA 6940on 16 April 1990;
b) The land must have been classified as alienable and disposable for
at least thirty (30) years prior to the effectivity on 16 April 1990;
c) One must have paid the real estate tax thereon; and
d) There are no adverse claims on the land.
For these privately claimed public alienable and disposable lands, the DENR
first issues a Free Patent to qualified applicants for the retained area of not more
than five (5) hectares. The DAR shall then cover the excess area and issue a
CLOA or EP and distribute these to qualified beneficiaries. TcCDIS
For untitled public alienable and disposable lands which are tenanted and with
claimants not qualified under the criteria specified in RA 6940, the disposition
shall be under the jurisdiction of the DENR. The role of the DAR in this case is
limited to the documentation and protection of the leasehold arrangement
between the public land claimant and the tenants.
If the alienable and disposable land is not tenanted but has actual farm
occupants, and the public land claimant lacks the requisite thirty (30)-year
possession, these shall be under the jurisdiction of the DENR and the
appropriate tenurial instrument shall be applied.
It is submitted, however, that these alienable and disposable lands that are
privately claimed by claimants who are not qualified under the criteria set
under RA 6940 (1990) should be turned over to DAR for distribution under
CARP. As these claimants/tenants are mere occupants and can not be granted
Free Patents by the DENR, these land should instead be committed for agrarian
purposes.
A recently issued DENR MC 22 (1999) entitled "DENR Jurisdiction over all
Alienable ad Disposable Lands of the Public Domain," seems to abrogate or set
aside Joint DAR-DENR MC 14 (1997). It directs all Regional Executive Directors
to strictly exercise DENR's jurisdiction over all alienable and disposable lands of
the public domain, including those lands not specifically placed under the
jurisdiction of other government agencies, and prepare the same for disposition
to qualified and legitimate recipients under the People's Alliance for the
Rehabilitation of Environment of the Office of the Secretary of the DENR.
This recent issuance impliedly prohibits the turnover of alienable and
disposable lands to CARP, and thus, effectively removes remaining public
alienable and disposable lands out of the scope of CARP. While merely an
administrative order that can not overturn legislation on the matter, DENR MC 22
(1999) poses another roadblock which if not corrected or legally challenged in
court can derail the already delayed coverage of public agricultural lands. Sec. 7
of RA 6657 explicitly provides that alienable and disposable public agricultural
lands are among the priority lands for distribution. Needless to say, the political
implications of government's reluctance to commit public agricultural lands for
agrarian ends in the face of its relentless expropriation of private landholdings is
serious.
Ancestral Lands
Sec. 9 of RA 6657 defines ancestral lands as those lands that include, but not
limited to, lands in actual, continuous and open possession of an indigenous
cultural community and its members. Sec. 3 (b) of RA 8371 (1997) or the
"Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997," has a more encompassing definition, to
wit:
Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. — . . .
b). Ancestral Lands — Subject to Section 56 hereof, refers to lands occupied,
possessed and utilized by individuals, families, and clans who are members of the
ICCs/IPs (indigenous cultural communities/indigenous peoples) since time
immemorial, by themselves or through their predecessors-in-interests, under
claims of individual or traditional group ownership continuously, to the present,
except when interrupted by war, force majeure or displacement by force, deceit,
stealth or as a consequence of government projects and other voluntary dealings
entered into by government and private individuals/corporations, including, but not
limited to, residential lots, rice terraces or paddies, private forests, swidden farms
and treelots;
Policy for ancestral lands under CARP
CARP ensures the protection of the right of ICCs/IPs to their ancestral lands
to ensure their economic, social and cultural well being. Systems of land
ownership, land use, and modes of settling land disputes of the ICCs/IPs shall be
recognized and respected in line with principles of self-determination and
autonomy.
The Presidential Agrarian Reform Committee (PARC), notwithstanding any
law to the contrary, has the power to suspend the implementation of the CARP
with respect to ancestral lands for the purpose of identifying and delineating such
lands. It shall also respect laws on ancestral domain enacted by the respective
legislators of autonomous regions, subject to the provisions of the Constitution
and the principles enunciated in RA 6657 and other national laws.
However, the full protection of the rights of the ICCs/IPs to their ancestral
lands under CARP is hampered by various legal constraints. For one, while Sec.
9 respects or protects the rights of the ICCs/IPs to their ancestral lands as means
to protect their economic, social and cultural well-being, its definition of ancestral
lands is circumscribed by the limitation that the Torrens System shall be
respected. This is a fundamental legal setback to the rights of ICCs/IPs. It should
be noted that the vested rights of these communities to ancestral lands have
been recognized to have pre-existed the Regalian Doctrine which underlie the
government's perspective to full ownership and control over natural resources as
well as the current legal system that regulates private property rights.
CARP involves alienable and disposable lands only while ancestral lands of
ICCs/IPs encompass forest and mineral lands and other lands of the public
domain which are by definition inalienable and indisposable. Thus, the benefit of
being awarded CLOAs over ancestral lands to these ICCs/IPs are limited to
private agricultural lands and public agricultural lands transferred to DAR.
In any case, to promote and protect the rights of the ICCs/IPs over ancestral
lands situated in inalienable and indisposable public lands, DAR issues
member/s of the ICCs who are engaged in agricultural activities over the said
lands CARP Beneficiary Certificate (CBC). Though these do not vest title, it
likewise recognizes the claim of the ICC over these lands and allows them to
access support services from DAR.
RA 8371 (1997) has a more expansive definition of ancestral domains and
ancestral lands which includes lands that are legally determined as indisposable
and inalienable public lands. RA 8371 is a clear departure from earlier law and
regulation for not only does it expand the definition of ancestral lands but
recognizes the right of the ICCs/IPs to own these lands. National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), a body created by RA 8371, is vested, among others
with the power and issue Certificates of Ancestral Domain/Land Titles over
ancestral lands.
CHAPTER 2
Agricultural Leasehold
Agricultural Tenancy
Definition and nature of agricultural tenancy
Agricultural tenancy is defined as "the physical possession by a person of
land devoted to agriculture, belonging to or legally possessed by another for the
purpose of production through the labor of the former and of the members of his
immediate farm household in consideration of which the former agrees to share
the harvest with the latter or to pay a price certain or ascertainable, whether in
produce or in money, or both." (RA 1199 [1954], sec. 3)
In Gelos vs. CA, 208 SCRA 608 (1992), the Supreme Court held that
agricultural tenancy is not a purely factual relationship. The written agreement of
the parties is far more important as long it is complied with and not contrary to
law.
Facts:
Rafael Gelos was employed by Ernesto Alzona and his parents as their
laborer on a 25,000-sq. m farmland. They executed a written contract which
stipulated that as hired laborer Gelos would receive a daily wage of P5.00.
Three (3) years later, Gelos was informed of the termination of his services
and was asked to vacate the property. Gelos refused and continued working
on the land. Alzona filed a complaint for illegal detainer. The lower court found
Gelos as tenant of the property and entitled to remain thereon as such. The
decision was reversed by the Court of Appeals. DHACES
Issue:
What is the nature of the contract between Gelos and Alzona?
Held:
The parties entered into a contract of employment, not a tenancy agreement. The
agreement is a lease of services, not of the land in dispute. . . . The petitioner
would disavow the agreement, but his protestations are less than convincing. His
wife's testimony that he is illiterate is belied by his own testimony to the contrary in
another proceeding. Her claim that they were tricked into signing the agreement
does not stand up against the testimony of Atty. Santos Pampolina, who declared
under his oath as a witness (and as an attorney and officer of the court) that he
explained the meaning of the document to Gelos, who even read it himself before
signing it. . . . Gelos points to the specific tasks mentioned in the agreement and
suggests that they are the work of a tenant and not of a mere hired laborer. Not
so. The work specified is not peculiar to tenancy. What a tenant may do may also
be done by a hired laborer working under the direction of the landowner, as in the
case at bar. It is not the nature of the work involved but the intention of the parties
that determines the relationship between them. As this Court has stressed in a
number of cases, "tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what
the alleged tenant does upon the land. It is also a legal relationship. The intent of
the parties, the understanding when the farmer is installed, and as in this case,
their written agreements, provided these are complied with and are not contrary to
law, are even more important."
Classes of agricultural tenancy
Agricultural tenancy is classified into share tenancy and leasehold tenancy
(M. A. GERMAN, SHARE AND LEASEHOLD TENANCY, 13 [1995]).
Share tenancy means "the relationship which exists whenever two persons
agree on a joint undertaking for agricultural production wherein one party
furnishes the land and the other his labor, with either or both contributing any one
or several of the items of production, the tenant cultivating the land personally
with aid of labor available from members of his immediate farm household, and
the produce thereof to be divided between the landholder and the tenant." (Rep.
Act No. 3844 [1963]. Sec. 166 [25]).
With the passage of RA 3844, share tenancy has been declared to be
contrary to public policy and abolished (Rep. Act No. 3844 [1963], sec. 4) except
in the case of fishponds, saltbeds, and lands principally planted to citrus,
coconuts, cacao, coffee, durian and other similar permanent trees at the time of
the approval of said Act (Rep. Act No. 3844 [1963], sec. 35). When RA
6389 (1971) was enacted, agricultural share tenancy has been automatically
converted to leasehold but the exemptions remained. It was only under RA
6657 when the exemptions were expressly repealed.
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 (Rep. Act No. 1199 [1954], sec. 4).
Under RA 6657, the only agricultural tenancy relation that is recognized is
leasehold tenancy. Said law expressly repealed Sec. 35 of RA 3844, making all
tenanted agricultural lands throughout the country subject to leasehold.
Leasehold tenancy may be established by operation of law, that is, through
the abolition of share tenancy under Sec. 4 of RA 3844; through the exercise by
the tenant of his right to elect leasehold; or by agreement of the parties either
orally or in writing, expressly or impliedly, which was the condition before 1972
(M.A. German, supra, at 27).
Leasehold relation is instituted in retained areas with tenant(s) under RA
6657 or PD 27who opts to choose to remain therein instead of becoming a
beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable
features. The tenant must exercise his option within one (1) year from the time
the landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention (Rep. Act No.
6657 [1988], sec. 6). Leasehold relation also exists in all tenanted agricultural
lands that are not yet covered under CARP (DAR Adm. O. No. 5 [1993]).
The institution of leasehold in these areas ensure the protection and
improvement of the tenurial and economic status of tenant-tillers therein. (Rep.
Act No. 6657 [1988], sec. 6).
Leasehold tenancy distinguished from civil law lease
In Gabriel vs. Pangilinan, 58 SCRA 590 (1974), the Supreme Court
distinguished leasehold tenancy from civil law lease.
There are important differences between a leasehold tenancy and a civil law
lease. The subject matter of leasehold tenancy is limited to agricultural land; that
of civil law lease may be either rural or urban property. As to attention and
cultivation, the law requires the leasehold tenant to personally attend to, and
cultivate the agricultural land, whereas the civil law lessee need not personally
cultivate or work the thing leased. As to purpose, the landholding in leasehold
tenancy is devoted to agriculture, whereas in civil law lease, the purpose may be
for any other lawful pursuits. As to the law that governs, the civil law lease is
governed by the Civil Code, whereas leasehold tenancy is governed by special
laws (at 596).
Elements of Agricultural Tenancy
The following are the essential requisites for the existence of a tenancy
relation:
a) The parties are the landholder and the tenant;
b) The subject is agricultural land;
c) There is consent by the landholder for the tenant to work on the
land, given either orally or in writing, expressly or impliedly;
d) The purpose is agricultural production;
e) There is personal cultivation or with the help of the immediate farm
household; and
f) There is compensation in terms of payment of a fixed amount in
money and/or produce. (Carag vs. CA, 151 SCRA 44 [1987]; Gabriel vs.
Pangilinan, 58 SCRA 590 [1974]; Oarde vs. CA, 280 SCRA 235
[1997]; Qua vs. CA, 198 SCRA 236 [1991])
The Supreme Court emphasized in numerous cases that "(a)ll these
requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship between the
parties. The absence of one does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, or a
cultivator thereof, or a planter thereon, a de jure tenant. This is so because
unless a person has established his status as a de juretenant, he is not entitled
to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of the
Government under existing tenancy laws." (Caballes v. DAR, 168 SCRA 254
[1988])
In the case of Teodoro vs. Macaraeg, 27 SCRA 7 (1969), the Court found all the
elements of an agricultural leasehold relation contained in the contract of lease
executed by the parties.
Facts:
Macaraeg had been the lessee of the property of Teodoro for the past seven (7)
years when he was advised by the latter to vacate the property because it would
be given to another tenant. Thereafter, a new tenant was installed who forbade
Macaraeg from working on the riceland. On the other hand, Teodoro denied that
Macaraeg was his tenant and claimed that he had always leased all of his 39-
hectare riceland under civil lease. He further claimed that after the expiration of his
"Contract of Lease" with Macaraeg in 1961, the latter did not anymore renew his
contract.
Held:
The Contract of Lease between the parties contains the essential elements of a
leasehold tenancy agreement. The landholding in dispute is unmistakably an
agricultural land devoted to agricultural production. More specifically, the parties
stipulated that "the property leased shall be used or utilized for agricultural
enterprise only." Furthermore, the parties also agreed that the farmland must be
used for rice production as could be inferred from the stipulation that "the rental of
nine (9) cavans of palay per hectare for one agricultural year . . . must be of the
same variety (of palay) as that produced by the LESSEE."
The land is definitely susceptible of cultivation by a single person as it is of an
area of only four and a half (4-1/2) ha. This court has held that even a bigger area
may be cultivated personally by the tenant, singly or with the help of the members
of his immediate farm household.
From the stipulation that "the rental must be of the same variety as that produced
by the LESSEE," it can reasonably be inferred that the intention of the parties was
that Macaraeg personally work the land, which he did as found by the Agrarian
Court, thus: "In the instant case,petitioner (Macaraeg) cultivated the landholding
belonging to said respondent (Teodoro) for the agricultural year 1960-61 in
consideration of a fixed annual rental." (italics supplied) Moreover, there is no
evidence that Macaraeg did not personally cultivate the land in dispute. Neither
did Teodoro allege, much less prove, that Macaraeg availed of outside assistance
in the cultivation of the said riceland.
Teodoro is the registered owner of the disputed landholding and he delivered the
possession thereof to Macaraeg in consideration of a rental certain to be paid in
produce. Evidently, there was a valid leasehold tenancy agreement. Moreover, the
provision that the rental be accounted in terms of produce — 9 cavans per hectare
— is an unmistakable earmark, considering the other stipulations, that the parties
did actually enter into a leasehold tenancy relation (at 16-17;underscoring
supplied).
Agricultural tenancy relation is different from farm employer-farm employee
relation. The Court clarified the difference in the case of Gelos vs. CA, 208 SCRA
608 (1992), as follows:
On the other hand, the indications of an employer-employee relationship are: 1)
the selection and engagement of the employee; 2) the payment of wages; 3) the
power of dismissal; and 4) the power to control the employee's conduct —
although the latter is the most important element.
According to a well-known authority on the subject, tenancy relationship is
distinguished from farm employer-farm worker relationship in that: "In farm
employer-farm worker relationship, the lease is one of labor with the agricultural
laborer as the lessor of his services and the farm employer as the lessee thereof.
In tenancy relationship, it is the landowner who is the lessor, and the tenant the
lessee of 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." (at 614)
Parties: landholder and tenant
Tenant defined.
A tenant is "a person who by himself, or with the aid available from within his
immediate 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 or for a price certain or ascertainable in produce or in money or both,
under the leasehold tenancy system." (Rep. Act No. 1199 [1954], sec. 5 (a)).
An overseer of a coconut plantation is not considered a tenant.
Facts:
Spouses Caballes acquired subject land from the Millenes family. Prior to the sale,
Abajon constructed his house on a portion of the property, paying a monthly rental
to the owner. Abajon was also allowed to plant on a portion of the land and that
the produce thereof would be shared by them on a 50-50 basis. When the new
owners took over, they told Abajon to transfer his dwelling to the southern portion
of the property because they would be building a poultry near Abajon's house.
Later, the Caballes asked Abajon to leave because they needed the property.
Abajon refused. During the trial the former landowner testified that Abajon dutifully
gave her 50% share of the produce of the land under his cultivation.
Held:
The fact of sharing alone is not sufficient to establish a tenancy relationship. The
circumstances of this case indicate that the private respondent's status is more of
a caretaker who was allowed by the owner out of benevolence or compassion to
live in the premises and to have a garden of some sort at its southwestern side
rather than a tenant of the said portion. Agricultural production as the primary
purpose being absent in the arrangement, it is clear that the private respondent
was never a tenant of the former owner, Andrea Millenes. Consequently, Sec. 10
of RA 3844, as amended, does not apply. Simply stated, the private respondent is
not a tenant of the herein petitioner.
Personal cultivation
Cultivation
Under DAR AO 5 (1993), cultivation is not limited to the plowing and
harrowing of the land, but also the husbanding of the ground to forward the
products of the earth by general industry, the taking care of the land and fruits
growing thereon, fencing of certain areas, and the clearing thereof by gathering
dried leaves and cutting of grasses. In coconut lands, cultivation includes the
clearing of the landholding, the gathering of the coconuts, their piling, husking
and handling as well as the processing thereof into copra, although at times with
the aid of hired laborers.
Meaning of "Personal Cultivation"
"Personal cultivation" exists when a person cultivates the land by himself and
with the aid available from his immediate farm household.
In Oarde vs. CA, et al., supra, the Court held that the element of personal
cultivation is essential for an agricultural leasehold. There should be personal
cultivation by the tenant or by his immediate farm household or members of the
family of the lessee or other persons who are dependent upon him for support or
who usually help him in his activities (Evangelista vs. CA, 158 SCRA 41). The
law is explicit in requiring the tenant and his immediate family to work the land
(Bonifacio vs. Dizon, 177 SCRA 294), and the lessee cannot hire many persons
to help him cultivate the land (De Jesus vs. IAC, 175 SCRA 559). In Gabriel vs.
Pangilinan, supra, the Court held that the tenancy relation was severed when the
tenant and/or his immediate farm household ceased from personally working the
fishpond when he became ill and incapacitated.
Compensation in money and/or produce
In Matienzo v. Servidad, 107 SCRA 276 (1981), the Supreme Court held that:
A tenant is defined under section 5(a) of Republic Act No. 1199 as a person who,
himself, and with the aid available from within his immediate 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 or ascertainable in
produce or in money or both, under the leasehold tenancy system. From the
above definition of a tenant, it is clear that absent a sharing arrangement, no
tenancy relationship had ever existed between the parties. What transpired was
that plaintiff was made overseer over a 7-hectare land area; he was to supervise
applications for loans from those residing therein; he was allowed to build his
house thereon and to plant specified plants without being compensated; he was
free to clear and plant the land as long as he wished; he had no sharing
arrangement between him and defendant; and he was not obligated to pay any
price certain to nor share the produce, with the latter. CaSHAc
Security of Tenure
Under Sec. 7 of RA 1199, "the agricultural leasehold relation once established
shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the
landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee
shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected
therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes herein provided."
The Supreme Court has consistently ruled that once a leasehold relation has
been established, the agricultural lessee is entitled to security of tenure. The
tenant has a right to continue working on the land except when he is ejected
therefrom for cause as provided by law (De Jesus vs. IAC, 175 SCRA 559
[1989]).
Transfer of ownership or legal possession does not affect security of
tenure.
In Tanpingco vs. IAC, 207 SCRA 653 (1992), the Court upheld the validity of
donation but the donee must respect the rights of the tenant and ordered the
donee to pay the tenant disturbance compensation.
Facts:
Primero owns a tenanted riceland in Cavite. Because of his desire to let the
property to one Porfirio Potente, he notified his tenant advising the latter to vacate
the land. The tenant refused. Primero filed a case with CAR which subsequently
dismissed the same. On appeal, Primero assailed the constitutionality of Sec. 9
and 50 of RA 1199 claiming that said provisions are limitations on freedom of
contract, a denial of equal protection of law, and an impairment of, or limitation on,
property rights.
Held:
The provisions of law assailed as unconstitutional do not impair the right of the
landowner to dispose or alienate his property nor prohibit him to make such
transfer or alienation; they only provide that in case of transfer or in case of lease,
as in the instant case, the tenancy relationship between the landowner and his
tenant should be preserved in order to insure the well-being of the tenant or
protect him from being unjustly dispossessed by the transferee or purchaser of the
land; in other words, the purpose of the law in question is to maintain the tenants
in the peaceful possession and cultivation of the land or afford them protection
against unjustified dismissal from their landholdings. Republic Act 1199 is
unquestionably a remedial legislation promulgated pursuant to the social justice
precepts of the Constitution and in the exercise of the police power of the state to
promote the commonwealth. It is a statute relating to public subjects within the
domain of the general legislative powers of the State and involving the public
rights and public welfare of the entire community affected by it. Republic Act 1199,
like the previous tenancy laws enacted by our lawmaking body, was passed by
congress in compliance with the constitutional mandates that "the promotion of
social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all the people
should be the concern of the State" (Art II, sec. 5) and that "the state shall regulate
the relations between landlord and tenant in agriculture" (Art. XIV, sec. 6). (at
680).
In Pineda vs. de Guzman, 21 SCRA 1450 (1967), the Supreme Court also
held:
Section 49 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, Republic Act 1199, as amended,
enunciates the principle of security of tenure of the tenants, such that it prescribes
that the relationship of landholder and tenant can only be terminated for causes
provided by law. The principle is epitomized by the axiom on land tenure that once
a tenant, always a tenant. Attacks on the constitutionality of this guarantee have
centered on the contention that it is a limitation on freedom of contract, a denial of
the equal protection of the law, and an impairment of or a limitation on property
rights. The assault is without reason. The law simply provides that the tenancy
relationship between the landholder and his tenant should be preserved in order to
insure the well-being of the tenant and protect him from being unjustly
dispossessed of the land. Its termination can take place only for causes and
reasons provided in the law. It was established pursuant to the social justice
precept of the State to promote the common weal.(Primero vs. Court of Industrial
Relations, G.R. No. L-10594, May 29, 1957) (at 1456).
Rights and Responsibilities of the Parties
Rights and responsibilities of lessee
The lessee shall have the following rights:
a) To have possession and peaceful enjoyment of the land;
b) To manage and work on the land in a manner and method of
cultivation and harvest which conform to the proven farm practices;
c) To mechanize all or any phase of his farm work;
d) To deal with millers and processors and attend to the issuance of
quedans and warehouse receipts of the produce due him/her;
e) To continue in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of any
homelot the lessee may have occupied upon the effectivity of RA 3844;
f) To be indemnified for the costs and expenses incurred in the
cultivation and for other expenses incidental to the improvement of the crop
in case the lessee surrenders, abandons or is ejected from the landholding;
g) To have the right of pre-emption and redemption; and
h) To be paid disturbance compensation in case the conversion of the
farmholding has been approved (Rep. Act No. 3844 [1963], sec. 23, 24, 25,
11, 12, 36)
On the other hand, the lessee shall have the following responsibilities under
Sec. 26 ofRA 3844:
a) Cultivate and take care of the farm, growing crops, and other
improvements on the land and perform all the work therein in accordance
with proven farm practices;
b) Inform the lessor within a reasonable time of any trespass
committed by third persons on the farm, without prejudice to his/her direct
action against the trespasser;
c) Take reasonable care of the work animals and farm implements
delivered to him/her by the lessor and see to it that they are not used for
purposes other than those intended, or used by another without the
knowledge and consent of the lessor;
d) Keep the farm and growing crops attended to during the work
season; and
e) To pay the lease rental to the lessor when it falls due.
One of the rights of a lessee is to be entitled to a homelot. But only the tenant-
lessee has this right and that members of the immediate family of the tenants are
not entitled to a homelot.
Facts:
Petitioner Cecilleville Realty owns a parcel of land, a portion of which is occupied
by Herminigildo Pascual. Despite repeated demands, Herminigildo refused to
vacate the property and insisted that he is entitled to occupy the land since he is
helping his mother, the corporation's tenant, to cultivate the property.
Held:
Only a tenant is granted the right to have a home lot and the right to construct or
maintain a house thereon. And here, private respondent does not dispute that he
is not petitioner's tenant. In fact, he admits that he is a mere member of Ana
Pascual's immediate farm household. Under the law, therefore, we find private
respondent not entitled to a homelot. Neither is he entitled to construct a house of
his own or to continue maintaining the same within the very small landholding of
petitioner. . . . Thus, if the Court were to follow private respondent's argument and
allow all the members of the tenant's immediate farm household to construct and
maintain their houses and to be entitled to not more than one thousand (1,000)
square meters each of home lot, as what private respondent wanted this Court to
dole-out, then farms will be virtually converted into rows, if not colonies, of houses.
In sugarcane lands, the lessee shall have the following rights to be exercised
by him personally or through a duly registered cooperative/farmers' association of
which he is abona fide member (DAR Adm. O. No. 5 [1993]):
a) To enter into a contract with the sugar central millers for the milling
of the sugarcane grown on the leased property;
b) To be issued a warehouse receipt (quedan) or molasses storage
certificate by the sugar central for the manufactured sugar, molasses and
other by-products;
c) To have free access to the sugar central's factory, facilities, and
laboratory for purposes of checking and/or verifying records and procedures
in the processing of sugarcane through professional representation;
d) To be furnished a weekly statement of cane and sugar account
showing, among other things, the tonnage of the delivered cane and
analysis of the crusher juice;
e) To be given 30 days notice in writing before the sugar and other by-
products are sold through public auction; and
f) To be provided with the standard tonnage allocation by the
miller/sugar central.
Rights and responsibilities of lessor
The lessor shall have the following rights:
a) To inspect and observe the extent of compliance with the terms and
conditions of the leasehold contract;
b) To propose a change in the use of the landholding to other agricultural
purposes, or in the kind of crops planted;
c) To require the lessee, taking into consideration his/her financial capacity
and the credit facilities available to him/her, to adopt proven farm practices
necessary to the conservation of the land, improvement of the fertility and
increase in productivity; and
d) To mortgage expected rentals (Rep. Act No. 3844 [1963], sec. 29):
The lessor may propose a change in use but the change shall be agreed upon
by the landowner and the lessee. In case of disagreement, the matter may be
settled by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), or in his absence
the Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (RARAD) (DAR Adm. O. No. 5 [1993])
The lessor shall have the following obligations:
a) To keep the lessee in peaceful possession and cultivation of the
land; and
b) To keep intact such permanent useful improvements existing on the
landholding at the start of the leasehold relation (Rep. Act No. 3844 [1963],
sec. 30).
Sec. 31 of RA 3844 provides that the lessor is prohibited to perform any of the
following acts:
a) To dispossess the lessee of his/her landholding except upon
authorization by the Court;
b) To require the lessee to assume, directly or indirectly, the payment
of the taxes or part thereof levied by the government on the land;
c) To require the lessee to assume, directly or indirectly, any rent or
obligation of the lessor to a third party;
d) To deal with millers or processors without written authorization of
the lessee in cases where the crop has to be sold in processed form before
payment of the lease rental;
e) To discourage, directly or indirectly, the formation, maintenance or
growth of unions or organizations of lessees in his/her landholding; and
f) For coconut lands, indiscriminate cutting of coconut trees will be
deemed prima facie evidence to dispossess the tenant of his/her
landholding unless there is written consent of the lessee and there is PCA
certification, copy of the findings and recommendations of which shall be
furnished to affected tenants or lessees, or a resolution from the Municipal
Board allowing the cutting for valid reasons (DAR Adm. O. No. 5
[1993] and DAR Adm. O. No. 19 [1989]).
Termination of Tenancy Relation
Causes for termination of leasehold relation
Section 8 of RA 3844 provides that agricultural leasehold relation shall be
extinguished by the following acts or omissions:
a) Abandonment of the landholding without the knowledge of the
agricultural lessor;
b) Voluntary surrender of the landholding by the agricultural lessee,
written notice of which shall be served three months in advance; or
c) Absence of an heir to succeed the lessee in the event of his/her
death or permanent incapacity.
Conversion of the land to non-agricultural uses also extinguishes the
leasehold relation because the subject land is no longer an agricultural land and
the purpose is no longer agricultural production. However, under Sec. 16 of DAR
AO 1 (1999), the tenant affected by the conversion is entitled to disturbance
compensation which must be paid within sixty (60) days from the issuance of the
order of conversion.
Abandonment
In the case of Teodoro vs. Macaraeg, supra, it was held that the word
"abandon," in its ordinary sense, means to forsake entirely, to forsake or
renounce utterly. "The emphasis is on the finality and the publicity with which
some thing or body is thus put in the control of another, and hence the meaning
of giving up absolutely, with intent never again to resume or claim one's rights or
interests." In other words, the act of abandonment constitutesactual, absolute
and irrevocable desertion of one's right or property. . . . Likewise, failure to
cultivate the land by reason of the forcible prohibition to do so by a third party
cannot also amount to abandonment, for abandonment presupposes free will."
(at 19-20; underscoring supplied).
Voluntary surrender of property
The tenant's intention to surrender landholding cannot be presumed, much
less determined by mere implication, but must be convincingly and sufficiently
proved.
Facts:
Spouses Gavino and Florencia Nisnisan are the owners of a 4.9774 hectare land
in Davao del Sur. Policarpio, the son of Gavino, has been cultivating one (1) ha of
said land since 1961. In 1976, Gavino and Policarpio executed a leasehold
contract which stipulates a sharing arrangement of 1/3:2/3 of the harvest. In 1978,
Gavino sold two (2) ha of the land, including the land tenanted by Policarpio, to
spouses Mancera. As a result of the sale, Policarpio and family were ousted. They
then filed an action for reinstatement of tenancy against the Manceras. The
Manceras, on the other hand, countered that spouses Nisnisan have no cause of
action because they voluntarily surrendered their landholding.
Issue:
Is the tenant deemed to have voluntarily surrendered subject landholding?
Held:
Other than their bare allegations, private respondents failed to present any
evidence to show that petitioners-spouses surrendered their landholding
voluntarily after the private respondents purchased the subject property.
Moreover, the filing of the complaint for reinstatement of leasehold tenancy by
petitioners-spouses against private respondents before the CAR militates against
the private respondents' claim that petitioners-spouses voluntarily surrendered
their landholding to them. Under Sec. 8 of RA 3844, voluntary surrender, as a
mode of extinguishing agricultural leasehold tenancy relations, must be
convincingly and sufficiently proved by competent evidence. The tenant's intention
to surrender the landholding cannot be presumed, much less determined by mere
implication.
Effect of death or permanent incapacity of tenant-lessee on leasehold
relation
Under Sec. 9 of RA 3844, in case of death or permanent incapacity, the
leasehold relation continues between the lessor and the person who can cultivate
the land personally, chosen by the lessor within one month from such death or
incapacity, from among the following:
a) The surviving spouse;
b) The eldest direct descendant by consanguinity;
c) The next eldest descendant or descendants in the order of age.
The age requirement is applied under the presumption that all
heirs/successors are qualified.
The
leasehold relation is not terminated by death or permanent incapacity of
the landholder-lessor. It binds his legal heirs (Rep. Act No. 3844 [1963], sec. 9).
Also, Sec. 10 of RA 3844 provides that the mere expiration of the term or
period in a leasehold contract nor by sale, alienation or transfer of the legal
possession of the landholding does not extinguished leasehold. In these cases,
the transferee is subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the
lessor.
Dispossession of Tenants
Under Sec. 36 of RA 3844, dispossession of tenants may be authorized by
the Court in a judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown
that:
a) The lessee failed to substantially comply with the terms and
conditions of the contract or with pertinent laws unless the failure is caused
by a fortuitous event or force majeure;
b) The lessee planted crops or used the land for a purpose other than
what has been previously agreed upon;
(Note:
Under DAR AO 5 [1993], the lessee is now allowed to intercrop
or plant secondary crops after the rental has been fixed, provided the lessee
shoulders the expenses.)
c) The lessee failed to adopt proven farm practices necessary to
conserve the land, improve its fertility, and increase its productivity taking
into consideration the lessee's financial capacity and the credit facilities
available to him;
d) There has been substantial damage, destruction or unreasonable
deterioration of the land or any permanent improvement thereon due to the
fault or negligence of the lessee;
e) The lessee failed to pay lease rental on time except when such non-
payment is due to crop failure to the extent of 75% as a result of a fortuitous
event;
f) The lessee employed a sub-lessee; or
g) The landholding is declared by the DAR to be suited for residential,
commercial, industrial or some other urban purposes subject to payment of
disturbance compensation to the lessee.
(Note:
Under Sec. 36 [1] of RA 3844, as amended by RA 6389, disturbance
compensation is equivalent to five [5] times the average of the gross harvest on
his landholding during the last five [5] preceding calendar years.)
In the case of Garchitorena vs. Panganiban, 6 SCRA 338 (1962), it was held
that when non-payment of lease rentals occurs for several years, said omission
has the effect of depriving the landowner of the enjoyment of the possession and
use of the land.
Under Sec. 36 (1) of RA 3844, as amended, a lessor who ejects his tenant
without the court's authorization shall be liable for:
a) fine or imprisonment;
b) damages suffered by the agricultural lessee in addition to the fine or
imprisonment for unauthorized dispossession;
c) payment of attorney's fees incurred by the lessee; and
d) the reinstatement of the lessee.
Determination of Lease Rentals
The lease rental shall not be more than the equivalent of 25% of the average
normal harvest during the three (3) agricultural years preceding the following
dates:
• 10 September 1971, the date of effectivity of RA 6389 for tenanted
rice and corn lands;
• 15 June 1988 or date the tenant opted to enter into leasehold
agreement, whichever is sooner, for tenanted sugar lands; or
• 15 June 1988 or date of leasehold agreement by the parties
concerned, whichever is sooner, for all other agricultural lands after
deducting the amount used for seeds and the cost of harvesting, threshing,
loading, hauling and processing whichever is applicable (DAR Adm. O. No.
5 [1993]).
DAR AO 5 (1993) defines "normal harvest" as the usual or regular produce
obtained from the land when it is not affected by any fortuitous event like drought,
earthquake, volcanic eruption, and the like. If there had been no normal harvest,
the estimated normal harvest during the three (3) preceding agricultural years
shall be considered as the normal harvest.
"Agricultural year" refers to the period of time required for raising a particular
product, including the preparation of the land, sowing, planting and harvesting of
crops and, whenever applicable, threshing of said crops: Provided, however,
That in case of crops yielding more than one harvest from one planting,
"agricultural year" shall be the period from the preparation of the land to the first
harvest and thereafter from harvest to harvest. In both cases, the period may be
shorter or longer than a calendar year.
The law states that only the amount used for seeds and the cost of
harvesting, threshing, loading, hauling, and processing, whichever is applicable,
are considered allowable deductions from the normal harvest in order to
determine the lease rental.
The lease rental shall cover the whole farmholding attended to by the lessee.
Computation of lease rental shall include both primary and secondary crops
existing as of 15 June 1988. Secondary crops which are planted to an aggregate
area of half a hectare or less shall not be included in the computation of the lease
rental (DAR Adm. O. No. 5 [1993]).
If the land has been cultivated for a period of less than three agricultural
years prior to 15 June 1988, the initial rental shall be based on the average
normal harvest during the preceding agricultural years when the land was
actually cultivated.
After the lapse of the first three (3) normal harvests, the final rental shall be
based on the average normal harvest during these three (3) preceding
agricultural years.
CHAPTER 3
Land Acquisition
The above formula is used if all the three (3) factors are present,
relevant, and applicable (DAR Admin. O. No. 5 [1998]). In any case, the
resulting figure in the equation is always multiplied to the number of area or
hectarage of land valued for just compensation.
To illustrate the formula wherein all of the factors above mentioned are
present:
Area : 3 hectares Capitalized Net Income : P24,900
Market Value : P10,000 Comparable Sales : P 5,000
LV = (MV x 2) + CDC
Where:
a) The market value (MV) to be used is the applicable unit market
value (UMV) classification of idle land.
b) The cumulative development cost (CDC) is grossed-up from the
date of FI up to the date of LBP Claim Folder (CF) receipt for processing but
in no case should the grossed-up CDC exceed the current CDC data based
on industry.
In case the CDC data provided by the landowner could not be verified, DAR
and LBP should secure the said data from concerned agency/ies or, in the
absence thereof, should establish the same.
However, the resulting land value should not exceed the value of productive
land similar in terms of crop and plant density within the estate under
consideration or within the same barangay or municipality (in that order)
approved by LBP within one (1) year from receipt of CF (DAR Admin. O. No. 5
[1998]).
Lands with permanent but not yet productive crops introduced by
farmer-beneficiaries
When the permanent but not yet fruit-bearing crops are introduced by the
farmer-beneficiaries, the land valuation formula used is the same as if only the
MV is available provided the MV used is the applicable UMV classification of idle
land. In equation form:
LV = MV x 2
In any case, the resulting land value should not exceed the value of
productive land similar in terms of crop and plant density within the estate under
consideration or within the same barangay or municipality (in that order)
approved by LBP within one (1) year from receipt of CF. And in case the CS is
relevant or applicable, the land value is computed in accordance with the general
formula where MV is based on the applicable classification of the land (DAR
Admin. O. No. 5 [1998]).
Use of Salvage Value on valuation of lands planted to permanent but
no longer productive or ready for cutting crops
When lands being valued are planted to permanent but no longer productive
or the crops are ready for cutting, the computation considers the applicable UMV
classification of idle land plus the salvage value of the standing trees at the time
of the FI. In equation form:
LV = (MV x 2) + Salvage Value
But the resulting land value should not exceed the value of productive land
similar in terms of crop and plant density within the estate under consideration or
within the same barangay or municipality (in that order) approved by LBP within
one (1) year from receipt of CF. In case where CS is relevant or applicable, the
land value is computed in accordance with the general formula where MV is
based on the lowest productivity classification of the land (DAR Admin. O. No. 5
[1998]).
Land value under Voluntary Offer to Sell
In VOS, the computed value using the applicable formula should not exceed
the landowner's offer. The landowner's offer is grossed up from the date of the
offer up to the date of receipt of CF by LBP from DAR for processing. The date of
receipt of CF by LBP from DAR means the date when the CF is determined by
the LBP-LVLCO to be complete with all the required documents and valuation
inputs duly verified and validated, and ready for final computation/processing.
Factors of Land Value
Computation of Capitalized Net Income
Capitalized Net Income refers to the difference between the product of the
gross sales and selling prices (AGP x SP) and total cost of operations (CO)
capitalized at 12%.
Expressed in equation form:
(AGP x SP) - CO
CNI = ———————————
0.12
Hence:
= P24,900.56/hectare
Comparable Sales
Comparable sales refers to any one or the average of all the applicable sub-
factors, namely sales transactions (ST), acquisition cost (AC) and market value
based on mortgage (MVM):
Where: ST = (Peso Value of Sales Transactions)
The criteria in the selection of the comparable sales transaction (ST) shall be
as follows:
a) When the required number of STs is not available at the barangay
level, additional STs may be secured from the municipality where the land
being offered/covered is situated to complete the required three comparable
STs. In case there are more STs available than what is required at the
municipal level, the most recent transactions shall be considered. The same
rule applies at the provincial level when no STs are available at the
municipal level. In all cases, the combination of STs sourced from the
barangay, municipality and province should not exceed three transactions.
b) The land subject of acquisition as well as those subject of
comparable sales transactions should be similar in topography, land use,
i.e., planted to the same crop. Furthermore, in case of permanent crops, the
subject properties should be more or less comparable in terms of their
stages of productivity and plant density.
c) The comparable sales transactions should have been executed
within the period 1 January 1985 to 15 June 988, and registered within the
period 1 January 1985 to 13 September 1988.
d) STs are grossed up from the date of registration up to the date of
receipt of CF by LBP from DAR for processing.
AC or Acquisition Cost is deemed relevant when the property subject of
acquisition was acquired through purchase or exchange with another property
within the period 1 January 1985 to 15 June 1988 and registered within the
period 1 January 1985 to 13 September 1988, and the condition of said property
is still substantially similar from the date of purchase or exchange to the date of
FI.
AC is grossed up from the date of registration of the deed of sale/exchange
up to the date of receipt of CF by LBP from DAR for processing.
MVM or Market Value Based on Mortgage. For MVM to be relevant or
applicable, the property subject of acquisition should have been mortgaged as of
15 June 1988 and the condition of the property is still substantially similar up to
the date of FI. MVM refers to the latest available appraised value of the property
(DAR Admin. O. No. 5 [1998]).
Market Value
MV or Market Value per Tax Declaration is the latest Tax Declaration (TD)
and Schedule of Unit Market Value (SUMV) issued prior to receipt of CF by LBP.
The Unit Market Value (UMV) is grossed-up from the date of its effectivity up to
the date of receipt of CF by LBP from DAR processing.
Formula in Grossing-Up of Valuation Inputs
The basic formula in the grossing-up of valuation inputs such as LO's Offer,
Sales Transaction (ST), Acquisition Cost (AC), Market Value Based on Mortgage
(MVM) and Market Value per Tax Declaration (MV) is:
Grossed-up
Valuation Input = Valuation Input x Regional Consumer
Price Index (RCPI) Adjustment Factor
The various valuation inputs are multiplied with the RCPI Adjustment
Factor. The RCPI Adjustment Factor refers to the ratio of the most recent
available RCPI for the month issued by the National Statistics Office as of the
date when the CF was received by LBP from DAR for processing and the
RCPI for the month as of the date/effectivity/registration of the valuation input.
Expressed in equation form:
Most
Recent RCPI for the Month as of the Date
of Receipt of CF by LBP from DAR
RCPI Adjustment Factor = —————————————————
RCPI for the Month Issued as of the Date/
Effectivity/Registration of the Valuation Input
The Regional Trial Courts have not 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 qua 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 land-owners," and 2) "the prosecution
of all criminal offenses under . . . (the) Act (at 890). Vda. de Tangub vs. CA,
191 SCRA 885 (1990)
Although the proceedings are described as summary, the landowner and
other interested parties are nevertheless allowed an opportunity to submit
evidence on the real value of the property. But more importantly, such
determination of just compensation by the DAR, as earlier stated is by no
means final and conclusive upon the landowner or any other interested party
for Section 16 (f) clearly provides: "Any party who disagrees with the decision
may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination
of just compensation" Magana vs. Estrella, 201 SCRA 536 (1991).
In Phil. Veterans Bank vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 132767, 18 January
2000, petitioner Bank argued that the DAR Adjudicators have no jurisdiction to
determine just compensation for the taking of lands under CARP because such
jurisdiction is vested in Regional Trial Courts designated as Special Agrarian
Courts. Hence, Petitioner could file its petition with the RTC beyond the 15-day
period of appeal from the decision of the DAR Adjudicator. The RTC dismissed
the petition of Petitioner for being filed beyond the 15-day period for appeal. The
Supreme Court reiterated its ruling in Republic vs. Court of Appeals, supra, and
said:
* government support price for one cavan of 50 kilos of palay on October 21,
1972
** government support price for one cavan of 50 kilos of corn on October 21,
1972
Lease rentals paid to the landowner by the farmer-beneficiary after 21
October 1972 shall be considered as advance payment for the land.
The factor of government support price provided under EO 228 does not
undervalue PD 27 lands. Under DAR AO 13 (1994), an increment of 6% yearly
interest compounded annually on lands covered by PD 27 and EO 228 is
granted. The formula is:
(Computed land value using the original formula) x (1.06)n
where : n = number of years from date of tenancy up to effectivity date
The landowners qualified to receive the compensation based on the
increment formula are:
a) Those whose lands are actually tenanted as of October 21, 1972 or
thereafter and Operation Land Transfer (OLT) covered;
b) Those who opted for government financing thru LBP as the mode of
compensation; and
c) Those who have not yet been paid for the value of the land.
For those who were partially paid, the yearly increment of 6% compounded
annually shall only be applied to the unpaid balance. According to the above
mentioned administrative issuance, the said grant of increment is reckoned from
the effectivity date ofPD 27 or date when the land was actually tenanted up to the
effectivity date of DAR AO 13 (1994) or up to 27 October 1994 only. It seems the
grant of increment cannot be applied after this effectivity date even if the actual
payment can be had after 27 October 1994.
In the case of Benosa vs. CA, G.R. No. 122231, 27 November 1995, on the
issue of granting interest to the landowner, it was held:
It is settled that the landowners are entitled to legal interest on the amount
payable from the time the property was taken until full payment is made (National
Power Corporation vs. Angas, 208 SCRA 542; Commissioner of Public Highways
vs. Burgos, supra; Ortula vs. Republic, 22 SCRA 477; Republic vs. Delente,
supra). DAR Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1994 which grants increment
of 6% yearly interest compounded annually on lands covered by P.D. No. 27 and
E.O. No. 228, squarely recognizes the above rule and thus applies to the private
respondents.
In LBP vs. CA, supra, the Supreme Court decided not to apply the 6%
increment to the valuation because the Court of Appeals affirmed the PARAD's
use of the 1992 Gross Selling Price in the valuation of the private respondent's
land (following the ruling in the Court of Appeals case of Galeon vs. Pastoral,
CA-G.R. No. 23168; Rollo, p. 36)
Mode of Compensation
Landowners may be paid in cash or in kind. Payment in kind is justified in the
case ofAssociation of Small Landowners of the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of
Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343 (1989) as follows:
It cannot be denied from these cases that the traditional medium for the payment
of just compensation is money and no other. And so, conformably, has just
compensation been paid in the past solely in that medium. However, we do not
deal here with the traditional exercise of the power of eminent domain. This is not
an ordinary expropriation where only a specific property of relatively limited area is
sought to be taken by the State from its owner for a specific and perhaps local
purpose. What we deal with here is a revolutionary kind of expropriation.
The expropriation before us affects all private agricultural lands wherever found
and of whatever kind as long as they are in excess of the maximum retention
limits allowed their owners. This kind of expropriation is intended for the benefit
not only of a particular community or of a small segment of the population but of
the entire Filipino nation, from all levels of our society, from the impoverished
farmer to the land-glutted owner. Its purpose does not cover only the whole
territory of this country but goes beyond in time to the foreseeable future, which it
hopes to secure and edify with the vision and the sacrifice of the present
generation of Filipinos. Generations yet to come are as involved in this program as
we are today, . . . .
Accepting the theory that payment of the just compensation is not always required
to be made fully in money, we find further that the proportion of cash payment to
the other things of value constituting the total payment, as determined on the
basis of the areas of the lands expropriated, is not unduly oppressive upon the
landowner. It is noted that the smaller the land, the bigger the payment in money,
primarily because the small landowner will be needing it more than the big
landowners, who can afford a bigger balance in bonds and other things of value.
No less importantly, the government financial instruments making up the balance
of the payment are "negotiable at any time". The other modes, which are likewise
available to the landowner at his option, are also not unreasonable because
payment is made in shares of stock, LBP bonds, other properties or assets, tax
credits, and other things of value equivalent to the amount of just compensation.
The recognized rule indeed, is that title to the property expropriated shall pass
from the owner to the expropriator only upon full payment of the just
compensation. Jurisprudence on this settled principle is consistent both here and
in other democratic jurisdictions" (at 386, 388 and 389).
Cash Payment
Under Sec. 18 of RA 6657, the proportion of payment in cash, dependent on
the area/hectarage of the land valued is subject to the following:
a) above 50 hectares, insofar as the excess hectarage is concerned =
25% cash
b) above 24 hectares and up to 50 hectares = 30% cash
c) 24 hectares and below = 35% cash
For voluntary offer to sell, the cash portion is increased by 5%.
Payment in kind
Landowners may be paid with:
a) Shares of stock in government owned or controlled corporation, LBP
preferred shares, physical assets or other qualified investments.
b) Tax credits; or
c) LBP bonds
Features of LBP bonds
The new ten (10)-year LBP bonds have attractive features which are more
acceptable and marketable than the other investment instruments. As provided
under Sec. 18 of RA 6657, these features are:
1) Its market interest rates are aligned with 91-day treasury bill rates,
net of applicable final withholding tax, payable twice a year — six months
from date of issue and every six months thereafter.
2) One-tenth of the bond's face value matures every year from date of
issue up to the tenth year.
3) The bond is fully guaranteed by the national government.
4) The bond is non-denominated. Upon request, it can be split
according to amounts desired by the bondholder.
5) The bonds are highly transferable and negotiable. 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:
a) 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 same province or
region where the lands for which the bonds were paid are situated;
b) Acquisition of shares of stock of government-owned or controlled
corporations or shares of stock owned by the government in private
corporations;
c) Substitution for surety or bail bonds for the provisional release of
accused persons, or performance bonds;
d) 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;
e) 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;
f) Payment for tuition fees of the immediate family of the original
bondholder in government universities, colleges, trade schools, and other
institutions;
g) Payment for fees of the immediate family of the original bondholder
in government hospitals; and
h) Such other uses as the PARC may from time to time allow.
The 100% face value and negotiability of LBP bonds are well described in the
case ofGonzales vs. GSIS, 107 SCRA 492 (1981). Petitioner filed a petition for
mandamus to compel the respondent Government Service Insurance System
(GSIS) to accept 6% interest-bearing bonds issued by the Land Bank of the
Philippines at their par or face value as payment for petitioners' outstanding
housing loan. The act of the GSIS in discounting the LBP bonds was found
invalid. The Court ruled:
Land Bank bonds are certificates of indebtedness, approved by the Monetary
Board of the Central Bank, fully tax-exempt both as to principal and income, and
bear interest at the rate of 6% per annum redeemable at the option of the Land
Bank at or before maturity, which in no case shall exceed 25 years. They are fully
negotiable and unconditionally guaranteed by the Government of the Republic of
the Philippines. These bonds are deemed contracts and the obligations resulting
therefrom fall within the purview of the non-impairment clause of the Constitution,
and any impairment thereof may take any encroachment in any respect upon the
obligation and cannot be permitted. Thus, the value of these bonds cannot be
diminished by any direct or indirect act, particularly, since said bonds are fully
guaranteed by the Government of the Republic of the Philippines. They are issued
not in the open market nor for the captive market of landowners and to facilitate
the speedy transfer of lands to the tenant-farmers in support of the land reform
program of the Government. They are not ordinary commercial paper in that
sense subject to discounting (at 498, 499 and 502).
Mode of Payment for PD 27 Landowners
The landowners shall be paid in any of the following modes, at their option
(Exec. Order No. 228 [1987], sec. 3):
a) Bond payment over ten (10) years, with ten percent (10%) of the
value of the land payable immediately in cash, and the balance in the form
of LBP bonds bearing market rates of interest that are aligned with 90-day
treasury bills rates, net of applicable final withholding tax. One-tenth of the
face value of the bonds shall mature every year from the date of issuance
until the tenth year.
The
LBP bonds issued hereunder shall be eligible for the purchase of
government assets to be privatized.
b) Direct payment in cash or in kind by the farmer-beneficiaries with
the terms to be mutually agreed upon by the beneficiaries and landowners
and subject to the approval of the DAR; and
c) Other modes of payment as may be prescribed or approved by the
PARC.
Under Sec. 9 of EO 229, landowners who voluntarily offer to sell their lands
are given the same incentive given to PD 27 landowners under EO 228, which is
the exemption from the payment of capital gains tax and other taxes and fees.
CHAPTER 5
Land Redistribution
Qualified Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Under CARP
Section 22 of RA 6657 enumerates the groups of farmers and tillers who are
qualified to become beneficiaries of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program. They are the following:
(a) Children of landowners, who qualify under Section 6 of R.A. 6657;
(b) Agricultural lessees and share tenants;
(c) Regular farmworkers;
(d) Seasonal farmworkers;
(e) Other farmworkers;
(f) Actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(g) Collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
(h) Others directly working on the land.
Section 22 also provides that "[t]he lands covered by the CARP shall be
distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in
the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality", following the
order of priority quoted above.
Qualifications of Agrarian Reform Beneficiary
According to Section 22 of RA 6657, to qualify as an agrarian reform
beneficiary, one must:
(a) be landless;
(b) be at least 15 years old or head of a family at the time the property
was transferred in the name of the Republic of the Philippines; and
(c) have the willingness, ability, and aptitude to cultivate the land and
make it as productive as possible.
The requirements enumerated in Section 22 are the minimum or basic
qualifications for a farmer to become a beneficiary of land under the agrarian
reform program.
Qualifications of landowner's children as preferred beneficiaries
As provided in Section 6, three (3) hectares of agricultural land may be
awarded to each child of the landowner, on the condition that he is at least 15
years of age at the time of the award, and that he is actually tilling the land or
directly managing the farm. "Directly managing the farm" refers to the cultivation
of the land through personal supervision under the system of labor
administration.
Children of landowners are classified as preferred beneficiaries, and the land
awarded to them does not form part of the retention right of the parent-
landowners. The transfer of the land to them is effected by the issuance of
CLOAs.
The rules on payment for the value of the land by the Land Bank and the
payment of amortizations by the beneficiary do not apply in the case of preferred
beneficiaries, unless there has been a tenancy relationship between the parent-
landowners and the children. In the latter case, the Land Bank shall finance the
acquisition of the property.
The rights and obligations of landowners' children as preferred beneficiaries
are governed by Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1994.
"Landless Persons" Under CARL
Section 25 of RA 6657 provides that a landless person is one who owns less
than three (3) hectares of agricultural land. Section 7 also provides that an
owner-tiller may still be awarded another parcel of agricultural land under the
program, provided that he is actually cultivating that land, and only to the extent
of the difference between the area of the land he owns and the award ceiling of
three (3) hectares. A tenant who owns one hectare of agricultural land may still
qualify as a beneficiary for two more hectares.
Persons Disqualified as Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries
The following persons are disqualified from becoming agrarian reform
beneficiaries:
a) Those who are not included in the enumeration in Section 22;
b) Those who fail to meet the qualifications prescribed under Section
22;
c) Those who have culpably sold, disposed of, or abandoned their land
received under CARP or P.D. 27;
d) Those whose land has been foreclosed by the Land Bank, or
repossessed by the landowner in case of Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct
Payment Scheme, for non-payment of an aggregate of three annual
amortizations;
e) Those who have converted their land to non-agricultural use without
prior approval by DAR; and
f) Those guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any support
extended to him (Sec. 22).
Grounds for disqualification of beneficiary
Under DAR Memorandum Circular No. 19 (1996), the following violations will
result in the disqualification of a farmer from being a beneficiary or from
continuing as such under the agrarian reform program:
(a) Misuse or diversion of financial and support services extended to the
beneficiary;
(b) Misuse of the land;
(c) Material misrepresentation of the beneficiary's basic qualifications as
provided under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, and other
agrarian reform laws;
(d) Sale, transfer, lease, or other forms of conveyance by the beneficiary
of rights over the land, in circumvention or R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, and
other agrarian reform laws;
(e) Continuous neglect or abandonment of the awarded land over a
period of two calendar years as determined by the Secretary or his
authorized representative;
(f) Failure to pay an aggregate of three (3) consecutive amortizations to
the Land Bank or to the landowner, except in cases of fortuitous events;
(g) Illegal conversion of the land by the beneficiary;
(h) Waiver of rights to awarded lands;
(i) Beneficiary's surrender of awarded land to landowner or other non-
beneficiary; and
(j) Other acts or omissions that circumvent laws related to the
implementation of the agrarian reform program.
A separate chapter on prohibited acts, supra., discusses these violations in
detail.
Squatters disqualified to become CARP beneficiaries
In the case Central Mindanao University vs. DARAB, G.R. No. 100091,
October 22, 1992, the university entered into a contract with members of the
faculty and staff for an experimental rice project, under which the latter were
given tracts of land for cultivation. It was expressly stipulated in the contract that
no landlord-tenant relationship arose between the parties. After the term of the
project has expired, the university served notices to vacate on the occupants of
the land. The occupants refused to vacate the land, claiming that they are now
entitled to be awarded the land they are tilling pursuant to the land reform
program.
The Supreme Court held that squatters are disqualified from becoming CARP
beneficiaries because they are "guilty of committing prohibited acts of forcible
entry or illegal detainer, [and therefore] do not qualify as beneficiaries of and may
not avail themselves of the rights and benefits of agrarian reform".
The Supreme Court also ruled that "a person entering upon the lands of
another, not claiming in good faith the right to do so by virtue of any title of his
own, or by virtue of some agreement with the owner or with one whom he
believes holds title to the land, is a squatter.Squatters cannot enter the land of
another surreptitiously or by stealth, and under the umbrella of the CARP, claim
rights to said property as landless peasants." (Emphasis supplied.)
Selection of Beneficiaries
The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer or the Agrarian Reform Program
Technologist, with the participation of the BARC, screens the beneficiaries.
A farmer who claims priority over those who have been identified by the
MARO as beneficiaries should file a written protest with the MARO or the PARO
who is processing the claim folder. Once the protest is filed, the MARO/PARO
shall comment on the protest and submit the same to the Regional Director who
shall rule on the protest. If the parties disagree with the RD's decision, they can
file a written motion for reconsideration. If the motion is denied, the farmers can
appeal to the Secretary.
Landowner not entitled to select beneficiaries
It is not the landowner who distributes his land, so he does not have the right
to select who the transferees. Land acquisition and land distribution are two
different transactions. It is the government which buys the land from the
landowner and then sells it to the beneficiaries. It is not a direct transaction
between the landowner and the beneficiaries.
This rule also applies to voluntary land transfer/direct payment scheme. Even
under this scheme, it is not the landowner who determines who will be the
beneficiaries. The beneficiaries must qualify under the law, and it is still the
MARO and the BARC who do the screening.
Farmworker defined
A farmworker is defined by Section 3 (g), R.A. 6657 as a natural person who
renders service for value as an employee or laborer in an agricultural enterprise
or farm regardless of whether his/her companion is paid on a daily, weekly,
monthly, or "pakyaw" basis. The term includes an individual whose work has
ceased because of a pending agrarian dispute and who has not obtained a
substantially equivalent and regular farm employment.
Special qualifications for farmworkers in commercial farms
Aside from the minimum qualifications in Section 22 of R.A. 6657, Section 4
ofAdministrative Order No. 9, Series of 1998, provides for special qualifications
for farmworkers in commercial farms, which are as follows:
(a) they must be at least 18 years old upon filing of application as
agrarian reform beneficiary;
(b) they must have the willingness, aptitude, and ability to cultivate and
make the land productive; and
(c) they must have been employed in the commercial farm between
June 15, 1988 and June 15, 1998 or upon expiration or termination of the
deferment.
Farmworkers who have worked longest on the land continuously shall be
given priority.
Specific disqualifications for commercial farmworkers
Section 5 of Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1998, provides that the
following shall be grounds for the disqualification of potential beneficiaries:
a) Mandatory retirement;
b) Optional retirement or resignation, provided that the farmworker has
not filed any case questioning such retirement or resignation;
c) Dismissal for cause by final judgment;
d) Waiver or refusal to be a beneficiary; and
e) Violation of agrarian reform laws and regulations as determined with
finality by the proper tribunal or agency.
Questions have been raised on whether dismissal for cause distinguishes
between just and authorized causes as these two categories are defined
in Presidential Decree No. 442, otherwise known as the Labor Code of the
Philippines.
"Just cause" may consist in serious misconduct, willful disobedience of
reasonable and lawful orders of the employer, gross neglect and abandonment of
duties, dishonesty and loss of confidence of the employer in the employee,
commission of crime or offense by the employee against the person or
immediate family of the employer, and analogous cases (see LABOR CODE,
Article 282).
"Authorized cause", on the other hand, may be one of the following:
introduction of labor-saving devices, redundancy, retrenchment due to legitimate
business losses, closure of business, and ailment or disease of the employee
(see LABOR CODE, Article 283).
Just cause is distinguished from authorized cause in the Labor Code because
while just causes have something to do with the moral depravity and fault of the
employee, termination for authorized causes is due to circumstances beyond the
control of the employee.
It is evident from the history of the provision of the administrative issuances
on qualified farmworkers that the intention is to distinguish between just and
authorized causes. For one, the list of qualifications in Section 4, Administrative
Order No. 9, Series of 1998provides that the potential beneficiary "must have
been employed in the commercial farm between June 15, 1988 and June 15,
1998 or upon expiration or termination of the deferment". This new provision
makes the qualifications encompass even those whose services have been
terminated by the commercial farm as of the time the deferment period expires.
Secondly, the original rules governing the acquisition of commercial
farms,Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1998, in item (b), no. 2, letter M, Part
IV thereof, provides for dismissal from service for cause as a ground for
disqualification. Retrenchment as a ground for disqualification is listed as a
separate item, namely, item (d). This shows that item (b) refers only to dismissal
for just causes, and does not include dismissal for authorized causes.
Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1998 was eventually superseded
by Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1998. The latter administrative order
removed retrenchment as a ground for disqualification. Only dismissal for cause
(meaning just cause) has been retained.
Thirdly, Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1998, item (h), Section 6, Article
II, which provides for the prioritization of beneficiaries, still includes retrenched
workers among the potential beneficiaries. The provision states:
The Beneficiary Screening Committee shall prioritize the potential
ARBs pursuant to Section 22 of R.A. 6657. They shall be ranked according to the
length of their continuous service in the commercial farm reckoned from June 15,
1988 up to the expiration of the deferment period; residency, i.e. whether residing
in the same barangay or municipality;whether they have been validly retrenched,
i.e. with approval of the Dept. of Labor and Employment; the nature of their work,
i.e. whether directly related to farm activities, and such other factors as the
Committee may deem appropriate. (Underscoring supplied.)
Different Categories of Farmworkers
Section 3, R.A. 6657 identifies these categories as follows:
(a) Regular farmworker is a natural person who is employed on a
permanent basis by an agricultural enterprise or farm.
(b) Seasonal farmworker is a natural person who is employed on a
recurrent, periodic, or intermittent basis by an agricultural enterprise or farm,
whether as a permanent or a non-permanent laborer, such as
"dumaan" and "sacada".
(c) Other farmworker is a farmworker who is neither a regular nor a
seasonal farmworker, such as a farmworker who performs farm activities
but is not paid for his or her labor.
DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1998, on the other hand, identifies two more
categories:
(a) Technical farmworker is a natural person employed by an agricultural
enterprise or farm, who is highly educated and trained and performs functions in
scientific, engineering, medical, teaching, and other fields, but who is not vested
with managerial or supervisory functions, such as chemists, agronomists,
veterinarians, and soil analysts.
(b) Managerial or supervisory farmworker is a natural person who is
employed by an agricultural enterprise or farm vested with powers and
prerogatives (1) to lay down and execute management policies; (2) to hire,
transfer, suspend, layoff, recall, discharge, assign, or discipline employees;
and/or (3) to effectively recommend such managerial actions.
Categories of farmworkers qualified to become beneficiaries under
CARP
Farmworkers who are directly working on the land at the time DAR conducts
actual investigation and documentation of the agricultural enterprise, whether as
regular, seasonal, or other farmworkers are qualified beneficiaries. Under A.O.
No. 9, Series of 1998, however, other farmworkers who are directly employed by
the agri-business enterprise or corporation may be considered as beneficiaries,
provided they meet the basic qualifications prescribed in Section 22.
Selection of Beneficiaries of Commercial Farms
Under A.O. No. 9, Series of 1998, there is a Beneficiary Screening Committee
responsible for the qualification, identification, and selection of agrarian reform
beneficiaries for acquired commercial farms. The Committee is composed of the
following:
(1) The Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer, as Chairman;
(2) The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer;
(3) The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee
(PARCCOM) Chairman or his duly authorized representative;
(4) The Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) Chairman or his
duly authorized representative from each of the barangays where the
subject commercial farm is situated; and
(5) The Barangay Chairman or his duly-authorized representative, from
each of the barangays where the subject commercial plantation is situated;
as members.
The Committee comes up with a master list of qualified beneficiaries, and a
waiting list of those who possess the minimum qualifications and none of the
disqualifications, but who could not otherwise be accommodated in the updated
master list.
Remedy of farmworker excluded from master list
A farmworker who is excluded from the masterlist may file a written protest
with the Beneficiary Screening Committee. The Committee Chairman shall
furnish a copy of the protest to the beneficiaries whose inclusion in the list is
being questioned. The protestees shall file their answer or comment on the
protest, and the Chairman shall transmit the records to the Regional Director for
the latter's decision. The Regional Director shall resolve the protest based on
substantial evidence showing the qualification or disqualification of the
beneficiary subject of the protest. No motion for reconsideration of the decision of
the Regional Director shall be allowed, but such decision may be appealed to the
Office of the Undersecretary for Field Operations and Support Services, whose
decision shall be final and executory. Notwithstanding the appeal, the decision of
the Regional Director shall not be stayed.
Managerial and supervisory farmworkers
Managerial and supervisory farmworkers may qualify as CARP beneficiaries
provided that they have been identified as qualified beneficiaries prior to their
promotion, and that they give up their managerial or supervisory positions
(see A.O. No. 9, Series of 1998). In the case, however, of supervisory or
managerial employees whose responsibilities do not actually conform to the
definition of supervisory or managerial farmworkers, there are two views on the
matter. One holds that supervisory and managerial employees of commercial
farms are disqualified from becoming beneficiaries since the laws and regulations
specify the rank and not the job description. The other view is that they are
qualified so long as they are directly working on the land, and possess all the
qualifications and none of the disqualifications for becoming an agrarian reform
beneficiary.
It is our opinion that these so called "supervisory or managerial" employees
can qualify as beneficiaries. The definition of supervisory or managerial
farmworkers in A.O. No. 9, Series of 1998, provides that to be considered a
supervisor or a manager, the farmworker must be vested with the power to
formulate and implement management policies; to hire, fire, assign, and
discipline employees; and/or to effectively recommend such managerial actions.
Jurisprudence supports the view that this power is essential before an
employee may be considered as supervisory or managerial. In Franklin Baker
Company vs. Trajano, G.R. No. 75039, January 28, 1988, it was held:
To make one a supervisor, the power to recommend must not be merely routinary
or clerical in nature but requires the use of independent judgment. In other words,
the recommendation is (1) discretionary or judgmental, not clerical; (2)
independent, not a dictation of someone else; and (3) effectively considered in the
management decision. If these qualities are lacking or, worse, if the power to
recommend is absent, then the person is not really a supervisor but a rank-and-file
employee.
There are instances when the position of a farmworker is denominated
"managerial" or "supervisory" even when he is not performing the functions
enumerated in the definition. Hence, it is our view that the functions performed,
rather than the rank, should be determinative of the status of the farmworker. They
should still qualify as beneficiaries, provided they meet all the qualifications and
possess none of the disqualifications, subject to the rules on prioritization set
down under the law.
Seasonal farmworkers
Section 22 includes seasonal farmworkers among the beneficiaries qualified
to receive land under R.A. 6657, following the order of priority set forth in the law.
There is a view that seasonal farmworkers are entitled "only to a just share of
the fruits of the land", but not to own land. This view finds support in Fortich vs.
Corona, G.R. No. 131457, August 19, 1999, wherein the Supreme Court said:
Again, as expressed in the opinion of Mr. Martin, intervenors, who are admittedly
not regular but seasonal farmworkers, have no legal or actual and substantive
interest over the subject land inasmuch as they have no right to own land. Rather,
their right is limited only to a just share of the fruits of the land.
The Court based its observation on Article XIII, Section 4 of the Constitution,
which provides:
The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the
rights of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or
collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just
share of the fruits thereof.
It is our view, however, that the fact that seasonal farmworkers may not have
been given a constitutional right does not mean that they do not have a statutory
right. Congress, in interpreting and implementing Article XIII, Section 4 of
the Constitution enacted Section 22 of RA 6657 which explicitly includes
seasonal farmworkers among the qualified beneficiaries. Moreover, the
observation made by the Supreme Court is only an obiter dictum and cannot be
made the basis for the loss or acquisition of legal rights. Moreover, even a
collective or cooperative of, among others, "seasonal farmworkers" and "other
farmworkers" may be awarded lands under the agrarian reform program.
Collectives or Cooperatives as Qualified Beneficiaries
A collective or cooperative composed of the beneficiaries listed in Sec. 22 (a)
to (e) ofR.A. 6657, to wit: agricultural lessees and share tenants, regular
farmworkers, seasonal farmworkers, other farmworkers, and actual tillers or
occupants of public lands, can, by itself, be an awardee of land under CARP.
Sec. 25 of R.A. 6657, in fact, provides that "(t)he beneficiaries may opt for
collective ownership, such as co-ownership or farmers cooperative or some other
form of collective organization".
Cooperatives refer to "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 rights and duties as a natural person." (Section 3 [k]
of R.A 6657).
The aggregate size of land that may be awarded to an association or a
cooperative shall not exceed the total number of members multiplied by the
award ceiling of three hectares, except where the Presidential Agrarian Reform
Council (PARC) approves the award of an area exceeding this limit. Thus, a
cooperative composed of 25 members, for instance, can receive a maximum
award of 75 hectares. (see Sec. 25, R.A 6657)
Inclusion of names of members of collective or cooperative not
mandatory
Memorandum Circular No. 24, Series of 1996, Memorandum Circular No. 14,
Series of 1994, and Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1993, governing the
issuance of collective CLOAs, expressly require the listing of the names of all
members in the CLOA issued to a collective or cooperative. The purpose of this
requirement is to "protect a farmer-member from possible summary and unjust
separation by the cooperative or association" (Part IV-A-1).
It is our view that inclusion in the CLOA of the names of all the members of a
collective or cooperative is not necessary in all cases. Where the CLOA is under
co-ownership, the names of all the co-owners (i.e. individual farmer-beneficiaries)
should be listed in the collective CLOA. However, where the CLOA is awarded in
the name of the association or cooperative, there is no need to include the
names of the individual members thereof in the collective CLOA. Sec. 25 of R.A.
6657, in fact, provides that "(t)itle to the property shall be issued in the name of
the co-owners or the cooperative or collective organization as the case may be."
(Underscoring supplied)
Women as Beneficiaries under CARP
Women are qualified to become agrarian reform beneficiaries in their own
right, not only as spouses of agrarian reform beneficiaries. For as long as a
female farmer's rights have vested and have been established separately from
her husband's or her father's, she is entitled to receive land under the program.
The term "vested right" has been defined in the case of Balboa vs.
Farrales, G.R. No. 27059, February 14, 1928, as some right or interest in
property which has become fixed and established and is no longer open to doubt
or controversy". The Supreme Court, citing American cases, explained that
"rights are vested when the right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has
become the property of some particular person or persons as a present interest".
Involved in the Balboa case was an application for homestead patent. During
the pendency of his application, however, the law granting him the right to such
patent was repealed. The Supreme Court upheld his claim, stating that at the
time the law was repealed, the applicant has complied with all the requirements
for the issuance of a patent, hence, his right to the patent has vested. "At least on
that date," said the Court, "his right to the land, as owner, ripened into a vested
right. It was no longer expectant as depending on some events or the
performance of some conditions."
Other rights as beneficiaries have been granted to women through other DAR
administrative issuances. Under Memorandum Circular No. 10, Series of 1986,
support services in terms of loan assistance in an amount not to exceed three
thousand pesos (P3,000.00) has been guaranteed for qualified rural women's
pre-cooperative groups. Under Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1992, a
budget has been allocated for support services that will empower women
beneficiaries.
Under Part II.D of Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1993, farmworkers
who are husband and wife may be separately entitled to three (3) hectares each
provided that their vested rights to the land have been duly established. Each of
the spouses shall be issued a separate CLOA.
Requirement for separate cultivation by spouses of beneficiaries
Under Memorandum Circular No. 18, Series of 1996, women who are
spouses of agrarian reform beneficiaries are required to also cultivate the land,
aside from the cultivation undertaken by her husband. We are of the opinion that
separate cultivation must be required of women only where they are recipients of
land in their own right, and should no longer be required of women whose
spouses receive land under the program.
To require separate cultivation by spouses of male agrarian reform
beneficiaries would work against, rather than protect, the interests of women.
This requirement fails to recognize the role of women in the rural household,
particularly in agrarian areas. Women are usually given reproductive tasks, such
as upbringing of children, household chores, and other work having to do with the
maintenance of the home. An additional burden of cultivating the land would be
harshly onerous upon women who are spouses of beneficiaries.
The Civil Code and the Family Code recognize that the role of women in
traditional families is the maintenance of the household. In both Codes,
maintenance of the home is recognized as the wife's contribution to the conjugal
partnership of gains or to the absolute community of property as to entitle her to
one-half share of the marital partnership property. As long as the wife works in
the home, all properties received or acquired during the subsistence of the
marriage is considered part of the conjugal partnership of gains or of the absolute
community of property. There is no reason for R.A. 6657 to be given a different
interpretation as regards the rights of women to land awarded to their spouses
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
Modes of Distribution: Individual vs. Collective Ownership
It is the policy of the CARP to establish owner-cultivatorship of economic-
sized farms as basis of Philippine agriculture. In line with this is the award of
three hectares to the individual beneficiaries as the distribution limit. With a view
of equitable land distribution and ownership, DAR is mandated to distribute
agricultural lands to as many tenants and farmworkers as possible. Furthermore,
the distribution of land shall be made directly to individual beneficiaries.
In general, lands shall be distributed directly to the individual worker
beneficiaries. In case it is not economically feasible and sound to divide the land
then it shall be collectively owned by the worker — beneficiaries who shall form
into a worker cooperative or association which will deal with the corporation or
business association. [Rep. Act No. 6657(1988) Sec. 29; DAR A.O. No. 10
(1990), II (B)]
The beneficiaries may opt for collective ownership such as co-ownership or
farmer's cooperative or some other form of collective organization. The total area
that may be awarded under a collective CLOA shall not exceed the total number
of co-owners or members of the cooperative or collective organization multiplied
by the award limit of three hectares except in meritorious cases as determined by
the PARC, pursuant to Section 25 ofR.A. No. 6657. Collective co-ownership
CLOAs may be issued to cover any CARPable lands whether private lands or
public lands within proclaimed DAR settlement projects or public lands turned
over to the DAR by other government agencies and institutions pursuant to E.O.
No. 407 as amended. [Rep. Act No. 6657 (1988), sec. 25.]
Lands covered by collective CLOAs on a co-ownership basis shall be subdivided
in accordance with the actual occupancy of the ARBs, provided it does not
exceed three (3) hectares. Landholding covered by CLOAs in the name of
cooperative or farmer's organization, may, at the option of the organization, also
be subdivided based on the share of each member provided that the subdivision
as determined by the DAR shall be economically feasible. [DAR A. O. No. 03
(1993), III (E).] Subdivision of lands under collective CLOA is governed by A.O.
No. 03, Series of 1993.
Factors Considered in Land Distribution
In the equitable distribution of lands subject of CARP, actual occupancy of a
tenant shall be the basis of the award, provided it does not exceed three
hectares. For untenanted lands, all the farmworkers therein shall be considered
as potential beneficiaries in the estate; provided that the proportional share of
each will not exceed three (3) hectares; otherwise, additional ARBS, shall be
considered. For unoccupied lands, each identified ARB may be allowed the
award ceiling of three hectares, provided that there are enough lands for
distribution under CARP in the barangay to accommodate others who are equally
qualified but who may not have been considered as awardees in such land under
acquisition. In all cases, the aggregate award to an ARB shall not exceed the
limit of three hectares and his total land ownership as a result of the award shall
not exceed three (3) hectares. (DAR A.O. No. 10 [1990], II [D])
Distribution Procedure
The MARO, upon completion of land acquisition, validates the list of qualified
beneficiaries who were identified during the acquisition phase who are still
present and qualified to receive the land. Through a letter or CARP Beneficiary
Certificate (CBC), the identified ARBs are formally notified by the MARO that
they have qualified to receive the land. The ARBs are consulted by the MARO as
to their preferred mode of distribution . Thereafter the Land Distribution Folders
are prepared and based on the ARBs preference and submitted to the PARO.
Upon transmittal, the PARO reviews all documents and generates the
Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs). If the ARBs prefer individual
parcels, the PARO requests the DENR to conduct subdivision survey. The PARO
then submits the CLOAs to the DAR Regional Office which causes them to be
signed by the Secretary. Lastly, the PARO registers the CLOAs with the Register
of Deeds and forwards the same to the MARO for distribution. (DAR A.O. No. 19
[1990]).
A compelling issue in respect to land distribution is the matter of physical
possession by DAR as a necessary prerequisite to its distribution to the ARBs. It
is submitted that physical possession is not necessary for land to be distributed.
Nothing in R.A. No. 6657 requires DAR to take physical possession as a
precondition for redistributing lands subject of acquisition. What is required is
"immediate possession" under Section 16 or "actual possession" under Section
24. Actual possession of the land consists in the manifestation of acts of
dominion over it of such a nature as a party would naturally exercise over his
own property. (Ramos vs. Dir. of Lands [39 Phil 175 [1918]). In issuing the
CLOA, the Republic of the Philippines, which became the registered owner of
subject property, acting through DAR, exercised an act of dominion over the
landholding as redistribution involves disposition or alienation. Having manifested
its dominion over the land, the Republic of the Philippines through DAR, is
deemed to be, for all legal intents and purposes, in actual possession thereof.
Redistribution is not limited to the installation of farmers in the landholding. The
generation and distribution of CLOAs is embraced within the concept of
redistribution.
Distribution of Homelots
A homelot refers to a parcel of agricultural land used by the ARB as the site of
his permanent dwelling including the area utilized for raising vegetables, poultry,
pigs and other animals and engaging in minor industries. The area of the homelot
may not exceed 1,000 square meters. It is an integral part of the farm and an
indispensable factor in farm operations. The procedure for the acquisition and
distribution of farmlots likewise apply to homelots. If the homelot of a tenant-
beneficiary falls within the retained area of the landowner, the beneficiary may be
made to transfer his dwelling to his farmlot or other area to be designated for his
homelot which shall be mutually agreed upon by the parties. Provided that the
landowner shoulders the cost of the transfer of his dwelling and the agreed cost
of other improvements introduced by the tenant-beneficiary on said homelot.
[DAR A.O. No. 12 [1991], II [C])
Distribution of Commercial Farms and Facilities
Commercial farms may be distributed collectively or individually. Qualified
beneficiaries shall be awarded a maximum of three (3) hectares or a minimum of
one (1) hectare each in case the land is not sufficient to accommodate them.
Toexpedite the acquisition, the commercial farms shall be initially distributed
collectively or under co-ownership. In the case the beneficiaries desire to
partition the land, DAR shall first determine whether it is economically feasible to
divide the land, in coordination with the Department of Agriculture and other
concerned agencies. Thereafter, the beneficiaries may, by majority vote, decide
whether to proceed with the partition or not. In the event the beneficiaries decide
to partition, the land shall be allocated to the individual beneficiaries by drawing
lots in the presence of DAR Representatives. (Section 17 DAR A.O. No. 2-1998)
Facilities and improvements acquired shall be distributed collectively, through
a Deed of Transfer which shall specify the names of the ARBs and duly
annotated in the CLOAs generated over the subject landholding where said
facilities and improvements are found. Areas where the facilities and
landholdings are found are deemed common areas and shall not be partitioned
individually. (Section 28 DAR A.O. No. 02-98)
Collective CLOAS shall be generated within thirty (30) days upon receipt by
the PARO of the certified copy of the certificate of title in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines.
In individual CLOAs shall be generated within thirty (30) days upon receipt of
the approved Segregation Plan (ASP). However in the case of individual
distribution and considering the time and financial constraints particularly in the
conduct of individual surveys, a collective CLOA may be generated in the interim
over the subject landholding (Section 18, DAR A.O. No. 02-1998)
CLOAs shall be registered immediately upon generation. (Section 20 DAR
A.O. No. 02-98)
Distribution of Corporate Farms
The general rule is that corporate farms are distributed directly to the
individual worker-beneficiaries. However, in case it is not economically feasible
and sound to divide the land, corporate farms shall be owned collectively by the
worker-beneficiaries who shall form a cooperative or association which will deal
with the corporation or business association. In the latter case, the individual
members of the cooperatives or corporations shall have homelots and small
farmlots for family use, to be taken from the land owned by the cooperative or
corporation. (Rep. Act No. 6657 [1988], sec. 29).
Corporate farms owning or operating under lease or management contract
Pending final land transfer, corporate farms that own or operate under lease
or management contract and realize gross sales in excess of P5 million are
mandated to execute a production and profit sharing (PPS) plan provided
under DAR AO No. 8 (1988). The PPS plan is imposed in order to allow the
farmworkers in corporate farms to realize an improvement in their farm income
pending final transfer of the farm.
All farmworkers in a corporate farm, whether classified as regular, seasonal,
technical or other farmworkers are entitled to PPS. On the other hand,
managerial and supervisory employees are excluded from entitlement to PPS.
(DAR Adm. O. No. 8 [1988])
PPS are distributed to farmworkers, over and above the compensation they
are currently receiving, based on the following schedules:
1. Three (3%) of Annual Gross Sales from 15 June 1988 until final land
or corporate stock transfer to the farmworker-beneficiaries is effected,
provided that the employer is not obligated to pay more than 100% of the
regular annual compensation of the farmworker-beneficiaries;
2. In addition, 10% of net profit after tax, provided that in cases where
the retention right is allowed, the amount to be distributed shall be reduced
by an amount equivalent to the proportion of the retained area to the total
land area. (DAR Adm. O. No. [1988])
To ensure that corporate farm employers comply with the PPS provisions, the
Secretary of DAR or his authorized representatives shall have the power to order
and administer compliance with the PPS provisions and to require submission of
reports, compel the production of books and documents, compel answers to
interrogatories, issue subpoena and subpoena duces tecum, and enforce its writs
through Sheriffs or other duly deputized officers. Moreover, Sections 73 and 74
of RA 6657 regarding prohibited acts and omissions and the penalties therefor,
are applicable to any person or entity found to be violating any PPS provision.
(DAR Adm. O. No. 8 [1988])
Proof of Ownership of Awarded Lands
The Certificate of Land Ownership Award evidences the ARB's ownership in
respect to private agricultural lands covered under R.A. No. 6657 (Rep. Act No.
6657 [1988], sec. 24). Ownership of public lands, upon the other hand, are
evidenced by Free Patents. Emancipation Patents is the ARBs proof of
ownership of lands awarded under Operation Land Transfer. Discussing the
nature of an Emancipation Patent, the Supreme Court ruled in the case
of Vinzons-Magana vs. Estrella (201 SCRA 536 [1991]) that it is only compliance
with the prescribed conditions which entitles the farmer/grantee to an
emancipation patent by which he acquires the vested right of absolute ownership
in the landholding — a right which has become fixed and established and is no
longer open to doubt and controversy.
The pronouncement of the court respecting the impregnable character of an
Emancipation Patent should be qualified. The mere issuance of an Emancipation
Patent does not put the ownership of the ARB beyond attack and scrutiny. It
must be noted thatP.D. No. 946 vests the Court of Agrarian Relations (now the
DAR Adjudication Board) jurisdiction over cases involving the cancellation of
emancipation patents issued under P.D. No. 266 (Pres. Decree [1976], sec. 12
[g]). This only goes to show that ownership of awarded lands covered by
Emancipation Patents may be challenged. The aforecited Supreme Court ruling
presupposes that the issuance of emancipation patents to the ARB is not tainted
with any irregularity such that it acquires the character of indefeasiblity.
TheVinzons- Magana ruling must be appreciated in this context.
Rights and Obligations of Beneficiaries
Once a Certificate of Land Ownership Award has been issued to a beneficiary
and registered in his name, it serves as an evidence of title to the land, entitling
the beneficiary to occupy the land, cultivate it, and maintain possession of the
same. cSIADH
Facts:
Complainants filed an administrative case against respondent Judge Ramos for
taking cognizance of the illegal detainer case filed by their landowner against
them. It was shown that the respondent judge had knowledge of a previously filed
DARAB case and the fact that the illegal detainer case falls within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the DAR. Despite the separate affidavits of the complainants
containing allegation of landlord-tenant relationship, the respondent judge took
cognizance of the illegal detainer case.
Issue:
Was the action of Judge Ramos proper?
Held:
The Supreme Court in finding the respondent Judge liable for ignorance of the law
opined: "As can be readily seen from the answer filed by complainants Sabio and
Ualat in the civil case, they alleged the existence of an agrarian tenancy
relationship between themselves and the landowner. Additionally, in the
proceedings before respondent Judge, complainants were even represented by a
lawyer from the DAR. These matters should have been sufficient to put
respondent Judge on notice that complainants were claiming protection under our
agrarian laws. At that point, he ought to have realized that there existed a genuine
issue involving agricultural tenancy among the parties with respect to the subject
property. Knowledge of existing agrarian legislation and prevailing jurisprudence
on the subject, together with an ordinary degree of prudence would have
prompted respondent Judge to refer the case to the DAR for preliminary
determination of the real nature of the parties' relationship, as required by law" (at
357).
However, DARAB has no jurisdiction with respect to agrarian matters
involving the prosecution of all criminal offenses under RA 6657 and the
determination of just compensation for landowners (Rep. Act No. 6657 [1988],
sec. 57). Jurisdiction over said matters are lodged with the Special Agrarian
Courts (SACs). The Court of Appeals and Supreme Court maintain their
appellate jurisdiction over agrarian cases decided by DARAB.
In this regard, the Supreme Court in the case of Vda. de Tangub vs. CA, 191
SCRA 885 (1990) held that:
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 Courtsqua 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 land-owners," and 2) "the prosecution of all criminal offenses
under . . . (the) Act" (at 890).
Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC)
This is originally the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council created under EO
229 (1987).RA 6657 changed the nomenclature of BARC from "council" to
"committee" and expanded its scope of functions. It is through the organization of
the BARCs that the implementation of CARP is envisioned to be truly community
based where the public can participate in decision-making and resolution of
agrarian reform disputes.
This committee is composed of the following:
a) Representative/s of farmer and farmworker beneficiaries;
b) Representative/s of farmer and farmworker 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 area;
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 (Exec. Order No.
229 [1987], sec. 19).
Sec. 46 and 47 of RA 6657 defined the BARC functions in addition to those
provided under Sec. 19 of EO 229. DAR AO 14 (1990) provides for the
guidelines in the formation, organization and strengthening of the BARCs.
Primary and Exclusive Original and Appellate Jurisdiction of DARAB
Sec. 1, Rule II of the DARAB Revised Rules and Procedures provides that the
Board has primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to
determine and adjudicate all agrarian cases including but not limited to the
following:
a) All agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the CARP
under RA 6657, EOs 228, 229, and 129-A, RA 3844 as amended by RA
6389, PD 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and
regulations;
b) Cases involving rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or
juridical, engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural
lands covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws;
c) Cases involving the valuation of land, and the preliminary
determination and payment of just compensation, fixing and collection of
lease rentals, disturbance compensation, amortization payments and similar
disputes concerning the functions of the LBP;
d) Cases involving the annulment or cancellation of lease contracts or
deeds of sale or their amendments involving lands under the administration
and disposition of the DAR or LBP;
e) Cases arising from or connected with membership or representation
in compact farms, farmers' cooperative and other registered farmers'
associations or organizations, related to lands covered by the CARP and
other agrarian laws;
f) Cases involving the sale, alienation, mortgage, foreclosure,
preemption and redemption of agricultural lands under the coverage of the
CARP or other agrarian laws;
g) Cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of
Certificates of Landownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents
(EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration Authority;
h) Cases previously falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction
of the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations under Section 12 of PD 946,
except sub-paragraph (Q) thereof and PD 815;
i) And such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns
referred to it by the Secretary of the DAR.
DARAB's Jurisdiction over Agrarian Disputes
The Supreme Court, in several cases, had the occasion to explain what is an
agrarian dispute case for DARAB to try and adjudicate.
In the case of Machete vs. CA, 250 SCRA 176 (1995), the private
respondents asked for collection of back rentals and damages before the RTC
while the petitioners moved for the dismissal of the case because of lack of
jurisdiction. The Court ordered the transmittal of the case to DARAB and ruled
that:
Section 3, par. (d), of RA 6657 defines the term "agrarian dispute" as referring
to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold,
tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture,
including disputes concerning farm workers' associations or representation of
persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange
terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements (at 182).
In the case of Central Mindanao University vs. DARAB, 215 SCRA 86 (1992),
on the issue of jurisdiction of the DARAB in ordering the petitioner to segregate
its 400 hectares land and including it under the CARP for distribution to qualified
beneficiaries, the Court opined:
Under Section 4 and Section 10 of RA 6657, it is crystal clear that the jurisdiction
of the DARAB is limited only to matters involving the implementation of CARP.
More specifically, it is restricted to agrarian cases and controversies involving
lands falling within the coverage of the aforementioned program. It does not
include those which are actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be
necessary for, among such purposes, school sites and campuses for setting up
experimental farm stations, research and pilot production centers, etc. (at 99).
Sec. 17 of EO 129-A is merely a repetition of Sec. 50 of RA 6657. There is no
doubt that the DARAB has jurisdiction to try and decide any agrarian dispute in the
implementation of the CARP. An agrarian dispute is defined by the same law as
any controversy relating to tenurial rights whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship
or otherwise over lands devoted to agriculture (at 100).
In Isidro vs. CA, 228 SCRA 503, one of the issues raised is the jurisdiction of
the MTC in taking cognizance of a case involving an agricultural land. The
petitioner refused to vacate the land despite the demand of the private
respondent. The Supreme Court held that there exists no tenurial relations
between the parties, to wit:
An agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements,
whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to
agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers associations or
representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking
to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It includes any
controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under RA 6657 and other
terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers,
tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in
the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or
lessor and lessee (at 510).
Cases under the Court of Agrarian Relations
DARAB has jurisdiction over cases previously falling under the original and
exclusive jurisdiction of the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations under PD
946 (1976), except sub-paragraph (Q) thereof and PD 815 (1975). The sub-
paragraph (Q) exception under this cited provision refers only to cases involving
violations of the penal provisions of RA 1199, as amended. Hence, the other
provisions of RA 1199, as amended, still fall within the jurisdiction of DARAB.
Included in DARAB's jurisdiction is Section 21 of RA 1199, as amended, which
provides that:
Section 21. Ejectment; Violation; Jurisdiction. — All cases involving the
dispossession of a tenant by the landholder or by a third party . . . .
The 'third party' mentioned in the said sec. 21 should be construed to mean a
person who is neither landholder or tenant, but who acts for, openly, secretly, or
factually for the landholder. For instance, a sheriff enforcing an execution sale
against the landholder; or a purchaser or transferee of the land, or a mere
dummy of the landowner (De Luna v. CA, 221 SCRA 703 [1993]).
Jurisdiction of the Regional Adjudicator (RARAD) and the Provincial
Adjudicator (PARAD)
Sec. 2, Rule II of the DARAB Revised Rules and Procedures provides that
the RARAD and the PARAD has concurrent original jurisdiction with the Board to
hear, determine and adjudicate all agrarian cases and disputes, and incidents in
connection therewith, arising with their assigned territorial jurisdiction.
The RARAD is the Executive Adjudicator in his/her region directly responsible
to the Board. He/she shall:
1) Direct supervision over the PARADs;
2) Recommend to the Board the territorial assignments and the
disciplinary measures appropriate to the PARADs;
3) Adjudicate agrarian disputes and land valuation cases;
4) Hear and handle other cases which cannot be handled by the
PARADs:
a) by reason of PARADs disqualification or inhibition;
b) PARADs cannot handle the case properly;
c) because of the complexity and sensitivity of the case;
d) delegated just compensation cases;
e) and those assigned by the Board.
The RARAD has concurrent original jurisdiction with the PARAD.
Appellate Jurisdiction of the Board
Under Sec. 5, Rule II of the DARAB Revised Rules and Procedures, the
Board has the jurisdiction to review all the decisions of the Adjudicators.
However, under DAR MC 7 (1991), reiterating Sec. 1, par. (c) of the Revised
DARAB Rules and Procedures, it is emphasized that DARAB has no jurisdiction
over cases involving annulment or cancellation of orders and decisions of the
Secretary.
Not all decisions or orders of the PARAD and RARAD are reviewable by the
Board. Under DAR AO 8 (1993), the PARADs, RARADs and DARAB has original
and exclusive jurisdiction in the preliminary determination of just compensation
cases which are appealable only to the Special Agrarian Courts.
Mediation/Conciliation at Barangay Level
The BARC does not function as an adjudicator at the barangay level. The
BARC is mandated to mediate and conciliate agrarian disputes at the barangay
level. In a mediation/conciliation, BARC's objective is to persuade the contending
parties to settle their dispute amicably. The BARC does not act as an adjudicator.
It is the responsibility of the BARC to promote a speedy and cost-free
administration of justice, prevent a dispute from going out of the barangay level
to DARAB level, and help the landowners and farmer-beneficiaries commit
themselves in complying with their agreements. This in turn is envisioned to help
in the efficient and successful implementation of the CARP.
Where the land in dispute straddles two (2) or more barangays or the parties
involved reside in different barangays, the BARC of the barangay where the
biggest portion of the property lies, shall have the authority to conduct the
mediation or conciliation proceedings, unless for convenience and accessibility
and upon agreement of parties such proceedings should be held in another
barangay within the municipality or adjacent municipality where the land in
dispute is located (DARAB Revised Rules and Procedures [1994] Rule III, sec. 3)
Under the DARAB Revised Rules and Procedures, DARAB can take
cognizance of an agrarian dispute even without the BARC Certification if:
1) The dispute does not involve any of the following:
a) Valuation lands to determine just compensation for
landowners;
b) One of the parties is a public or private corporation,
partnership, association or juridical person, or a public
officer/employee wherein the dispute relates to the performance of his
official functions;
c) Issue involved is an administrative implementation of agrarian
laws and policies; and
d) Cases determined by the Secretary as beyond the ambit
mediation/conciliation or compromise.
2) The required certification cannot be complied with for valid reasons
like the non-existence or non-organization of the BARC or the impossibility
of convening it. The PARO shall conduct mediation and conciliation
proceedings and issue a certification to that effect.
3) It involves resolving and disposing of preliminary incidents related to
the case, such as motion for the issuance of status quo orders, temporary
restraining orders, preliminary injunctions and such similar motions
necessitating immediate action (DARAB Revised Rules and Procedures
[1994], Rule III, secs. 1 and 2).
The lack of a BARC certification is not a ground for dismissal of an action. A
complainant is given every opportunity to secure said certification.
Powers and Duties of DARAB
Under the DARAB Revised Rules and Procedures, the powers and duties of
the Adjudicators include but are not limited to the following:
a) Personally conduct a hearing, take control of the proceedings,
employ reasonable means to ascertain the facts of the case, determine the
real parties in interest, define and simplify the issues of the case, and thresh
out preliminary matters.
b) To subpoena, summon witnesses, examine witnesses, may limit the
right of parties/counsels to ask questions to clarify the points of law at issue
or of facts involved, may limit the presentation of evidence to matters
relevant to the issues, and endeavor to settle the case amicably/approve
compromise agreements.
c) To hold a party in contempt, to issue writs and interlocutory orders,
and may award actual, compensatory, exemplary and moral damages and
attorney's fees.
Special Agrarian Courts (SACs)
Special agrarian courts are Regional Trial Courts within each province
designated by the Supreme Court to exercise special jurisdiction in addition to its
regular jurisdiction. The Supreme Court may designate more branches to
constitute such additional SACs as may be necessary to cope with the number of
agrarian cases in each province. (Rep. Act No. 6657 [1988], sec. 56)
Sec. 57 of RA 6657 provides that the SACs shall have original and exclusive
jurisdiction over all petitions for the determination of just compensation to
landowners and the prosecution of all criminal offenses under RA 6657.
In Republic vs. Court of Appeals, 758 SCRA 263 (1996), the Supreme Court
held that "any effort to transfer the original and exclusive jurisdiction to the DAR
adjudicators and to convert the original jurisdiction of the RTCs into appellate
jurisdiction would be contrary to Section 57 of RA 6657 and therefore would be
void."
Judicial Review
Orders or Decisions of DAR Secretary
The decisions of the DAR Secretary in ALI cases may be appealed to the
Office of the President or the Court of Appeals, at the option of the appellant.
Sec. 54 of RA 6657 states that any decision, order, award or ruling of the
DAR on any agrarian dispute or on any matter pertaining to the application,
implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent
laws on agrarian reform may be brought to the Court of Appeals by certiorari. On
the other hand, Sec. 15 and 20, Book VII of EO 292 (1987) or the Administrative
Code of 1987, as implemented by DAR MC 3 (1994) provides that an appeal
from the decision/order issued by DAR shall be perfected within fifteen (15) days
after receipt of a copy of the decision/order complained of by the party adversely
affected. Said appeal shall be perfected by filing with the DAR a notice of appeal,
serving copies thereof upon the prevailing party and the Office of the President
and paying the required fees. The DAR shall upon perfection of the appeal
transmit the records of the case to the Office of the President.
DARAB Decisions
Any decision, order, resolution, award or ruling of DARAB on any agrarian
dispute or on any matter pertaining to the application, implementation,
enforcement, interpretation of agrarian reform laws or rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder, may be brought within fifteen (15) days from receipt of a
copy thereof, to the Court of Appeals by certiorari. (Rep. Act No. 6657 [1988],
sec. 54; Revised DARAB Rules [1994], Rule XIV, sec. 1)
Notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of DAR shall
be immediately executory. (Rep. Act No. 6657 [1988], sec. 50; Revised DARAB
Rules [1994], Rule XIV, sec. 1)
Decisions of Special Agrarian Courts
An appeal may be taken from the decision of the Special Agrarian Courts by
filing a petition for review with the Court of Appeals within fifteen (15) days from
receipt of notice of the decision. (Rep. Act No. 6657 [1988], sec. 60)
Note:
1. The transfer of jurisdiction over applications for CALABARZON areas
from the Center for Land Use Policy, Planning and Implementation (CLUPPI)
– 2 to the Regional Director shall take effect upon implementation of the DAR
reorganization, or as directed by the Secretary (DAR Admin. O. No. 6 [2000],
sec. 36)
CHAPTER 7
Land Use Conversion
Definition
DAR AO 1 (1999), entitled "Revised Rules and Regulations on the Conversion
of Agricultural Lands to Non-agricultural Uses," defines "land use conversion" as
"the act or process of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into
some other use as approved by DAR." (Sec. 2(k)). Pursuant to the Memorandum
of the President dated 16 April 1999, this administrative order serves as the
primary guidelines on the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural
uses.
RA 8435 (1997), also known as the "Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization
Act of 1997," provides for a similar definition: "agricultural land use conversion
refers to the process of changing the use of agricultural land to non-agricultural
uses." (Sec. 4).
Conversion versus Reclassification
DAR's conversion authority is most often seen as synonymous with the power
of local government units (LGUs) to reclassify lands within their territorial
jurisdiction. This misconception has resulted in a lot of conflicts and confusion not
only between the two agencies but among other concerned sectors.
"Reclassification" refers to the "act of specifying how agricultural lands shall
be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, commercial, as
embodied in the land use plan, subject to the requirements and procedures for
conversion. It also includes the reversion of non-agricultural lands to agricultural
use." (Joint HLURB, DAR, DA, DILG Memo. Circular Prescribing the Guidelines
to Implement MC 54, [1995], sec. 2[2.3]). On the other hand, conversion is
defined by the same Memorandum Circular as the "act of changing the current
use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use." [Id., sec. 2[2.2])
Under section 20 of RA 7160 (1991) or the "Local Government Code of 1991,"
a city or municipality may authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands and
provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition under the following
circumstances:
a) when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for
agricultural purposes as determined by the DA; or
b) where the land shall have substantially greater economic value for
residential, commercial, or industrial purposes, as determined by the
sanggunian concerned.
Said Act mandates that the reclassification should be made after conducting
public hearing and that it shall be limited to the following percentage of the total
agricultural land area at the time of the passage of the ordinance: (a) for highly
urbanized and independent component cities, fifteen percent (15%); (b) for
component cities and third class municipalities, ten percent (10%); and (c) for
fourth to sixth class municipalities, five percent (5%): Provided, further, that
agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to RA
6657 shall not be affected by the said reclassification and the conversion of such
lands into other purposes shall be governed by Section 65 of said Act. This
percentage ceiling on the land area which the LGUs can reclassify is not
absolute. The President may, when public interest so requires and upon
recommendation of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA),
authorize a city or municipality to reclassify lands in excess of the limits cited
above (Rep. Act No. 7160 [1991], sec. 20 [b]).
Also, LGUs are mandated to exercise such authority in accordance with MC
54 (1993) of the Office of the President entitled "Prescribing the Guidelines
Governing Section 20 of RA 7160, otherwise known as the Local Government
Code of 1991, Authorizing Cities and Municipalities to Reclassify Agricultural
Lands Into Non-agricultural Uses." Under these Guidelines, the following types of
agricultural lands shall not be covered:
a) Agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries subject
to Sec. 65 of RA 6657;
b) Agricultural lands already issued a notice of coverage or voluntarily
offered for coverage under CARP;
c) Agricultural lands identified under AO 20 (1992), as non-negotiable
for conversion.
On the other hand, the power of the DAR to approve or disapprove land use
conversion applications is exclusive (Exec. Order No. 129-A [1982], sec. 5[e];
see OP Memorandum Circular No. 54, Sec. 4, [1993] Book IV, Title XI, Chapter
1, sec. 3 [13]; RA 6657 [1988[, sec. 65). It is distinct from the power of LGUs to
reclassify agricultural land under Section 20 of the Local Government Code.
This is evident in Sec. 20 (e) of RA 7160 which provides: "Nothing in this
Section shall be construed as repealing, amending or modifying in any manner
the provisions of RA 6657." In his commentary, Sen. Aquilino Q. Pimentel,
principal author of the Local Government Code of 1991, stated as follows:
Sanggunian Power to Reclassify Not to Convert. This is one section of the Code
which evoked a lot of discussion among the members of the Conference
Committee. The proposal to allow local governments to reclassify land and
provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition was made by
Congressman Pablo Garcia of Cebu, who argued that the central government has
no business dictating to the local governments how to classify land within their
jurisdiction. Some legislators, however, felt that to allow local governments to
reclassify land may open the door to a nationwide frustration of the goals of the
agrarian reform law.
Congressman Garcia disputed the argument by pointing out that the power he had
sought to invest the local governments with was not to convert land for any
purpose contrary to the provisions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
but merely to "reclassify" land. (A.Q. Pimentel, Jr., The Local Government Code of
1991, The Key to National Development 111).
DAR's role in the reclassification process is the issuance of a certification that
the lands sought to be reclassified are not distributed or not covered by a notice
of coverage or not voluntarily offered for coverage under CARP. This certification
must be secured by the sanggunian concerned prior to the enactment of an
ordinance reclassifying the agricultural land (OP Memorandum Circular No. 54,
[1993], sec. 2 (b) (2)).
After the reclassification by the LGU, a DAR conversion clearance shall still
be required prior to actual change of use of the land as explicitly provided in OP
Memorandum Circular No. 54 (1993), to wit:
"actions on applications for land use conversion shall remain as the
responsibility of DAR". (Sec. 4; Underscoring supplied.)
The case of Fortich, et al. v. Corona, et al., G.R. No. 131457 (19 August
1999) illustrates the confusion between reclassification and conversion. In said
case, a statement was made that LGUs have authority to convert or reclassify
agricultural lands without DAR approval. The Supreme Court resolved two (2)
separate motions for reconsideration filed by respondents and intervenors of the
Court's resolution dated 17 November 1998 as well as their motion to refer the
case to the Court en banc. The Supreme Court stated that "(t)he crux of the
controversy is the validity of the "Win-Win" Resolution dated 7 November 1997 of
the Office of the President which is "void and of no legal effect considering that
the March 29, 1996 decision of the Office of the President had already become
final and executory even prior to the filing of the motion for reconsideration which
became the basis of the said "Win-Win" Resolution." (at 5).
The DAR clarified its position on this issue through a Memorandum of the
DAR Secretary dated 13 October 1999, to wit:
It should be stressed that the motions in Fortich were denied on the ground that
the "win-win" resolution is void and has no legal effect because the decision
approving the conversion has already become final and executory. This is
the ratio decidendi or reason of the decision. The statement that LGUs have
authority to convert or reclassify agricultural lands without DAR approval is merely
a dictum or expression of the individual views of the ponente or writer of the
Resolution of August 19, 1999. It does not embody the Court's determination and
is not binding.
Expropriated Lands Not Subject to DAR Conversion Clearance
Agricultural
lands expropriated by LGUs pursuant to the power of eminent
domain need not be subject of DAR conversion clearance prior to change in use.
This was the Court's pronouncement in Province of Camarines Sur vs. CA, 222
SCRA 173 (1993).
Facts:
The Governor of Camarines Sur filed two (2) separate cases for expropriation
against Ernesto and Efren San Joaquin pursuant to Sangguniang Panlalawigan
Resolution No. 129 authorizing the Governor to purchase or expropriate properties
owned by the San Joaquins for the establishment of a pilot farm for non-food and
non-traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial government
employees. The San Joaquins moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of
inadequacy of the price offered. The motion was denied and a writ of possession
was issued in favor of the province. On appeal with the CA, the San Joaquins
asked the appellate court to, among others, nullify the resolution issued by the
Sanggunian. The CA asked the Office of the Solicitor General to comment to the
petition. The Solicitor General stated that the approval of the Office of the
President is not needed but the province must first secure the approval of the DAR
of the plan to expropriate the lands of petitioners. The CA set aside the order of
the trial court allowing the province to take possession and ordered the
suspension of the expropriation proceedings until after the submission of the DAR
approval to convert the property.
Issue:
Is DAR approval still necessary before an LGU can expropriate agricultural lands
for conversion to non-agricultural use?
Held:
It is true that local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain
and can exercise it only when expressly authorized by the legislature (City of
Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 US 439, 74 L.ed. 950, 50 S Ct. 360). It is also true that in
delegating the power to expropriate, the legislature may retain certain control or
impose certain restraints on the exercise thereof by the local governments (Joslin
Mfg. Co. v. Providence, 262 US 668 67 L. ed. 1167, 43 S Ct. 684). While such
delegated power may be a limited authority, it is complete within its limits.
Moreover, the limitations on the exercise of the delegated power must be clearly
expressed, either in the law conferring the power or in other legislation.
Resolution No. 129 [1988] was promulgated pursuant to Section 9 of B.P. Blg.
337, the Local Government Code, which provides: . . .
Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337 does not intimate in the least that local government
units must first secure the approval of the Department of Land Reform for the
conversion of lands from agricultural to non-agricultural use, before they can
institute the necessary expropriation proceedings. Likewise, there is no provision
in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which expressly subjects the
expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units to the control of the
Department of Agrarian Reform. The closest provision of law that the Court of
Appeal could cite to justify the intervention of the Department of Agrarian Reform
in expropriation matters is Section 65 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law, which reads: . . .
The opening, adverbial phrase of the provision sends signals that it applies to
lands previously placed under the agrarian reform program as it speaks of "the
lapse of five (5) years from its award."
The rules on conversion of agricultural lands found in Section 4 (k) and 5(l) of
Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987, cannot be the source of the authority
of the Department of Agrarian Reform to determine the suitability of a parcel of
agricultural land for the purpose to which it would be devoted by the expropriating
authority. While those rules vest on the Department of Agrarian Reform the
exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversions of agricultural lands for
residential, commercial or industrial uses, such authority is limited to the
applications for reclassifications submitted by the land owners or tenant
beneficiaries..
Statutes conferring the power of eminent domain to political subdivisions cannot
be broadened or constricted by implication (Schulman v. People, 10 N.Y. 2d. 249,
176 N.E. 2d. 817, 219 NYS 2d. 41).
To sustain the Court of Appeals would mean that the local government units can
no longer expropriate agricultural lands needed for the construction of roads,
bridges, schools, hospitals, etc., without first applying for conversion of the use of
the lands with the Department of Agrarian Reform, because all of these projects
would naturally involve a change in the land use. In effect, it would then be the
Department of Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether the expropriation is for a
public purpose or public use. (at 179-181; underscoring supplied).
Authority to Approve/Disapprove Conversion
UnderSec. 4 and 5 of EO 129-A (1987), the DAR is mandated to "approve or
disapprove the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into
non-agricultural uses." It authorizes DAR to "have exclusive authority to approve
or disapprove conversion of agricultural land for residential, commercial,
industrial, and other land uses as may be provided for by law." Also, Sec. 4 of OP
MC 54 (1993), provides that "action on application for land use conversion on
individual landholdings shall remain as the responsibility of the DAR, . . . ,
pursuant to RA No. 6657 and EO 129-A."
Moreover, RA 6657 provides:
Section 65. Conversion of Lands. — After the lapse of five (5) years from its
award, when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for
agricultural purposes, if the locality has become urbanized and the land will have
greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the
DAR upon application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the
affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorized the reclassification
or conversion of the land and its disposition; Provided, That the beneficiary shall
have fully paid his obligations.
In the case of Roxas v. CA, G.R. No. 127876, 16 December 1999, the
authority of the DAR to approve or disapprove conversion was reiterated by the
Court:
Respondent DAR's failure to observe due process in the acquisition of petitioner's
landholdings does not ipso facto give this Court the power to adjudicate over
petitioner's application for conversion of its haciendas from agricultural to non-
agricultural. The agency charged with the mandate of approving or disapproving
applications for conversion is the DAR." (at 45-46;underscoring supplied). The
Court further stated that, "(t)he DAR's mandate over applications for conversion
was first laid down in Section 4 (j) and Section 5 (l) of Executive Order No. 129-A,
Series of 1987 and reiterated in the CARL and Memorandum Circular No. 54,
Series of 1993 of the Office of the President. (at 46).
DAR's authority to allow conversion is not limited only to lands awarded under
CARP. As stated in DOJ Opinion No. 44 (1990):
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 before hand 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 R.A. No. 6657, which every landowner may
use to evade compliance with the agrarian reform program. Hence, it should
logically follow from the said department's express duty and function to execute
and enforce the said statute that any commercial or industrial property should first
be cleared by the DAR.
xxx xxx xxx
Based on the foregoing premises, we reiterate the view that with respect to
conversions of agricultural lands covered by RA No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses,
the authority of DAR to approve such conversion 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. (Underscoring supplied.)
DAR Officials Authorized to Issue Conversion Orders
Under Sec. 22 (a) of DAR AO 1 (1999), the following DAR officials shall
approve or disapprove applications for land use conversion:
a) The Regional Director for areas of not more than five (5) hectares;
b) The duly authorized Undersecretary for areas above five (5)
hectares but not more than fifty (50) hectares;
c) The Secretary for areas of more than fifty (50) hectares, except for
those highly restricted from conversion which shall be subject to his
approval regardless of the area.
For purposes of determining the appropriate approving authority, the total
area for conversion shall refer to the aggregate area of all applications regardless
of the number of applications and the nature of the proposed project where (a)
the properties are owned by the same person or entity or the owners of which are
represented by the same person or entity; and (b) the properties are located in
the same barangay or adjacent barangays within the same municipality/ies or
city/ies. In case the subject land is adjacent to an area previously issued with
conversion order, the foregoing test shall be applied to determine the appropriate
approving authority (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 22 [b] and [c]).
Scope of Land Use Conversion
Under DAR AO 1 (1999), the following agricultural lands are subject to DAR's
conversion authority:
a) Those to be converted to residential, commercial, industrial,
institutional and other non-agricultural purposes;
b) Those to be devoted to another type of agricultural activity such as
livestock, poultry, and fishpond the effect of which is to exempt the land
from CARP coverage;
c) Those to be converted to non-agricultural use other than that
previously authorized; and
d) Those reclassified to residential, commercial, industrial, or other
non-agricultural uses on or after the effectivity of RA 6657 on June 15, 1988
pursuant to the Local Government Code.
Sec. 3 (b) of DAR AO 1 (1999) states that the change in use of land from one
agricultural activity to another use which would exempt the land from CARP
coverage under Sec. 10 of RA 6657 and DOJ Opinion No. 44 [1990] requires
conversion clearance. Hence, landowners of agricultural lands devoted to
coconuts must first secure a conversion clearance from DAR if they want to
convert the same to poultry farm or fishpond.
Also, DAR AO 1 (1990) requires landowners to secure another conversion
clearance if the change that will be undertaken is not what has been authorized
in a previous conversion order. In short, if DAR issues a conversion order
authorizing the landowner to change the use of the property from agricultural
use, e.g. coconut plantation to a memorial park, the owner cannot develop the
property into a residential subdivision without getting another conversion
clearance specifically allowing the residential use of the land.
Agricultural lands outside DAR's conversion authority
The following lands do not require DAR conversion clearance or are not
subject to conversion:
a) Agricultural lands reclassified to non-agricultural uses prior to 15
June 1988 (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 3 (d) and DOJ Opinion No. 44,
[1990]). (These lands are subject to DAR exemption clearance);
b) Agricultural lands considered non-negotiable for conversion (DAR
Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 4);
c) Lands within the Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries Development
Zones (SAFDZs) which are subject to the five (5) year moratorium period
beginning 10 February 1998 up to 9 February 2003 (Rep. Act No. 8435
[1997], sec. 9; DA Adm. O. No. 6 [1998], rule 9). (Except as to 5% thereof).
Areas highly restricted from conversion
Under Sec. 2 (b) and 5 of DAR AO 1 (1999), areas highly restricted from
conversion refer to the following:
a) Irrigable lands not covered by irrigation projects with firm funding
commitment;
b) Agro-industrial croplands, or lands presently planted to industrial
crops that support the economic viability of existing agricultural
infrastructure and agro-based enterprises;
c) Highlands or areas located in elevations of 500 meters or above and
have the potential for growing semi-temperate and usually high-value crops;
d) Lands issued with notice of land valuation and acquisition, or subject
of a perfected agreement between the landowner and the beneficiaries
under the voluntary land transfer/direct payment scheme;
e) Environmentally critical areas as determined by the DENR in
accordance with law.
The conversion of these areas, if at all, shall undergo a more stringent
process and the applicant must clearly show that conversion is far more
beneficial to the community and the public at large. Applications involving areas
highly restricted from conversion are deliberated upon by the PARC Land Use
Technical Committee and subject to the Secretary's approval regardless of the
area. The applicant is also required to submit the following additional
requirements: (a) a project feasibility study; and (b) environmental compliance
certificate, if within environmentally critical area.
Lands non-negotiable for conversion
Under Sec. 4 of DAR AO 1 (1999), areas non-negotiable for conversion are
not eligible for conversion. Applications for conversion involving these areas shall
not be given due course, regardless of whether all or some portions thereof are
within areas highly restricted from conversion or within priority development
areas for conversion. These lands include the following:
a) Agricultural lands within protected areas designated as such under
the National Integrated Protected Areas System including watershed and
recharged acquifers, as determined by the DENR;
b) All irrigated lands, as delineated by the DA and/or NIA, where water
is available to support rice and other crop production;
c) All irrigated lands where water is not available for rice and other crop
production but are within areas programmed for irrigation facility
rehabilitation by the DA and/or NIA; and
d) All agricultural lands with irrigation facilities operated by private
organizations.
Conversion moratorium under RA 8435
Under RA 8435, the following lands within the SAFDZs are not eligible for
conversion for a period of five (5) years starting on 10 February 1998 until 9
February 2003:
a) All irrigated lands;
b) Irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects with firm
funding commitments; and
c) Lands with existing or having the potential for growing high-value
crops.
The 5-year conversion moratorium is not absolute. Five percent (5%) of said
lands within SAFDZs may be converted upon compliance with existing laws,
rules and regulations. DAR and DA, upon the recommendation of the Regional
and National SAFDZ Committees, shall jointly determine the maximum 5%
equivalent to the total area of land eligible for conversion. (DAR Adm. O. No. 1
[1999], sec. 7 (b), (c ); DA Adm. O. No. 6, [1998], rule 9.5.2).
Upon expiration of the moratorium, conversion may be allowed, if at all, on a
case to case basis, subject to existing laws, rules and regulations on land use
conversion (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 7 [d]).
Lands within SAFDZs
SAFDZs refer to Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries Development Zones.
They are areas within the Network of Protected Areas for Agricultural and Agro-
industrial Development (NPAAAD) identified for production, agro-processing and
marketing activities to help develop and modernize, with the support of the
government, the agriculture and fisheries sectors in an environmentally and
socio-culturally sound manner (Rep. Act No. 8435 [1997], sec. 4). Lands within
SAFDZs shall be identified by the DA on the basis of the criteria prescribed in RA
8435.
Priority development areas for conversion
Under Sec. 6 of DAR AO 1 (1999), the following are priority development
areas for conversion:
a) Specific sites in regional agri-industrial centers/regional industrial
centers identified by the Department of Trade and Industry and the DA;
b) Tourism development areas identified by the Department of Tourism
as indicated in the current Medium Term Philippine Development Plan;
c) Sites identified and proposed to be developed by LGUs into
socialized housing projects which are presently used for agricultural
purposes;
d) Sites intended for socialized housing projects under EO 184, series
of 1994;
e) Agricultural areas intended for ECOZONE projects pursuant to RA
7916.
Conversion of agricultural lands within priority development areas requires
DAR clearance. However, the period within which to process and evaluate
applications involving lands within these areas is shorter. Processing of
applications is conducted within 13 days from submission of complete set of
documentary requirements. Also, an environmental compliance certificate is not
a pre-condition to the approval of the conversion application; instead, it forms
part of the conditions of the order of conversion where applicable.
SHOPC
Under present guidelines, socialized housing projects are considered priority
development areas. (DAR Memo. Circular No. 9 [1999], sec. 1 [1.6].)
Under DAR AO 2 (2000), Mass Housing Desks shall be created at the
CLUPPI which shall be responsible for the receipt, processing and disposition of
all applications for conversion for socialized and low-cost housing projects.
Applicants for conversion involving socialized and low-cost housing projects
are exempt from the posting of cash bond, submission of Certification of Eligibility
for Conversion from DA and Environmental Compliance Certificate from DENR.
(DAR Adm. O. No. 2 [2000], sec. 3)
Likewise, applications for conversion involving socialized and low-cost
housing projects shall be processed for a period of thirteen (13) working days
upon receipt of the completed application pursuant to Sec. 1 of EO 258 (2000).
(DAR Adm. O. No. 2 [2000], sec. 4)
Criteria for Conversion
Under Sec. 8 of DAR AO 1 (1999), the following criteria shall guide the
resolution of applications for conversion:
1) Conversion may be allowed if the land subject of application is not
among those considered non-negotiable for conversion;
2) Conversion may be allowed under the following cases, in
accordance with Section 65 of RA 6657:
a) when the land has ceased to be economically feasible and
sound for agricultural purposes; or
b) the locality has become urbanized and the land will have
greater economic value for residential, commercial, industrial or other
non-agricultural purposes.
3) Conversion of lands within SAFDZs shall take into consideration the
following factors:
a) The conversion is consistent with the natural expansion of the
municipality or locality, as contained in the approved physical
framework and land use plan;
b) The area to be converted is not the only remaining food
production area of the community;
c) The conversion shall not hamper the availability of irrigation to
nearby farmlands;
d) Areas with low productivity will be accorded priority for
conversion; and
e) Sufficient disturbance compensation shall be given to the
farmers whose livelihoods are negatively affected by the conversion.
4) Conversion may be allowed when the environmental impact
assessment or initial environmental examination, as may be appropriate,
shall have determined that it shall not adversely affect air and water quality
and the ecological stability of the area.
Under the previous guidelines, conversion may be allowed if the land has
been reclassified by the LGUs to non-agricultural uses, but said criterion has
been deleted under the present guidelines. That the land has been reclassified to
non-agricultural use as per zoning certification remains one of the factors to
consider in resolving whether to approve or disapprove an application for
conversion. It is not an indispensable condition, however, for the approval of the
application. Thus, conversion may be allowed even if the property has not yet
been reclassified to non-agricultural use if the conditions under RA 6657 or RA
8435warrant the same.
It is evident that the thrust of DAR conversion guidelines is to give the
department sole and exclusive prerogative to decide on conversion applications.
Certifications issued by other agencies are given persuasive effect but the final
determination belongs to the DAR.
Bonds and Disturbance Compensation
Under the present guidelines, applicants are required to post two (2) kinds of
bonds: cash bond and performance bond. They are also required to pay
disturbance compensation in appropriate cases.
Cash Bond
Cash bond is posted by the applicant upon filing of the application equivalent
to two point five percent (2.5%) of the total zonal value of the land. It is
refundable upon issuance of the order of conversion or convertible into
performance bond at the option of the applicant (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec.
15).
The cash bond is forfeited in favor of the government in the event actual
conversion activities are undertaken by the applicant prior to approval of the
application for conversion (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 15).
Performance Bond
Performance bond is posted in favor of DAR to guarantee the payment of the
amount of security as penalty in the event it is established that the
applicant/developer is in default of their obligations under the order of
conversion. It shall be effective for the duration of the project approved under the
conversion order. The performance bond shall be in the form of either of the
following:
a) Cash, manager's check, cashier's check, irrevocable letter of credit,
bank draft equivalent to 2.5% of the total zonal value of the land; or
b) Bank guarantee equivalent to 5% of the total zonal value of the land;
or
c) Surety equivalent to 15% of the total zonal value of the land (DAR
Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 15 [c).
The performance bond shall be forfeited in favor of the government in case of
violation of the conditions of the conversion order such as non-payment of
disturbance compensation, failure to develop or complete the project within the
period prescribed, etc. (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 15, last par.)
Disturbance Compensation
Under RA 3844, disturbance compensation is given only to de jure tenants.
However, under the present conversion guidelines, tenants, farmworkers,
or bona fide occupants who will be affected by the conversion of the property to
non-agricultural uses are all entitled to disturbance compensation (DAR Adm. O.
No. 1 [1999], sec. 15 [a]).
Disturbance compensation, in cash or in kind or both, shall be paid by the
landowner or developer, as may be appropriate, in such amounts or under such
terms as may be mutually agreed upon between the affected tenants,
farmworkers or occupants and the landowner or developer but it should not be
less than five (5) times the average of the gross harvests on their landholding
during the last five (5) preceding calendar years. Any agreement for the payment
between them shall be subject to DAR's approval and compliance monitoring
(DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 15 (a)).
Payment of disturbance compensation or compliance with the terms and
conditions of the approved agreement must be made within sixty (60) days from
the date of approval of the application for conversion (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999],
sec. 15 [b]).
In case of disagreement between the parties, the issue on disturbance
compensation may be brought by either of them before the DAR Adjudication
Board for resolution (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 15 [c]).
Protests and Oppositions
Sec. 21 of DAR AO 1 (1999) states that the DAR admits protest or opposition
against any application for conversion which is resolved by the approving
authority simultaneously with the application. It may be filed by any person who
will be displaced or directly affected by the proposed land use conversion such
as occupants, tenants, farmworkers, identified beneficiaries, bona fide residents
of adjoining properties or communities against the application with the DAR
Regional Office or Central Office, as appropriate (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999],
sec. 18 and 19).
The protest must be in writing and filed within fifteen (15) days from the date
of posting of the Notice of Application. However, if the oppositor is an identified
beneficiary under the agrarian reform program of the land applied for and who
failed to file a written protest within the said period due to fraud, accident,
mistake or excusable neglect, he shall have the right to intervene at any time
during the pendency of the application.
Protests or oppositions may be filed on the following grounds:
a) The area applied for is non-negotiable for conversion;
b) The adverse effects or the displacement to be caused by the
proposed conversion far outweigh the social and economic benefits to the
affected communities;
c) Misrepresentation or concealment of material facts;
d) Illegal/premature conversion;
e) Existence of proof that conversion was resorted to as a means to
evade CARP coverage and to dispossess the tenant farmers of the land
tilled by them. (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 20)
Effects of Approval of Conversion Application
An order of conversion is generally subject to the following conditions:
a) Payment of disturbance compensation within 60 days from issuance
of the order;
b) Posting of a notice of conversion in a conspicuous place;
c) Development of the land within a specific period;
d) Withdrawal or cancellation of the order for misrepresentation of facts
integral to its issuance or for violation of the rules and regulations on land
use conversion.
Sec. 23 of DAR AO 1 (1999) also provides for the following effects:
First, the conversion of an agricultural land to non-agricultural uses is limited
to the specific use of the land authorized in the order. In case the landowner
decides to use the land for purposes other than that authorized, a new
application must be filed which must go through the process of conversion again.
Otherwise, he may be charged for unauthorized conversion (DAR Adm. O. No. 1
[1999], sec. 40 (d) and 2 [y]).
Second, all conversion orders are subject to the schedule indicated in the
detailed site development plan and work and financial plan submitted by the
applicant. The rules, however, require that the period of development should not
extend beyond five (5) years from the issuance of the order except as authorized
by the Secretary or the approving official on meritorious grounds.
Third, the conditions of the order are binding not only upon the applicant but
also upon successors-in-interest of the property.
Fourth, duly authorized representatives of DAR should be allowed free and
unhampered access to the property subject of the conversion order for
compliance monitoring purposes.
Fifth, the use authorized in the order of conversion shall be annotated on the
title of the subject property.
Sixth, the order is without prejudice to ancestral domain claims of indigenous
peoples pursuant to RA 8371.
Effect on tenants, farmworkers or occupants of property
Upon payment of disturbance compensation or compliance with the terms and
conditions of the agreement for disturbance compensation, the tenants,
farmworkers or occupants are expected to give up all their rights over the land
such as possession, tenancy, etc., in favor of the landowner or developer.
In Gonzales v. CA, 174 SCRA 398, it was held that an agricultural leasehold
cannot be established on land which has been converted to residential use.
Grounds for Revocation/Withdrawal/Cancellation of Conversion Order
Under Sec. 35 of DAR AO 1 (1999), a petition for
cancellation/revocation/withdrawal of the order of conversion may be filed at the
instance of DAR or any aggrieved party on the following grounds:
a) Misrepresentation or concealment of facts or circumstances material
to the grant of conversion;
b) Non-compliance with the conditions of the order of conversion;
c) Lack of jurisdiction of the approving authority;
d) Non-compliance with the agreement on disturbance compensation;
e) Conversion to use other than that authorized in the conversion
order; and/or
f) Any other violation of relevant rules and regulations of DAR.
The period within which to file the petition varies depending on the ground
raised by the petitioner:
a) The petition must be filed before the approving authority within 90
days from discovery of facts which would warrant such cancellation but not
more than one year from issuance of the order if the basis is
misrepresentation or concealment, or non-compliance with the agreement
on disturbance compensation;
b) The petition must be filed with 90 days from discovery of such facts
but not beyond the period for development stipulated in the order if the
basis is non-compliance with the conditions of the order, conversion to use
other than that authorized, or any other violation of relevant rules and
regulations of DAR;
c) Where the ground is lack of jurisdiction, the petition shall be filed
with the Secretary at any time.
In the event the conversion order is cancelled or withdrawn, the land subject
thereof shall revert to the status of agricultural lands and shall be subject to
CARP coverage as circumstances may warrant. (Sec. 37, AO 1 (1999)).
CHAPTER 8
Prohibited Acts and Omissions
Preliminary Considerations
RA 6657, RA 8435 and RA 3844 are the primary sources of prohibited acts
and omissions under the agrarian reform program which are criminal in nature
and punishable with fine and imprisonment, or both. As a rule, the prosecution of
these acts does not preclude the DAR from pursuing administrative cases
against the offenders for the same acts or on the basis of the same facts.
Other acts and omissions in violation of agrarian laws are also
administratively sanctioned. As the principal agency tasked with the
implementation of CARP, the DAR is vested with the power to establish and
promulgate operational policies, rules and regulations for agrarian reform
implementation (see Exec. Order No. 129-A (1987), sec. 4 [c]). Moreover, Sec.
50 of RA 6657 vests DAR with the primary jurisdiction to determine and
adjudicate agrarian reform matters and exclusive original jurisdiction over all
matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform.
Prohibited Acts and Omissions by Landowners under RA 6657
Sec. 73 of RA 6657 enumerates acts and omissions which are criminally
punishable. Other provisions of RA 6657 proscribing certain acts and omissions
not included in Sec. 73 are subject to administrative regulation or sanctions.
1. Ownership and Possession of Land Beyond Allowable Limits
Sec. 73 (a) of RA 6657 prohibits "The ownership or possession, for the
purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Act, of agricultural lands in excess
of the total retention limits or award ceilings by any person, natural or juridical,
except those under collective ownership by farmer-beneficiaries."
Elements:
a) Offender is any person, natural or juridical;
b) Person owns or possess agricultural lands in excess of
retention limit or award ceilings, except in the case of collective
ownership by farmer beneficiaries; and
c) The purpose of ownership or possession is to circumvent the
provisions of RA 6657;
2) Prohibited Sale, Transfer, Conveyance or Change in the Nature of
the Land
Sec. 73(e) of RA 6657 also prohibits "The sale, transfer, conveyance or
change of the nature of lands outside urban centers and city limits either in whole
or in part after the effectivity of this Act. The date of the registration of the deed of
conveyance in the Register of Deeds with respect to titled lands and the date of
the issuance of the tax declaration to the transferee of the property with respect
to unregistered lands, as the case may be, shall be conclusive for the purpose of
this Act."
CIHTac
Elements:
a) The offender is any person;
b) The person either effects the
i. sale, transfer or conveyance of the land; or
ii. change the nature of the land.
c) The land must be outside of urban centers and city limits;
d) The transaction or the change of the nature of the land may be of
the whole or a portion of the land; and
e) The transaction or the change of the nature of the land was effected
after 15 June 1988.
DAR AO 1 (1989) provides for administrative sanctions for the sale, transfer,
conveyance of lands outside urban centers. The elements of the administrative
offense is similar to that defined under Sec. 73 (e). Sec. 6 of RA 6657 also
provides that the sale, disposition, lease, management contract or transfer of
possession of private lands executed by the original owner in violation of RA
6657 shall be null and void. The sale or disposition, however, is not totally void.
Part I (B) of DAR AO (1989) provides that the sale or disposition of agricultural
land is valid to the extent that the total landholding of the transferee as a result of
the said acquisition does not exceed the landholding ceiling.
3. Illegal/Premature/Unauthorized Conversions
Illegal Conversion
Sec. 73 (c) of RA 6657 penalizes "The conversion by any
landowner of his agricultural land into any non-agricultural use with intent
to avoid the application of this Act to his landholdings and to dispossess
his tenant farmers of the land tilled by them."
Elements:
a) The land is agricultural land;
b) The offender is the landowner;
c) There are acts committed converting the use of the land into non-
agricultural use; and
d) The intent is to:
i. avoid the application of RA 6657; and
ii. to dispossess tenant farmers tilling the land.
DAR AO 1 (1999) provides a more expansive definition of illegal
conversion. Sec. 2 (g) of DAR AO 1 (1999) defines illegal conversion as
"the conversion by any landowner of his agricultural land into any non-
agricultural use with intent to avoid the application of RA 6657 to his
landholding and to dispossess his tenant farmers of the land tilled by
them; or the change of the nature of lands outside urban centers and city
limits either in whole or in part after the effectivity of RA 6657, as
provided in Sec. 73 (c) and (e) respectively, of the said Act." Thus, under
the administrative rule, there are two (2) ways of committing illegal
conversion.
Elements of the First Type:
a) Offender is the land owner;
b) He/she converts his/her agricultural land into any non-
agricultural use without authority or DAR clearance;
c) The intention of the conversion is to
i. avoid the application of RA 6657; and
ii. to dispossess the farmers of the land tilled by them;
Elements of the Second Type:
a) Offender is the landowner or any other person;
b) He/she changes the nature of the agricultural land, in whole or
in part;
c) Land is located outside urban centers and city limits; and
d) Act was committed after 15 June 1988.
Premature Conversion
Sec. 11 of RA 8435 penalizes ". . . the undertaking of any development
activity, the results of which modify or alter the physical characteristics of the
agricultural lands to render them suitable for non-agricultural purposes without an
approved order of conversion from the DAR."
Elements:
a) The land is agricultural land;
b) The offender may be any person;
c) Actual development activity is undertaken on the land;
d) The development activity modifies or alters the physical
characteristics of the land;
e) The land development renders the land suitable for non-agricultural
purposes; and
f) There is no approved order of conversion from the DAR.
Unauthorized conversion
Unlike illegal and premature conversions, unauthorized conversion is not a
criminal act but is merely administratively sanctioned.
Sec. 2 (w) of DAR AO 1 (1999) defines unauthorized conversion as "the act of
changing the current use of the land from agricultural (e.g. riceland) to another
agricultural use (e.g. livestock) without an order of conversion from DAR, or
changing the use of the land other than that allowed under the order of
conversion issued by DAR." There are, thus, two (2) ways to commit
unauthorized conversion.
Elements of the First Type:
a) Offender is any person, i.e., landowner, developer or any other
person;
b) The person changes the current use of an agricultural land into
another agricultural purpose; and
c) The change of use was done without an order of conversion
from DAR.
Elements of the Second Type:
a) Offender is any person, i.e., landowner, developer, or any
other person;
b) The subject land is granted an order of conversion for its
commitment to non-agricultural purposes; and
c) The person commits the land to a purpose other than that
allowed under the order of conversion.
In addition to the foregoing, Sec. 35 of DAR AO 1 (1999) also provides for
administrative sanctions against certain acts in connection with the grant of
conversion application by landowners or their duly authorized representatives.
These include the following:
a) Misrepresentation or concealment of material facts in
conversion application;
b) Non-compliance with the conditions set forth in the conversion
order; and
c) Non-compliance with the agreement on disturbance
compensation.
Prohibited Acts and Omissions by Beneficiaries under RA 6657
1. Sale, Transfer, Conveyance of Rights Acquired as a Beneficiary
Sec. 73 (f) of RA 6657 prohibits "The sale, transfer or conveyance by a
beneficiary of the right to use or any other usufructuary right over the land he
acquired by virtue of being a beneficiary, in order to circumvent the provisions of
this Act."
Elements:
a) The offender is an agrarian reform beneficiary;
b) Offender sells, transfers or conveys the right to use or any
other usufructuary right over his land;
c) The subject land was acquired by him/her by virtue of being a
beneficiary; and
d) The act is motivated by the design to circumvent the
provisions of R.A. 6657.
Relatedly, Part I (4) of DAR MC 19 (1996) provides that the "[s]ale, transfer,
lease and other forms of conveyance by beneficiary of the rights to use or any
other usufructuary right over the land acquired by virtue of being a beneficiary, in
circumvention of the provisions of Sec. 73 of RA 6657, PD 27 and other agrarian
law" is a prohibited act. However, if the lands has been acquired under PD 27/EO
228, ownership may be transferred upon full payment of amortization by the
beneficiary.
Elements:
a) The offender is an agrarian reform beneficiary;
b) He/she sells, transfers or conveys the right to use or any other
usufructuary right over his land without legal basis;
c) The subject land was acquired by him/her by virtue of being a
beneficiary under RA 6657 or PD 27/EO 228; Provided that lands
acquired under PD 27/EO 228 can be transferred upon full payment of
amortizations. In the case of lands awarded under CARP, the land can
be transferred ten (10) years after the registration of the CLOA; and
d) The act is motivated by the design to circumvent the provisions
of RA 6657, PD 27 and other agrarian laws.
2. Misuse or Diversion of Financial Aid and Support Services
Sec. 37 of RA 6657 provides that the "misuse or diversion of the financial and
support services provided the beneficiary shall result in sanction against the
beneficiary guilty thereof, including the forfeiture of the land transferred to him or
lesser sanctions as may be provided by the PARC without prejudice to criminal
prosecution." This is reflected in Item A, No. 1 of DAR MC 19 (1996).
Elements:
a) The beneficiary was granted financial aid and other support
services;
b) The beneficiary either:
i. misuses the financial aid and support services; or
ii. diverts such aid or services for other purposes.
3. Misuse of the Land
Par. 4, Sec. 22 of RA 6657 provides 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. Misuse of the land is administratively sanctioned
under DAR MC 19 (1996).
Part III, Item (A) of DAR AO 2 (1994) defines misuse of the land as "any act
causing substantial and unreasonable damage on the land, and causing the
deterioration and depletion of the soil fertility and improvements thereon. It also
includes the act of knowingly planting, growing, raising of any plant which is the
source of a dangerous drug, as defined under PD 1683 (1980)." Under the
definition, there are two ways of committing this offense.
Elements of the First Type:
a) Offender is a grantee of land awarded through CLOA or EP;
b) Offender commits acts which cause substantial and unreasonable
damage to the land; and
c) Such act causes the deterioration and depletion of the soil fertility
and improvements thereon.
Elements of the Second Type:
a) Offender is a grantee of land awarded through a CLOA or EP; and
b) He knowingly plants, grows or raises any plant which is the source
of dangerous drug as defined in PD 1683.
4. Continuous Neglect or Abandonment of Awarded Lands
Sec. 22 of RA 6657 provides that any beneficiary who is guilty of negligence
of the land extended to him shall forfeit his right to continue as such beneficiary.
Part I, A (5) of DAR MC 19 (1996) provides that "continuous neglect or
abandonment of the awarded lands over a period of two (2) years as determined
by the Secretary or his authorized representative" is subject to administrative
sanctions.
Part III, Item (B) of DAR AO 2 (1994) defines neglect or abandonment as the
"willful failure of the ARB, together with his farm household, to cultivate, till, or
develop his land to produce any crop, or to use the land for any specific
economic purpose continuously for a period of two calendar years."
Elements:
a) The offender is an agrarian reform beneficiary;
b) The beneficiary willfully fails or refuses to cultivate, till or develop to
produce any crop the land awarded him; and
c) Such failure or refusal continue for a period of two (2) calendar
years.
5. Material Misrepresentation of Qualifications
The material misrepresentation of qualifications provided under Sec. 22 of RA
6657 and other agrarian reform laws is administratively sanctioned under Item A
(3), Part I of DAR MC 19 (1996).
Elements:
a) The offender is a beneficiary;
b) Offender intentionally made false statements respecting a matter of
fact in his application for qualification as an ARB under RA 6657 or any
other agrarian laws; and
c) The misrepresented fact was material to the determination of his
qualification to become a beneficiary.
6. Default and Failure in the Payment of Amortization to Landowner
Part I, item A(1) of DAR MC 19 (1996) provides that "default in the obligation
of the ARBs to pay the aggregate of three (3) consecutive amortizations to the
landowner in the case of awarded lands under voluntary land transfer/direct
payment scheme, except in cases of fortuitous events and force majeure" is
administratively sanctioned. The administrative rule is based on Sec. 26, RA
6657 which states that a beneficiary whose land has been foreclosed shall
thereafter be permanently disqualified from becoming a beneficiary.
Elements:
a) Offender is an ARB;
b) The beneficiary acquired the land by virtue of Voluntary Land
Transfer or Direct Payment Scheme;
c) The beneficiary fails to pay the landowner amortization for three (3)
consecutive months; and
d) Failure is due to reasons other than force majeure or fortuitous
events.
7. Failure to Pay Amortizations to LBP
Similarly, the failure to pay amortizations to LBP is penalized under DAR MC
19 (1996)which states that "[f]ailure of the ARBs to pay at least three (3) annual
amortizations to the LBP in the case of awarded lands under the Compulsory
Acquisition (CA) or Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS), except in the case of fortuitous
events and force majeure."
Elements:
a) The beneficiary is an awardee of a land acquired through the
Compulsory Acquisition or Voluntary Offer to Sell;
b) The beneficiary fails to pay the LBP at least three (3) annual
amortization; and
c) Failure is due to reasons other than force majeure or fortuitous
events.
8. Waiver of Rights to Awarded Lands
Part I, item A, no. 9 of MC 19 (1996) treats the waiver of rights to awarded
lands by a beneficiary as an administrative offense.
Elements:
a) Offender is a beneficiary; and
b) The beneficiary has expressly or impliedly waived his rights over the
land.
9. FB's Surrender of Awarded Lands to Landowner or Other Non ARBs.
The surrender by a beneficiary of his awarded lands to landowner or other
non-ARBs is penalized under part I, item A (10) of MC 19 (1996).
Elements:
a) Offender is a beneficiary;
b) Offender surrenders land awarded him to the landowner or other
non-beneficiaries; and
c) Such surrender is without legal authority or clearance from DAR.
Prohibited Acts and Omissions by Other Persons under RA 6657
1. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
Sec. 73 (b) of RA 6657 provides that "The forcible entry or illegal detainer by
persons who are not qualified beneficiaries under this Act to avail themselves of
the rights and benefits of the Agrarian Reform Program" is a prohibited act that is
criminally punishable.
Elements:
a) Offender is any person who is not qualified to become an agrarian
reform beneficiaries;
b) He/she deprives the owner, or legal representatives or any assigns
of the said owner, the right of possession thereof either through the
following acts:
i. by entering the land of another by force, intimidation, threat,
strategy, or stealth; or
ii. unlawfully refusing to vacate the land after the right to hold
possession thereof has expired;
c) The intention of the acts is to avail themselves of the rights and
benefits of the Agrarian Reform Program.
2. Obstruction and Prevention of CARP Implementation
Sec. 73 (d) of RA 6657 penalized the "[w]illful prevention or obstruction by any
association or entity of the implementation of the CARP."
Elements:
a) Offender may be a landowner, beneficiary or any other person,
natural or juridical; and
b) The person commits acts to prevent or obstructs the implementation
of the CARP.
Prohibited Acts by Agricultural Lessees and Lessor under RA 3844
RA 3844 enumerates the criminal acts and omissions by agricultural lessees
and lessors.
By Agricultural Lessor
1. Unlawful Recording of Sale in the Registry of Property Subject to
Right of Redemption
Sec. 13 of RA 3844 states that "[n]o deed of sale of agricultural land under
cultivation by an agricultural lessee or lessees shall be recorded in the Registry
of Property unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has given
the written notice required in Section eleven of this Chapter or that the land is not
worked by an agricultural lessee." Failure to comply with this provision is
criminally punishable under Sec. 167(1) of RA 3844.
Elements:
a) The offender is the landowner or agricultural lessor, or in case of
juridical persons, the manager or person who has charge of the
management or management of the property or in his default, the person
acting in his stead;
b) He effects the recording of the sale of the land subject of an
agricultural lease; and
c) Such recording was effected without the necessary Affidavit by
vendor that he has given prior written notice of the sale to the agricultural
lessor as required by Sec. 7 of RA 3844.
2. Unlawful Disposition of Lessee
Sec. 31(1) of RA 3844 provides that it shall be unlawful for the agricultural
lessor to "dispossess the agricultural lessee of his landholding except upon
authorization by the Court under Section thirty-six. Should the agricultural lessee
be dispossessed of his landholding without authorization from the Court, the
agricultural lessor shall be liable for damages suffered by the agricultural lessee
in addition to the fine or imprisonment prescribed in this Code for unauthorized
dispossession." Sec. 167(1) of RA 3844 penalizes the commission by an
agricultural lessor of the act defined under Sec. 31 of RA 3844.
Elements:
a) Offender is an agricultural lessor;
b) Offender dispossess the agricultural lessee of his landholding; and
c) Dispossession is without authorization from the Court.
3. Inducement to Execute or Enter into a Share Tenancy Contract
Sec. 167(2) of RA 3844 provides that "Any person, natural or juridical, who
induces another, as tenant, to execute or enter into a share tenancy contract with
himself or with another in violation of this Code shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding five thousand pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with
the Revised Penal Code: Provided, That the execution of a share tenancy
contract shall be considered prima facie evidence of such inducement as to the
owner, civil law lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor. In case of juridical
persons, the manager or the person who has charge of the management or
administration of the property or, in his default, the person acting in his stead,
shall be liable under this Section."
Elements:
a) Offender is any person, natural or juridical. In case of juridical
persons, the manager or the person who has charge of the management or
administration of the property, or in his default, the person acting in his
stead shall be liable; and
b) Offender induces another person, as tenant, to execute or enter into
a share tenancy contract with himself or another in violation of RA 3844.
4. Making Untruthful Statements in Affidavit Required under Sec. 13, RA
3844
Sec. 167(2) of RA 3844 provides "Any person who executes an affidavit as
required by Section thirteen of Chapter I, knowing the contents thereof to be
false, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand pesos or
imprisonment of not more than one year, or both, in the discretion of the court."
Sec. 13 of RA 3844 requires that prior to the registration of the sale or transfer
of land in the Registry of Property, the landowner must execute an affidavit that
written notice of the sale or transfer was made to the agricultural lessor as
required under Sec. 7 of RA 3844.
Elements:
a) Offender is the landowner, agricultural lessor or any person; and
b) He/she knowingly makes untruthful statements on a material matter
in an affidavit required for the registration of a sale of land subject to right of
pre-emption as required under Sec. 13 of RA 3844.
5. Acts Violating Farmworker's Rights to Self-Organization and to
Engage in Other Concerted Activities
Sec. 167 (4) of RA 3844 penalizes "Any person who willfully violates the
provisions of Sections forty and forty-one of this Code shall be punished by a fine
of not less than one hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos or by
imprisonment of not less than one month nor more than one year, or both such
fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. If any violation of Sections
forty and forty-one of this Code is committed by a corporation, partnership or
association, the manager or, in his default, the person acting as such when the
violation took place shall be criminally responsible."
Sec. 40 of RA 3844 recognizes the farmworkers' right to self-organization, and
provides that "the farm workers shall have the right to self-organization and to
form, join or assist farm workers' organizations of their own choosing for the
purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing:
Provided, That this right shall be exercised in a manner as will not unduly
interfere with the normal farm operations. Individuals employed as supervisors
shall not be eligible for membership in farm workers' organizations under their
supervision but may form separate organizations of their own."
Sec. 41 of RA 3844 likewise recognizes the right of farmworkers to engage in
concerted activities, to wit: "The farm workers shall also have the right to engage
in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual
aid or protection. For the purpose of this and the preceding Section, it shall be
the duty of the farm employer or manager to allow the farm workers, labor
leaders, organizers, advisers and helpers complete freedom to enter and leave
the farm, plantation or compound at the portion of same where said farm workers
live or stay permanently or temporarily."
Elements:
a) Offender is the landowner, agricultural lessor or any person;
b) Offender commits acts which impair or prevent the exercise of
i. the right of farmworkers to self-organization under Sec. 40
of RA 3844; or
ii. the right to engage in concerted activities as defined under
Sec. 41 of RA 3844.
6. Acts Violative of the Right of Farmworkers to a Minimum Wage
Sec. 167 (5) of RA 3844 provides "Any person who willfully violates the
provisions of Section forty-two of this Code shall, upon conviction thereof, be
subject to a fine of not more than two thousand pesos, or upon second
conviction, to imprisonment of not more than one year or both such fine and
imprisonment, in the discretion of the court. If any violation of the provisions of
Section forty-two of this Code is committed by a corporation, partnership or
association, the manager or, in his default, the person acting as such when the
violation took place shall be criminally responsible."
Sec. 42 of RA 3844 protects the farmworkers right to a minimum wage and
provides that "[n]otwithstanding any provision of law or contract to the contrary,
farm workers in farm enterprises shall be entitled to at least P3.50 a day for eight
hours' work: Provided, That this wage may, however, be increased by the
Minimum Wage Board as provided for in Republic Act Numbered Six hundred
and two."
Elements:
a) Offender is a landowner or any other person; and
b) Offender fails or refuses to pay the farmworker the minimum daily
wage as set in Sec. 43, RA 3844 or determined by the Minimum Wage
Board.
By Agricultural Lessees
1. Cultivation of Another Farmland without Consent of Lessor
Sec. 167 (1) of RA 3844 penalizes the commission by agricultural lessees of
the prohibited acts under Sec. 27 of RA 3844.
Sec. 27 (1) of RA 3844 provides that it shall be unlawful for an agricultural
lessee "[t]o contract to work additional landholdings belonging to a different
agricultural lessor or to acquire and personally cultivate an economic family-size
farm, without the knowledge and consent of the agricultural lessor with whom he
had first entered into household, if the first landholding is of sufficient size to
make him and the members of his immediate farm household fully occupied in its
cultivation."
Elements:
a) Offender is an agricultural lessee;
b) The land leased by him is of sufficient size to make him and the
members of his immediate farm household fully occupied in its production;
c) He contracts to work another landholdings belonging to a different
agricultural lessor or acquires and personally cultivate an economic family-
size farm; and
d) The cultivation of the other landholding is without the consent of his
first lessor.
2. Unlawful Sublease of Leased Land by Lessor
Sec. 27 (b) of RA 3844 declares that it shall be unlawful for an agricultural
lessee "[t]o employ a sub-lessee on his landholding: Provided, however, That in
the case of illness or temporary incapacity, he may employ laborers whose
services on his landholdings shall be on his account." This prohibition is
reiterated in Item B(1), part VI of DAR AO 5 (1997).
Elements:
a) Offender is an agricultural lessee;
b) That he employs as sublessee on his landholdings; and
c) The reason for the sub-contracting is other than illness or temporary
incapacity.
Penalties for Violation
The penalties for the prohibited acts and omissions which are criminal in
nature are as follows:
Act or Omission Penalty
Prohibited Acts or Omissions Imprisonment of not less than one (1) month to not
under RA 6657 more than three (3) years or a fine of not less than one
thousand pesos (1,000.00) and not more than fifteen
thousand pesos (P15,000.00), or both, at the
discretion
of the court. (Sec. 74, RA 6657)
Violation of Sec. 13, Sec. 27, Fine not exceeding one thousand pesos or
and 31 (1) of RA 3844 imprisonment not exceeding one year or both in the
discretion of the court (RA 3844, Sec. 167 (1).)
Acts Violating Farmworker's Fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor more than
Rights to Self-organization one thousand pesos or by imprisonment of not less
and to Engage in Other than one month nor more than one year, or both such
Concerted Activities fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court
(Sec. 167[4], RA 6657) (Sec. 167 [4], RA 6657).
Acts Violative of the Right Fine of not more than two thousand pesos, or upon
of Farmworkers to a second conviction, to imprisonment of not more than
Minimum Wage (Sec. one year or both such fine and imprisonment, in the
167[5], RA 3844) discretion of the court (Sec. 167 [5], RA 3844).
Upon the other hand, the penalties for prohibited acts and omissions which
are administrative in nature are as follows:
Acts or Omissions
Administrative Sanction
Under MC 19 (1996) Cancellation of EPs/CLOAs and perpetual
disqualification of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (see MC 19 s. 1996, Part I).
Under AO 1 (1999) 1. Cancellation or withdrawal of the
authorization for the land use conversion;
2. Blacklisting of the applicant, developer,
orrepresentative;
3. Automatic disapproval of pending
subsequent conversion applications that the offender may file with the DAR;
4. Issuance of cease and desist order
(CDO); and/or
5. Forfeiture of cash bond in accordance
with Sec. 16 hereof. (A.O. 1 s. 1999, Sec. 49)
Jurisdiction Over Violation of Agrarian Laws
The power and duty to hear and try cases involving the criminal acts
enumerated underRA 6657, RA 8435 and RA 3844 and other relevant agrarian
laws belongs to the Special Agrarian Courts. HcaATE
With respect to administrative offenses, the DAR shall have jurisdiction over
the same by virtue of its express primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform matters and exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters
involving the implementation of agrarian reform.