Cold Resurge=Max Level

Lightning Resurge=Max Level

Incinerating Shot =10 Level
Utilize Armor=1 Level
]Breakdown Armor=8 Level
Breakdown Weapon=8 Level
]Gaze of Destruction=Max Level
]Weaken Bond=1 Level
Balance Ether=1 Level
Control Ether=1 Level
Breakdown Weapon=8 Level
Defensive Stance =1 Level
Hiding Detection =1 Level
Indomitable Will =1 Level
Generate Magnetic Field = 1 Level
Bombing = Max Level
Aimed Shot = Max Level
Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction

Agriculture is an essential part of our economy as we are very much dependent on it.

That’s why Philippines is still primarily an agricultural country despite of many actions to make

it as an industrialized one. Most of the people still living on rural and mountainous region still

support their family through agriculture.

The country’s agriculture sector is made up of four sub-sectors: farming, fisheries,

livestock and forestry. Some of the country’s main products are rice, corn and banana. Our

country also exports agricultural products to the neighboring countries like United States, Japan,

Europe and of course, Asian country.

According to the study conducted by the World Bank on 2004, agriculture employs 30.4

per cent of the Filipino work force.

1
 The Philippines is the 8th largest rice producer in the world. The Philippines was also the

world’s largest importer of rice in 2010. It produced of nearly 15.7 metric tons of palay. Rice

production in the country has grown significantly during 1950s (World Bank, 2004).

But because of industrialization, land conversion is very rampant nowadays. Agricultural

lands are being converted into residential or commercial areas like subdivisions, industrial parks,

golf courses and malls.

In 1993, the country was losing irrigated rice lands at a rate of 2,300 hectares per year.

Small-land owners find it more profitable to sell their land to developers in exchange for cash,

especially since they lack capital for seeds, fertilizers, pesticides and wages for hiring workers to

plant and harvest the palay (Nations Encyclopedia, 2000).

Central Luzon

Central Luzon (Region III), known as the Rice Bowl of the Philippines, is boarded by the

longest running mountain range in the country, the Sierra Madre. It is estimated that it produced

3, 304, 647 metric tons of rice (World Bank, 2004).

According to the review of PSA in Central Luzon last 2002, the Central Luzon registered

341.5 thousand farms for agriculture use, covering 552.1 thousand hectares. The region’s total

agricultural land area comprised 25.6 per cent of the region’s total land area. Compared with

1991, the number of farms decreased by 2.7 per cent from 350.8 thousand farms.

Likewise, the total land area decreased by 12.7 per cent from 632.5 thousand hectares. As

a result, the average farm size slightly decreased from 1.8 hectares per farm on 1991 to 1.6

hectares per farm on 2002 (PSA, 2002).

2
Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

In Nueva Ecija alone, the region’s supposed leading palay producer, farmlands were

registered at 223, 853 hectares in 1991 but is now down to 196, 390 hectares (PSA, 2002). This

province is an Area Highly Restricted from Conversion.

The total land area of Cabanatuan City is 19,230 hectares and supposedly around

11,188.67 hectares is for agriculture including cropland, built-up area, orchard, undeveloped,

water, shrubland, marsh, parks and open space, fish pond, memorial parks and cemetery and for

unclassified.

On 2000, the cropland area was 14,083.10 hectares but on 2010, it decreased to 12,699.46

and decreased again to 12,603.87 hectares now. It means that the agricultural land area that has

been converted is almost 1,479.24 hectares or 10.5 per cent (Cabanatuan City Planning and

Development Office, 2017).

But unfortunately, these agricultural lands had been converted illegally or without

governing the land use conversion policy.

DAR Administrative Order No. O1, series of 2002

According to the 2002 Comprehensive Rules on Land Conversion, the conversion of

agricultural lands to non-agricultural lands shall be strictly regulated and may be allowed only

when the conditions prescribed under RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Act of

1988 and/or RA 8435 or the Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act.

3
 And these illegal conversions are causing negative effects to the residents and of course,

to the economy. These laws and provisions shall be strictly implemented to secure the food

security especially rice production because it affects the well-being of the people, the lifestyle

and causes severe poverty.

The residents together with the government shall cooperate to each other to stop this

rampant conversion.

Statement of the Problem

This study assesses the impacts of land conversion to rice production in the City of

Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija.

Specifically, it sought to answer the following questions:

1. How may the rate of production of rice be described in terms of;

2.1. Number produced in metric tons

2.2. Numbers of produced exported

3. Is there any significant difference between the current crop seasons to the recent crop

seasons in terms of production rate?

4. What are the impacts of land conversion aside from rice production shortage?

4
Significance of the Study

Result of the study serve as an input to develop a data baseline needed for a rehabilitation

program. This will somewhat help the local government in implementing their program,

provisions and laws related to the land conversion.

Furthermore, the study will benefit the following:

The Residents, particularly those who have no crop land because this may help them be

accessible in low-prices rice and the abundance of rice as being part of the “Rice Bowl of the

Philippines”.

The Farmers. This study aims to raise awareness about long-term beneficial effects of

having a crop land and how they crop land affects the food production in the city.

The Researchers. In order to serve this study as their reference for future research and

study regarding the effect of land conversion to food production.

5
Scope and Delimitation

This study was limited only on how land conversion affects the food production

specifically rice, in the City of Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija. Its impact to the environment was also

considered as a baseline data.

This study was conducted from August to September 2017. First semester Academic

Year 2017-2018.

Conceptual Framework

To conceptualize the study, the system approach was used in assessing the impacts of

land conversion to rice production. Figure 1 depicts how the approach was implemented in the

conduct of the study.

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

 Baseline data

 Background  Visual
Information land Observation  Proposed
conversion Rehabilitation
Program
 Awareness on
 Advocacy on the the effects of
 Related Literature implementation land conversion
on land of: to rice
 RA 6657
production.
conversion and  RA 8435.  Determination
food security and of reason
the behind land
conversion
implementation of 6
RA 6657 and RA
 Figure 1.
Research Paradigm
The research paradigm consists of three boxes; the input box; the process box; and the
output box. Under the input box, the Background Information on Impacts of Land Conversion to
Rice Production in Cabanatuan City were considered. Under the Process Box, the Visual
Observation, Awareness on the effects of land conversion to rice production, and Advocacy on
the implementation of RA 6657 or Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) and RA 8435
or Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act of 1997 were considered. And under the Output
Box, the baseline data and proposed rehabilitation were developed.

Definition of Terms

Agriculture- modification of land surfaces through cultivation of plants and

domestication of animals.

Agricultural land- refers to the land devoted to or suitable for the cultivation of the soil;

planting crops, growing of trees, raising of livestock, poultry, fish or aquaculture production,

including the harvesting of such farm products and other farm activities and practices performed

in conjunction with such farming operations by person whether natural or juridical, and not

classified by the law as mineral land, forest or timber, or natural park, or classified for

residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses before 15 June 1988.

Area Highly Restricted from Conversion- refers to agro-industrial crop land, or land

presently planted to industrial crops that support the economic viability of existing agricultural

infrastructure and agro-based enterprises: highlandor area located at elevation of 500 meters or

higher and have the potential for growingsemi-temperate or high value crops.

7
 Awareness- the knowledge of people about something

Biodiversity- the variety or variedness of life on Earth

Climate Change- the undesirable changes in climate patterns resulting to different

environmental phenomena.

Corruption- officers taking bribes from people engaging in illegal activities.

Ecosystem- composed of living things and non-living things that acts as a single

function.

Habitat destruction- destruction of a specific ecosystem where organisms thrive.

Indigenous- produced, living, or existing naturally in a region or environment.

Inevitable- cannot be controlled, or hard to stop.

Poverty-.the state of being poor; lack of something.

Rehabilitation- to bring back to a good condition.

Sustainable-able to use without being completely used up or destroyed; able to last or

continue for a long time.

Unemployed- the state of having no job or source of living.

8
 Chapter II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

This chapter presents the related literatures and studies read and utilized by the

researchers to obtain more information on the subject.

Major land–use changes have occurred in the United States during the past 25 years. The total

area of cropland, pastureland and rangeland decreased by 76 million acres in the lower 48 states from

1982 to 2003, while the total area of developed land increased by 36 million acres or 48%. What are the

potential economic, social and environmental impacts of land use changes? How does land use change

affect agriculture and rural communities? What are the important economic and environmental

implications for commodity production and trade, water and soil conservation, open space preservation,

and other policy issues? This article addresses some of these issues and their policy implications.

Socioeconomic Impacts

9
 Land is one of three major factors of production in classical economics (along with labor and

capital) and an essential input for housing and food production. Thus, land use is the backbone of

agricultural economies and it provides substantial economic and social benefits. Land use change is

necessary and essential for economic development and social progress.

Land use change, however, does not come without costs. Conversion of farmland and forests to

urban development reduces the amount of lands available for food and timber production. Soil erosion,

salinization, desertification, and other soil degradations associated with intensive agriculture and

deforestation reduce the quality of land resources and future agricultural productivity (Lubowski et al.

2006).

Urbanization presents many challenges for farmers on the urban fringe. Conflicts with nonfarm

neighbors and vandalism, such as destruction of crops and damage to farm equipment, are major concerns

of farmers at the urban fringe (Lisansky, 1986). Neighboring farmers often cooperate in production

activities, including equipment sharing, land renting, custom work, and irrigation system development.

These benefits will disappear when neighboring farms are converted to development. Farmers may no

longer be able to benefit from information sharing and formal and informal business relationships among

neighboring farms. Urbanization may also cause the “impermanence syndrome” (i.e., a lack of confidence

in the stability and long–run profitability of farming), leading to a reduction in investment in new

technology or machinery, or idling of farmland (Lopez, Adelaja, and Andrews, 1988).

As urbanization intensifies, agricultural and nonagricultural land use conflicts become more

severe. This may lead to an increase in local ordinances designed to force farmers to pay for some of the

negative impacts generated by agriculture. As the nearest input suppliers close because of insufficient

demand for farm inputs, a farmer may have to pay more for inputs or spend more time to obtain

equipment repairs (Lynch and Carpenter, 2003). Competition for labor from nonagricultural sectors may

10
raise farmers’ labor costs. When the total amount of farmland falls below a critical mass, the local

agricultural economy may collapse as all agricultural supporting sectors disappear.

Urbanization also presents important opportunities to farmers. The emergence of a new customer

base provides farmers new opportunities for selling higher value crops. For example, Lopez, Adelaja, and

Andrews (1988) found that vegetable producers tend to receive higher prices in urbanized areas. The

explosion of nurseries, vegetable farms, vineyards, and other high–value crop industries in many

suburban areas illustrates how quickly agricultural economies can evolve. Many farmers have shown

remarkable adaptability in adjusting their enterprises to take advantage of new economic opportunities at

the urban fringe. They farm more intensively in areas with high population density (Lockeretz 1988).

More than half the value of total U.S. farm production is derived from counties facing urbanization

pressure (Larson, Findeis, and Smith 2001).

Urbanization has changed rural communities in many places. In some rural areas, urban sprawl

has encroached to such an extent that the community itself has been lost. In other areas, the lack of

opportunities has turned once–viable communities into ghost towns. Urban sprawl intensifies income

segregation and economic disparities between urban and suburban communities (Wu, 2006). Cities tend

to gain lower–income residents and lose upper–income population. Between 1969 and 1998, the share of

low–income families in central cities grew from 21.9% to 25.5% compared with a decline from 18.3% to

16.6% for high–income households (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development 2000). The

change in income mix led to a smaller tax base and the need for more social services in urban

communities.

Suburbanization brings urban and rural people and problems together. Most land areas are rural,

most watersheds are in rural places, and most of the atmosphere exists above rural space. Urbanites and

agencies have legitimate concerns about the use and condition of rural natural resources, just as rural

populations have legitimate concerns about urban–based pressures on the natural world. These shared

11
interests in the natural environment have important economic, social, and political implications, which

may profoundly impact society in the future.

In response to the increasing urbanization, many local governments have imposed strict land use

control. Some of the efforts have been quite successful in slowing down development. For example, Wu

and Cho (2007) found that local land use regulations reduced land development by 10% in the five

western states between 1982 and 1997, with the largest percent reduction occurring in Washington

(13.0%), followed by Oregon (12.6%), California (9.5%), Idaho (4.7%), and Nevada (2.8%). A potential

consequence of land use regulation is higher housing prices, which make housing less affordable to

middle– and low–income households. There is sufficient evidence to support the linkage between land

use regulation and housing affordability. Two recent Harvard University studies found that land use

regulation reduces housing affordability in the Greater Boston Area (Glaeser and Ward 2006; Glaeser and

Gyourko 2002). Cho, Wu and Boggess (2003) analyzed the causes and consequences of land use

regulations across counties in five western states and found that land use regulation increased average

housing prices between 1.3 and 4.7%, depending on the intensity of land use regulations in a county.

Land use control must strike a balance between private property rights and the public interest.

Oregon ballot measures 37 and 49 highlight the difficulty and controversy of the balancing act. In an

attempt to protect private property rights from regulatory taking, Oregon voters passed Measure 37 in

2004. Measure 37 provides that the government must compensate the owner of private real property when

a land use regulation reduces its "fair market value". In lieu of compensation, the government may choose

to "remove, modify or not apply" the regulation. Measure 37 was ruled unconstitutional by a lower court,

but was upheld by the Oregon State Supreme Court. By October 19, 2007, 6,814 claims had been filed,

requesting almost $20 billion in compensation (Oregon Department of Land Conservation and

Development 2007). In an effort to reverse or modify Measure 37, Oregon voters approved Measure 49

on Nov. 6, 2007 to “ensure that Oregon law provides just compensation for unfair burdens while retaining

Oregon’s protection for farm and forest land uses and the state’s water resources” (ODLCD, 2008).

12
Measure 49 essentially modifies Measure 37 by replacing “waivers” of regulations with authorizations to

establish a limited number of home sites.

In sum, land use change provides many economic and social benefits, but comes at a substantial

economic cost to society. Land conservation is a critical element in achieving long–term economic

growth and sustainable development. Land use policy, however, must strike a balance between private

property rights and the public interest.

Environmental Impacts

Land–use change is arguably the most pervasive socioeconomic force driving changes and

degradation of ecosystems. Deforestation, urban development, agriculture, and other human activities

have substantially altered the Earth’s landscape. Such disturbance of the land affects important ecosystem

processes and services, which can have wide–ranging and long–term consequences (Table 2).

Farmland provides open space and valuable habitat for many wildlife species. However, intensive

agriculture has potentially severe ecosystem consequences. For example, it has long been recognized that

agricultural land use and practices can cause water pollution and the effect is influenced by government

policies. Runoff from agricultural lands is a leading source of water pollution both in inland and coastal

waters. Conversions of wetlands to crop production and irrigation water diversions have brought many

wildlife species to the verge of extinction.

Forests provide many ecosystem services. They support biodiversity, providing critical habitat for

wildlife, remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, intercept precipitation, slow down surface runoff,

and reduce soil erosion and flooding. These important ecosystem services will be reduced or destroyed

when forests are converted to agriculture or urban development. For example, deforestation, along with

urban sprawl, agriculture, and other human activities, has substantially altered and fragmented the Earth’s

vegetative cover. Such disturbance can change the global atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide,

13
the principal heat–trapping gas, as well as affect local, regional, and global climate by changing the

energy balance on Earth's surface (Marland et al. 2003).

Urban development has been linked to many environmental problems, including air pollution,

water pollution, and loss of wildlife habitat. Urban runoff often contains nutrients, sediment and toxic

contaminants, and can cause not only water pollution but also large variation in stream flow and

temperatures. Habitat destruction, fragmentation, and alteration associated with urban development have

been identified as the leading causes of biodiversity decline and species extinctions (Czech, Krausman

and Devers 2000; Soulé 1991). Urban development and intensive agriculture in coastal areas and further

inland are a major threat to the health, productivity, and biodiversity of the marine environment

throughout the world.

Policy Implications

Land use provides many economic and social benefits, but often comes at a substantial cost to the

environment. Although most economic costs are figured into land use decisions, most environmental

externalities are not. These environmental “externalities” cause a divergence between private and social

costs for some land uses, leading to an inefficient land allocation. For example, developers may not bear

all the environmental and infrastructural costs generated by their projects. Farmland produces both

agricultural commodities and open space. Although farmers are paid for the commodities they produce,

they may not be compensated for the open space they provide. Thus, market prices of farmlands may be

below their social values.

Such “market failures” provide a justification for private conservation efforts and public land use

planning and regulation. Private trusts and non profit organizations play an important role in land

14
conservation. For example, the American Farmland Trust claims that it has helped to protect more than

one million acres of America’s best farm and ranch land. The Nature Conservancy has protected more

than 117 million acres of ecologically important lands. However, some have questioned whether private

conservation efforts crowd out or complement public efforts for land conservation.

Land use regulation can take many different forms. The traditional command and control

approach often involves zoning, density regulation, and other direct land use controls. Although these

policies can be quite effective as regulatory tools, they could lead to substantial social welfare loss in the

form of higher housing prices, smaller houses, and inefficient land use patterns (Cheshire and Sheppard

2002; Walsh 2007).

Incentive–based policies are increasingly used to influence private land use decisions. These

policies may include development impact fees, purchases of development rights (PDRs), preferential

property taxation, and direct conservation payments. From 1998 to 2006, voters approved 1,197

conservation initiatives in local and state referenda in the United States, providing a total $34 billion for

land and open space preservation (Trust for Public Land 2007). The implementation of locally based,

long–term conservation plans has been touted as a critical element in achieving “smart growth” (U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency 2007).

The incentive–based approach has many advantages over direct land use control. For example, a

development impact fee can be used to achieve both the optimal pace and pattern of land development, a

shortcoming of zoning regulations (Wu and Irwin, 2008). However, zoning may be preferred from a

practical viewpoint as well as in cases where the environmental costs of land conversion are highly

uncertain. In situations where the natural and human systems interact in complex ways, thresholds and

nonlinear dynamics are likely to exist, and the environmental costs could be very high and sensitive to

additional development. In such cases, zoning may be preferred. The policy challenge, however, is to

know when the system is in the neighborhood of such thresholds.

15
 While federal spending on land–related conservation programs has increased substantially over

the last twenty-five years, the federal government has yet to articulate a clear vision of how land use

should be managed (Daniels, 1999). Most land use controls are in the hands of local governments in the

United States, and the level of control varies considerably across counties and municipalities. Some local

governments have few land use controls, while others are actively involved in land use planning and

regulation.

Land use regulation is a contentious issue in many communities, particularly those facing rapid

urbanization. Proponents argue that land use planning protects farmland, forests, water quality, open

space, and wildlife habitat and, at the same time, increases property value and human health. Conversely,

uncontrolled development will destroy the natural environment and long–term economic growth. Critics

of land use regulation call those fears overblown. They argue that urban development is an orderly market

process that allocates land from agriculture to urban use, and that governments tend to over regulate

because they rarely bear the costs of regulation. The stakes are high in this debate. Any policy measures

that aim at curbing urban development will ultimately affect a key element of the American way of life,

that is, the ability to consume a large amount of living space at affordable prices. Policymakers must

resist the temptation to attribute all “irregular” land use patterns to market failures and impose stringent

land use regulations that may hinder the function of market forces. They should try to identify the sources

of market failures that cause "excessive development" and address problems at their roots. Land use

regulation must strike a balance between private property rights and the public interest.

The Philippines

The Philippines has roughly 30 million ha of land, of which 9.7 million are considered

agricultural.

16
 Rapid urbanization and population growth are major drivers of land conversion,

according to Agrarian Undersecretary Luis Pañgulayan.

The need for housing and employment as well as the need to spur economic growth and

investments have led the state to tolerate massive conversion of agricultural lands into other uses

outside Metro Manila.

Cavite, Laguna, Batangas, Rizal and Bulacan provinces all posted higher population

growth rates than Metro Manila and the country between 1990 and 2015, according to the

Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA).

Satellite images of Metro Manila from 1988 to 2014 also showed that the urban sprawl

nearly doubled. Built-up areas, or intensive-use lands that are mostly covered by structures,

extended from 424 square kilometers to 704 sq km, well into bedroom communities, such as

Bacoor City (Cavite); San Pedro City (Laguna); San Mateo, Taytay and Antipolo City (Rizal);

and Marilao in Bulacan.

Incidentally, the provinces surrounding or near the capital have the highest land

conversion rates since 1988.

Such was the case with Batangas province, where the DAR approved on Feb. 1, 2016, the

conversion of 27 ha as additional area for a solar farm in Calatagan town. Solar Philippines

Commercial Rooftop Projects now has the largest solar farm in the country with 160 ha, on

which rice, corn and other crops used to be planted.

Urban land constraints

17
 An expected surge in conversion applications in the Visayas and Mindanao as they, too,

become more urbanized, was also key to his decision to propose the ban, Mariano said.

The DAR noted that Negros Occidental and Misamis Oriental, known for vast sugarcane

and coconut plantations, respectively, were among the top 10 provinces with the biggest number

of conversions.

This could lead to “congestion diseconomies” in which a lack of coordination between

urban growth and land development could drive prices of land and demand for housing higher,

according to a study on urban land constraints by Makiko Watanabe, senior social development

specialist at the World Bank.

Land Conversion Issues in Central Luzon

A proposed steel-rolling plant being opposed by residents and the Diocese of Malolos in

Bulacan province cannot be built on a parcel of land that is still classified as agricultural in the

town of Plaridel, an official of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) said.

Arnel Dizon, DAR director in Central Luzon, said that while the plant had applied for the

conversion of the land to be able to build a steel factory, there was no order that converted the

land classification from agricultural to industrial.

“As things stand now, all aforesaid orders are not yet final and executory,” Dizon said in

a Jan. 27 letter replying to queries from the Inquirer.

18
 On Jan. 24, 2014, a land conversion order was issued to Asian Land Strategies Corp.

(ALSC) and Del Pilar Steel Inc.

On Feb. 3, 2014, a similar order was issued to Ma. Angela Celeridad and Plaridel Steel

Inc. Another order was issued on Feb. 12, 2014, to Amando Buhain and New Carcar

Manufacturing Inc.

The orders covered a total of 16 hectares of land in Barangay Parulan, an agricultural

area.

A diocese’s copy of the order showed the entire parcel of land was owned by Buhain,

former Plaridel mayor and president of ALSC.

The piece of property was sold to Del Pilar Steel Inc. for P434 million in 2013.

Using other names to apply for conversion is misrepresentation, said Eriberto Garcia,

head of the group Kalikasang Dalisay para sa Mamamayan ng Plaridel, which filed a petition

seeking to revoke the conversion orders.

The DAR’s Dizon said his office “treated distinctly and individually” the three

applications. The applicants have been asked to explain, he said.

Garcia said the DAR regional office lacked jurisdiction over the applications because the

lands should undergo the scrutiny of the agrarian reform secretary.

Dizon said a check by the DAR showed that the lots were “essentially contiguous or

adjoining,” indicating one application was enough.

19
 In support for residents fearing air pollution and reduced water supply, Bishop Jose

Oliveros and 73 priests in the diocese have asked President Aquino to intervene by ordering the

relocation of the project in areas hosting heavy industries.

The site, Garcia said, is nonnegotiable for conversion because the National Irrigation

Administration (NIA) maintains a main irrigation system in the area.

NIA certifications and tax declarations submitted for an environmental impact assessment

classified the lands as “agricultural” and “rice land-irrigated.”

The Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board certified these to be agricultural while the

Department of Agriculture said these were commercial and industrial zones.

The municipal planning and development office said these were “proposed industrial

zones at time of application for conversion.”

The Environmental Management Bureau has not yet issued the project an environmental

compliance certificate.

2002 COMPREHENSIVE RULES ON LAND USE CONVERSION

DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2002

2002 Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion, February 28, 2002

Basis:

RA 6657 — Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law

20
RA 8435 — Agriculture and Fisheries Modernization Act

EO 45 — Prescribing Time Periods for Issuance of Housing-Related Certifications, Clearances

and Permits, and Imposing Sanctions for Failure to Observe the Same, October 24, 2001

Areas Covered:

• Agricultural lands to be converted to non-agricultural uses

• Agricultural lands to be devoted to other types of agricultural activities such as livestock,

poultry & fishpond

• Agricultural lands to be converted to non-agricultural uses other than that previously

authorized

• Agricultural lands reclassified to non-agricultural uses by the LGU after June 15, 1988

What are the Areas Non-negotiable for Conversion?

• Agricultural lands under NIPAS

• Mossy and virgin forests

• Riverbanks

• Swamp forests or marshlands

• All irrigated lands

• All irrigable lands covered by firm funding project commitments

21
• All agricultural lands with irrigation facilities

Priority Development Areas and Projects

Specific sites in RAIC/RIC identified by DTI and DA

Tourism development areas

Areas intended for eco-zone projects, endorsed by PEZA

Government-owned lands to be converted for projects of national interest

Criteria for Conversion

Chapter III

METHODOLOGY

Research Method

The descriptive type of research was used in conducting the study. According to Leedy

(1993), this type of research involves careful observation and description on phenomena. It is

considered quantitative because the results are organized and presented systematically usually in

the form of statistics. Through this type of research, the results of the experiment will be

tabulated and organized, so that the researchers can easily understand the cause behind problem.

As described by Birion, et at. (20050, descriptive method is conducted in order to

describe systematically a situation area of interest factually and accurately. These include

22
population census studies, public opinion surveys, fact-finding surveys, status analysis,

questionnaire and interview studies, job description, surveys of literature and critical incident

reports.

Research Environment

The study was conducted at the City of Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija.

Research Instrument

The following instruments were used in gathering data.

1. Observation and Interview

The researchers conducted personal observation to gather data about the effect of land

conversion to rice production wherein, implementation of DAR Aministrative Order No. 01

series of 2002 would be provided.

According to Gorman and Clayton (2005), observation studies are those that involve the

systematic recording of observable phenomena or behavior in a natural setting. It is a complex

research method because it often requires the researchers to play a number of roles and to use a

23
number of techniques, including the five senses to collect data. In addition, despite the level of

involvement with the study group, the researchers must always remember the primary role as

researchers and remain detached enough to collect and analyze data relevant to the problem

under investigation.

Methodology:

There are four phases in reducing land conversion and its effect and to raise awareness

about the law or provision about land conversion.:

Phase I: Information Dissemination. This can be done by using print, radio or television as the

medium of dissemination. The Academe has a big role in this particular phase because they will

serve as the main advocates of the program. Schools, Institution and other non-government

organization serve as the center of the information resources.

Phase II:Training. The important component in order to ensure the success of a certain program

is the presence of well-trained and capable manpower. Capability building on how certain

program should be accomplished needs an important tool such as exposure, experience and

24
training. Trainers usually have their own respective expertise related to the field necessary to

establish what is needed in the program. Tools and equipment are also necessary in the training a

concept as need arises.

Phase III. Implementation. Project implementation is very vital in the success of a certain

program. A key for a successful implementation is the teamwork of the concerned people both

engaged in the project and those serves as the end users of the project. A well-organized work

plan is necessary in order to determine the extent technical aspect of the program as well as to

visualize its expected output.

Phase IV. Monitoring and Evaluating. This phase measures the extent of the accomplishment

of the project. This is the period wherein the `check and balance’ aspect of the project is strictly

monitored. Modification of the project can be administrated upon proper evaluation was

established.

Community

Government Agency Academe Private Sectors

25
 Civil Society

Figure 4.

Concept Mapping of the Proposed Rehabilitation Program

Figure 4 shows how the different sectors of the society will eventually share their

capability in implementing the said administrative order. The joint efforts of the academe, civil

society, government agency, private sectors, and the people in the community will ensure quality

intended for the success of the program

Strategies to be undertaken on Public Awareness Campaign:

1. The Local Unit of Cabanatuan City must from a Task Force on to combat illegal

conversion of agricultural lands consisting of volunteers from government organization,

non-government organizations, and concerned citizens. The function of the Task Force

are as follows: (a) to help educate and to promote the objective of DA0 No. 1 , and (b)

help enforce local ordinances on converting agricultural lands, construction of residential

establishment or infrastructure on agricultural areas and to conduct periodic patrols of the

community, and issue citations and fines for violation.

2. House-to-House campaign with the assistance of the Sangguniang Barangay will educate

the instruct residents about the importance of agricultural to the rice production.

26
 3. The Local Government Unit of Cabanatuan City will prepare and distribute

fliers/brochures about the salient features of the existing laws about agricultural lands

conversion

CHAPTER IV

PRESENTATION, INTERPRETATION AND ANALYSIS OF THE DATA

This section presented the data collected and gathered from the respondents.

CITY PROFILE

Region 3
Province: NUEVA ECIJA
City: CABANATUAN CITY

I. Number of Barangays 89 Barangays

A. Agricultural 54

27
 B. Non-Agricultural 35
II. LAND RESOURCES

A. Total Land Area(has) 19,228.63

B. Land Use(has)
B.1. Agricultural Land Area (Ha) 11,188.17
1. Forest -
a. Forest Reserve -
b. Forest for Agriculture -
2. Swamp and Marsh -
3. Grazing and Pasture -
4. Agricultural Land Area
1. Temporary Crops
1.1. Rice
1.1.1 Irrigated 8,490.20
1.1.2 Rainfed 2,298.35
1.2. Corn 485.95
1.3. Vegetable 500.00
2. Permanent Crops
2.1. Fruit Trees/Mango/Calamansi
Areas 778.65
3. Fishpond Area 63.65
4. Livestock and Poultry Area -
5. Build-up Area -
6. Open Space Area -
7. Military Reservation -

B.2. Non-Agricultural Land Area (Ha) 8,040.46

1. Residential Area
Urban 2,534.20
Rural 4,706.37
2. Industrial Area 18.58
3. Commercial Area 27.96
4. Institutional 78.93
5. Recreational 160.42
6. Others 514.00
Table 1.0
Profile and Land Area of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija.
Source: Cabanatuan City Agriculture and Livelihood Management Office (CALMO)

28
 Table 1.0 presents the profile of Cabanatuan City including its total land area, the

numbers of agricultural and non-agricultural barangays, the classification agricultural land areas

and the classification of non-agricultural land areas and its land resources. The table shows the

out of 89 barangays Cabanatuan City has, 54 of it rely on agriculture while the remaining are

considered non-agricultural because of the establishments or for being an industrial area.

You can see that out of 19,228.63 hectares, 11,188.17 are considered agricultural. It also

show that planting crops are the major type of agriculture Cabanatuenos are doing.

S U M M A R Y
Region III
City/Province: CABANATUAN CITY, NUEVA ECIJA

WET CROPPING SEASON-RICE PRODUCTION AREA

FARM AREA (HA) TOTAL

BARANGAY
IRRI No. of Farmers RF No. of Farmers Area (Ha.) No. of Farmers
1 BAGONG BUHAY 10.70 6 143.80 76 154.50 82
2 BAGONG SIKAT 122.89 118 122.89 118
3 BAKERO 323.07 156 323.07 156
4 BAKOD BAYAN 526.21 202 423.24 190 949.45 392
5 BALITE 221.05 83 221.05 83
6 BANGAD 190.35 102 60.50 38 250.85 140
7 BANTUG NORTE 27.55 15 27.55 15
8 BARLIS 82.25 38 82.25 38
9 BITAS 51.60 28 51.60 28
10 BULIRAN 277.90 128 277.90 128
11 CAALIBANGBANGAN 427.42 238 427.42 238

29
12 CABU 122.50 59 75.30 46 197.80 105
13 CALAWAGAN 89.25 100 89.25 100
14 CAMP TINIO 19.40 12 47.00 25 66.40 37
15 CAUDILLO 96.00 102 96.00 102
16 CINCO-CINCO 119.69 71 119.69 71
17 COMMUNAL 140.90 104 140.90 104
18 CRUZ ROJA 188.85 127 188.85 127
19 D.S. GARCIA 53.40 19 53.40 19
20 DAAN SARILE 8.95 10 8.95 10
21 DALAMPANG 175.70 73 175.70 73
22 H. CONCEPCION 52.40 16 52.40 16
23 IBABAO-BANA 208.44 94 208.44 94
24 KALIKID NORTE 24.50 19 326.85 176 351.35 195
25 KALIKID SUR 35.85 29 506.12 261 541.97 290
26 LAGARE 269.75 180 269.75 180
27 LOURDES 246.65 116 246.65 116
28 MACATBONG 225.75 138 225.75 138
29 MAGSAYSAY NORTE 23.50 10 23.50 10
30 MAYAPYAP NORTE 64.10 33 64.10 33
31 MAYAPYAP SUR 220.74 142 220.74 142
32 OBRERO 76.25 76 76.25 76
33 PALAGAY 719.34 264 719.34 264
34 PAMALDAN 216.85 122 216.85 122
35 PANGATIAN 118.55 63 132.05 56 250.60 119
36 PATALAC 9.00 5 224.45 115 233.45 120
37 POLILIO 438.72 130 438.72 130
38 PULA 167.75 98 167.75 98
39 SAMON 115.98 69 115.98 69
40 SAN ISIDRO 352.45 147 352.45 147
41 SAN JOSEF NORTE 9.00 4 9.00 4
42 SAN JOSEF SUR 12.00 4 12.00 4
43 SAN JUAN ACCFA 54.00 18 54.00 18
44 SAPANG 132.35 71 132.35 71
45 STA. ARCADIA 523.78 168 523.78 168
46 STO. NIÑO 154.30 87 154.30 87
47 SUMACAB ESTE 206.53 104 206.53 104
48 SUMACAB NORTE 66.95 38 66.95 38
49 SUMACAB SUR 31.00 15 31.00 15
50 TALIPAPA 190.32 160 190.32 160
51 VALLE CRUZ 352.35 153 352.35 153
GRAND TOTAL (HA) 8273.03 4124 2261.06 1223 10534.09 5347

30
 Table 2.0
Rice Production during Wet Cropping Season
Source: Cabanatuan City Agriculture and Livelihood Management Office (CALMO)

In table 2.0., it shows the production of rice during the wet-cropping seasons of

agricultural barangays. Wet-cropping season is the time of the year where most of the annual

rainfall occurs (wikipedia.com). It shows the name of each barangays, the number of farmers in

that particular barangays, the land area of barangay.

S U M M A R Y
Region III
City/Province: CABANATUAN CITY, NUEVA ECIJA
DRY CROPPING SEASON-RICE PRODUCTION AREA

FARM AREA (HA) TOTAL

BARANGAY No. of No. of
IRRI RF Area (Ha.) No. of Farmers
Farmers Farmers
1 BAGONG BUHAY 10.70 6 10.70 6
2 BAGONG SIKAT 126.39 119 126.39 119
3 BAKERO 326.07 157 326.07 157
4 BAKOD BAYAN 574.39 217 574.39 217
5 BALITE 225.55 86 225.55 86
6 BANGAD 216.15 116 216.15 116
7 BANTUG NORTE 27.55 15 27.55 15
8 BARLIS 82.25 38 82.25 38
9 BITAS 52.60 28 52.60 28
10 BULIRAN 277.90 128 277.90 128
11 CAALIBANGBANGAN 423.82 234 423.82 234
12 CABU 122.70 56 122.70 56
13 CALAWAGAN 92.55 102 92.55 102
14 CAMP TINIO 18.40 11 18.40 11
15 CAUDILLO 22.75 26 22.75 26

31
16 CINCO-CINCO 127.64 76 127.64 76
17 COMMUNAL 149.08 111 149.08 111
18 CRUZ ROJA 211.35 140 211.35 140
19 D.S. GARCIA 57.40 20 57.40 20
20 DAAN SARILE 8.95 10 8.95 10
21 DALAMPANG 178.20 74 178.20 74
22 H. CONCEPCION 53.50 16 53.50 16
23 IBABAO-BANA 209.44 93 209.44 93
24 KALIKID NORTE 86.63 32 86.63 32
25 KALIKID SUR 120.55 53 120.55 53
26 LAGARE 274.75 182 274.75 182
27 LOURDES 253.65 117 253.65 117
28 MACATBONG 37.85 25 37.85 25
29 MAGSAYSAY NORTE 26.50 12 26.50 12
30 MAYAPYAP NORTE 71.60 35 71.60 35
31 MAYAPYAP SUR 220.74 142 220.74 142
32 OBRERO 85.25 79 85.25 79
33 PALAGAY 735.34 272 735.34 272
34 PAMALDAN 214.25 119 214.25 119
35 PANGATIAN 136.40 66 136.40 66
36 PATALAC 44.10 16 44.10 16
37 POLILIO 445.22 133 445.22 133
38 PULA 173.25 100 173.25 100
39 SAMON 115.98 69 115.98 69
40 SAN ISIDRO 376.95 160 376.95 160
41 SAN JOSEF NORTE 9.00 4 9.00 4
42 SAN JOSEF SUR 16.00 5 16.00 5
43 SAN JUAN ACCFA 57.00 19 57.00 19
44 SAPANG 137.85 72 137.85 72
45 STA. ARCADIA 540.98 170 540.98 170
46 STO. NIÑO 154.30 86 154.30 86
47 SUMACAB ESTE 215.53 106 215.53 106
48 SUMACAB NORTE 68.45 39 68.45 39
49 SUMACAB SUR 31.00 15 31.00 15
50 TALIPAPA 111.22 96 111.22 96
51 VALLE CRUZ 352.35 155 352.35 155
GRAND TOTAL (HA) 8708.02 4258 0.00 0 8708.02 4258

32
 Table 3.0

Rice Production during Dry-season Cropping

Source: Cabanatuan City Agriculture and Livelihood Management Office (CALMO)

Table 3.0 shows the number of rice produced during dry-season. Dry season is the time

of the year whereas minimal rain occurs.

In table 2.0 and 3.0. it just shows that the number of farmers increased during wet season

or rainy days because palay or rice relies very much on water.

RICE PRODUCTION DATA

Cabanatuan City

AREA
PRODUCTION AVERAGE YIELD NO. OF
YEA CROPPING PLANTED/HARVESTE
YIELD PRODUCTION FARMERS REMARKS
R SEASON D
(Ha) (MT) (MT/Ha) (No.)
WET Low in Yield
CROPPING 8,996.80 25,652.43 2.85 4,566 Production
2010 SEASON during Wet
DRY CROPPING Cropping Season
8,458.00 49,285.50 5.83 3,764 are due to
SEASON
WET Typhoons that
CROPPING 9,045.61 23,728.81 2.62 4,602 hit the Province
SEASON and Drought
2011 (Dry Spell)
DRY CROPPING Experience in
8,375.51 51,202.81 6.11 4,149
SEASON Rainfed Areas
WET Low in Yield
CROPPING 9,439.10 45,232.69 4.79 4,702 Production
2012 SEASON during Dry
DRY CROPPING Cropping Season
6,778.01 38,031.90 5.61 3,372 is due to Pests
SEASON
WET and Diseases
CROPPING 9,530.39 34,548.54 3.63 4,796 Infestations
2013 SEASON
DRY CROPPING
7,695.75 63,901.52 8.30 3,852
SEASON

33
 WET
CROPPING 9,749.82 51,346.83 5.27 4,809
2014 SEASON
DRY CROPPING
8,066.80 71,774.89 8.90 4,053
SEASON
WET
CROPPING 10,155.33 26,802.98 2.64 5,024
2015 SEASON
DRY CROPPING
8,506.77 73,961.08 8.69 4,236
SEASON
WET
2016 CROPPING 10,533.34 37,171.63 3.53 5,195
SEASON
DRY CROPPING
9,115.15 74,539.27 8.18 4,464
SEASON
WET #DIV/0!
CROPPING
2017 SEASON
DRY CROPPING
#DIV/0!
SEASON

Table 4.0
Rice Production Data from 2010-2016
Source: Cabanatuan City Agriculture and Livelihood Management Office (CALMO)

Table 4.0 show the rice production data in metric tons. The first column shows the year

of production, then the second column shows the type of season it has been harvested (wet-

cropping season and dry-cropping season), while the column C indicates the total area has has

been planted then followed by the number of produced or harvested rice in metric tons, then

followed by the density of harvested rice (metric tons per hectare) and the last one is the numbers

of farmers. Remarks show the reason of unconsistent production. These data show that even the

area planted is becoming small, it still produces a good harvest of rice in Cabanatuan City.

34
 These data show that land conversion as of now doesn’t affect the rice productivity in

Cabanatuan City despite of industrialization and urbanization in the said City.

2000 2000 2010 2010 2017 2017

Land Cover Area % Area % share Area % share Area %

(Ha) share (Ha) (Ha) (Ha)

Cropland 14.083.1 73.82 12,669.46 66.41 12,603.87 66.06 -1,479 -10.50%

0
Built up area 2,070.95 10.86 2,375.33 12.45 2,571.22 13.48 500.27 24.16%
Orchard 1,297.73 6.80 2,267.73 11.89 2,110.21 11.06 812.48 62.61%
Undeveloped 864.54 4.53 816.08 4.28 870.63 4.56 6.09 0.70%
Shrubland 227.50 1.19 233.43 1.22 206.56 1.08 -20.95 -9.21%
Water 294.99 1.55 296.23 1.55 296.23 1.56 296.83 0.62%
Marsh 108.93 0.57 191.98 1.01 190.17 1.00 81.24 74.58%
Open space 39.90 0.21 103.70 0.54 103.23 0.54 63.24 158.76%
Fishpond 65.79 0.34 83.04 0.44 84.51 0.44 18.82 28.61%
Memorial land 21.97 0.12 38.38 0.20 40.05 0.21 18.09 82.33%

and cemetery
Unclassified 2.75 0.01 2.78 0.02 0.76 0.00 -1.98 -72.16
TOTAL 19,078.1 100% 19,078.14 100% 19,078.14 100%

Table 5.0

35
 Area (Ha) and Percentage (%) of Agricultural Lands that had been Converted.

Source: Cabanatuan City Planning and Development Office

Table 5.0 shows the agricultural lands that had been converted into other uses from 2000

to 2017. It shows on the table that last 2000, almost 2,000 hectares that been converted from

being agricultural land specifically cropland into commercial land and just a little area from 2010

to 2007 were converted. Another agricultural area that has been greatly converted are the orchard

or fruit bearing tree plantation. It just shows that a lot of area were been converted.

But based on the Table 4, though there are certain areas in Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

that were being converted but still it produces a good harvest.

36
 Chapter V

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

SUMMARY

This study was conducted to determine the impacts of land conversion on rice production

in Cabanatuan City, Nueva and the implementation of RA 6657 and the overall DAR

Administrative Order No.01 Series of 2000.

FINDINGS

1. That even categorized as Urbanized City, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija primarily

relies on agriculture as their main livelihood income.

2. That Cabanatuan City still produces good quantity of rice even some of its

agricultural area has been converted into areas.

3. That the production of rice is better during wet season rather dry season.

37
 4. That land conversion doesn’t really affect the productivity of rice in Cabanatuan City,

Nueva Ecija.

CRITERIA FOR CONVERSION

The following criteria shall guide the resolution of application of conversion:

1. Conversion may be allowed if the land subject of application is not among those

considered non-negotiable for conversion as provided in Section 4 hereof.

1.1. Land within protected areas designated under NIPAS Act.

1.2. All irrigated lands as delineated by DA and National Irrigation Administration

(NIA)

1.3. All irrigable lands already cover by irrigation projects.

1.4. All agricultural lands within irrigation facilities.

2. Conversion of land may be allowed, in accordance with Section 65 of RA 6657, when the

land has 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, industrial, or other non-agricultural purposes.

3. Conversion of lands within SAFDZ, as provided in Rule 9.5.2 of DA-AO-6-1998, shall

take into account the following factors:

3.1. The conversion of land use is consistent with the natural expansion of the

municipality or locality, as contained in the approved physical framework and land

use plan.

3.2. The area to be converted in use is not the only remaining food production area of

the community.

38
 3.3. The land use conversion shall not hamper the availability of irrigation to nearby

farmlands.

3.4. The areas with low productivity will be accorded priority for land use conversion.

3.5. Sufficient disturbance compensation shall be given to farmers whose livelihood

are negatively affected by the land use conversion as provided for by existing laws

and regulations.

4. When the agricultural land which is the subject of the application for conversion has been

acquired under RA 6657, its conversion shall be allowed only if the applicant is the

agrarian reform beneficiary thereof, and after he has fully paid his obligation as required

under Section 65 of RA 6657.

DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS

The following is the requirements for land conversion:

1. Official receipt showing proof of payment of filing fee and inspection cost.

2. Official receipt showing proof of posting of bond in accordance with the terms and

conditions set forth in Section 24 hereof.

2.1. The applicant shall, upon filing of the application, post a cash bond equivalent to

at least two point five percent (2.5%) of the zonal value of the land per latest issuance

of the Department of Finance, in the form of cash or manager’s/cashier’s check

posted in favor of the DAR.

2.2. In lieu of a cash bond, the applicant may post a surety bond, issued by the GSIS,

equivalent to at least fifteen percent (15%) of the total zonal value of the land per

39
 latest issuance of the Department of Finance, indicating the following conditions at

the minimum that:

2.2.1. The bond is callable on demand;

2.2.2. The DAR shall forfeit the bond in favor of the Agrarian Reform Fund when it

finds the applicant carrying out any premature conversion activity; and

2.2.3. The validity of the bond shall be for a period of one (1) year, renewable by not

more than one (1) year when necessary.

2.3. The DAR shall forfeit the bond in favor of the Agrarian Reform Fund when the

applicant, or any person acting in his behalf, carries out any actual conversion activity

on the land prior to the application’s approval. Forfeiture shall be without prejudice to

the filing of criminal charges against those responsible for premature conversion.

2.4. After faithful compliance with the terms and conditions of the bond, the applicant

may opt to refund or convert the same into a performance bond after issuance of the

Conversion Order.

2.5. The following projects shall be exempt from posting a “bond to guarantee against

premature conversion”:

2.5.1. Socialized housing projects as certified by the HLURB;

2.5.2. Resettlement projects for families displaced by development of government

projects as certified by the National Housing Authority (NHA); and

2.5.3. Community Mortgage Program (CMP) projects as certified by the National

Home Mortgage Finance Corporation (NHMFC).

3. Duly accomplished application for conversion subscribed and sworn to before a notary

public or any person authorized to administer oaths.

40
4. True copy of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) or Transfer Certificate of Title

(TCT) of the subject land, certified by the Register of Deeds not earlier than thirty (30)

days prior to application filing date.

In case of untitled land, the following shall be required in lieu of a title:

4.1. Certification from the DENR Community Environment and Natural Resources

Officer (CENRO) that the landholding has been classified as alienable and

disposable; and

4.2. Certification from the DENR CENRO (for administrative confirmation of

imperfect title) or the Clerk of Court (for judicial confirmation of imperfect title) that

the titling process/proceedings has commenced and there are no adverse claimants;

5. True copy of the Certificate of Title of the subject land as of 15 June 1988, and all

successor Titles until the present Title referred to in Section 10.4 hereof, if applicable.

6. True copy of the current Tax Declaration covering the subject property.

7. Project feasibility study.

8. Joint venture agreement or any other business arrangement on the use of the land between

the landowner and the developer (if the developer is other than the landowner) or

between the EP/CLOA holders and the developer (if the land was awarded under the

agrarian reform program).

9. Narrative description of the development plan describing in detail the activities, program

components, phasing, schedule, work and financial plan, all duly certified by a licensed

engineer, architect, or land use planner.

10. Proof of financial and organizational capability of the developer to develop land,

including the following information:

41
10.1. Statement of project cost and availability of potential funding source(s) for the

development of the proposed project;

10.2. Profile of the developer;

10.3. Most recent financial statement, not later than the year before application, duly

authenticated by a certified public accountant; and

10.4. If the developer is a corporation or partnership, a copy of its Certificate of

Registration and recent General Information Sheet (GIS) for the immediately

preceding year, certified by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), or in

lieu of the latter, a duly accomplished GIS sworn to before a notary public, provided,

that if the land is to be used for socialized housing by the LGU under EO 124-1993, a

Sanggunian Resolution appropriating funds for the project and authorizing the LGU

to undertake the same shall be required: Provided, further, that if the socialized

housing shall be undertaken by other government agencies such as the National

Housing Authority and the like, a board resolution approving the project and

appropriating funds therefor shall likewise be submitted.

10.5. Socio-Economic Benefit-Cost Study of the proposed project.

10.6. Photographs, size 5R (five [5] inches by seven [7] inches), using color film, and

taken on the landholding under sunlight. The applicant shall attach the pictures to a

paper background and the photographer who took said pictures shall sign on said

paper background to certify the authenticity of the pictures. On each background

paper shall be written a short description of each picture. The pictures shall consist of:

10.7. At least four (4) photographs taken from the center of the landholding: one (1)

facing north, one (1) facing east, one (1) facing south, and one (1) facing west;

42
10.8. At least one (1) photograph per corner, taken from each corner of the

landholding’s borders.

10.9. At least two (2) photographs each for all distinct man-made structures existing on

the land, taken from opposite angles;

10.10. At least two (2) photographs each of the front view of the billboard(s) required in

Section 11 hereof. The applicant shall set aside the second copy of said billboard

photograph(s) for submission to the MARO; and

10.11. Sufficient number of photographs of the most conspicuous landmarks from the

nearest barangay center and leading to and from the ingress and egress routes at the

subject landholding, for the purpose of assisting the ocular inspection team in locating

the site.

10.12. Affidavit/Undertaking in a single document of the applicant stating:

10.13. The number and names of the farmers, agricultural lessees, share tenants,

farmworkers, actual tillers, and/or occupants in the landholding; if there are no such

persons, a statement attesting to such fact;

10.14. That the applicant has paid or shall pay disturbance compensation to the persons

mentioned in Section 10.13.1 hereof, in accordance with the computation, and under

the terms and conditions, in Section 28 hereof;

10.15. That the applicant has erected the required number of billboards and undertakes

not to remove, deface or destroy said billboard, and that he shall repair or replace the

same when damaged, until after the approving authority disposes of the application

with finality;

43
10.16. That the applicant has not undertaken and shall not undertake premature

development prior to issuance of a Conversion Order;

10.17. That he authorizes the DAR to forfeit his bond when he undertakes any premature

development within the area before or after filing of the application for conversion;

and

10.18. That he has not commenced any action or filed any claim involving the same land

in any court, tribunal or quasi-judicial agency; to the best of his knowledge, no such

other action or claim is pending therein; he has no knowledge of any controversy or

proceeding involving the status of said parcel of land or the rights of person over its

possession and entitlement to fruits or as beneficiary, the determination of which is

filed before any tribunal, court, the DAR or any other agency; to his own knowledge,

no such action or proceeding is pending in any court, tribunal, or quasi-judicial

agency; and should there be any same or similar action or proceeding involving the

property applied for conversion, which is either pending or may have been

terminated, he shall report such fact within five (5) days from knowledge thereof to

the approving authority where his aforesaid application has been filed.

10.19. Certification of the MARO in a single document attesting compliance with

Section 14.1 hereof.

10.20. Certification from the HLURB Regional Officer on the actual zoning or

classification of the land subject of the application on the approved comprehensive

land use plan citing: (a) the municipal or city zoning ordinance number; and (b)

resolution number and date of approval by the HLURB or the Sangguniang

Panlalawigan concerned, as the case may be.

44
10.21. Certification from the authorized DA official stating, among others, the

classification of the property under the NPAAAD/SAFDZ, whether or not the subject

property is within the five percent (5%) limit of the SAFDZ allowed for conversion

and whether the land has ceased to be economically feasible and sound for

agricultural purposes. As provided for in DA-AO-2-2002, Article VI, Paragraph

“4.2”, the certification inventory must include the following information:

10.22. Location and accessibility;

10.23. Limitations to agricultural production, such as steep slope, unstable soil condition

(landslide, etc.); inadequate land drainage; very shallow, stony, rocky soil; very

serious boulder problem;

10.24. Existing land use;

10.25. Indication of premature development or alteration of land use (with picture);

10.26. Land use of adjoining area

10.27. Indication of non-agricultural development; and

10.28. Potential for agricultural production

10.29. In the event the land being applied for is within the 5% allowable limit under

Section 9 ofRA 8435, the investigation report accompanying the inventory should

also include the following information:

10.30. Total area of the SAFDZ;

10.31. Allowable 5% limit;

10.32. Total area already approved for reclassification by the DA;

10.33. Balance of the 5% allowable area; and

10.34. Balance of the 5% allowable area if the application is approved.

45
10.35. Certification from the authorized DENR official stating, among others, whether or

not the subject land is within the NIPAS, mossy and virgin forests, riverbanks, or

swamp forests and marshlands; within an ECA, or will involve the establishment of

an ECP.

10.36. Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) when the subject land is within an

ECA or will involve the establishment of an ECP.

10.37. If applicable, Special Power of Attorney (SPA), when the applicant is not the

registered owner.

10.38. If applicable, notarized secretary’s certificate of a corporate/cooperative board

resolution authorizing the representative, when the applicant is a corporation or

cooperative.

10.39. If applicable, concurrence letter of the mortgagee or of the individual or entity in

whose favor the encumbrance was constituted, when the property is encumbered.

10.40. If applicable, endorsement from the concerned government agency, when the

application involves a priority development area or project.

10.41. If applicable, Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) certification attesting that the

applicant-landowner has fully paid his obligations to the LBP, when the applicant-

landowner is a beneficiary of the agrarian reform program.

10.42. If applicable, Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) certification attesting

that the applicant-landowner acquired the subject land from a landed-estate or under

the Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme (VLT/DPS) and he has already

fully paid his obligation thereunder, when the applicant-landowner is a beneficiary of

the agrarian reform program.

46
10.43. Vicinity map and a lot plan prepared by a duly-licensed geodetic engineer

indicating the lots being applied for and their technical descriptions, name of owner/s,

lot number and area. The map shall highlight the specific area applied for conversion

if the application covers less than the total lot area.

10.44. Directional sketch map showing the orientation of the subject property in relation

to adjoining lands and nearest provincial and/or national and/or feeder roads, to

facilitate and determine the location of the property for the purpose of ocular

inspection. The map shall: indicate the existing infrastructure and/or improvements

thereon including any house or tillage thereupon of any occupant therein; landmarks

within a one (1) kilometer radius; and owners of adjacent properties. The map need

not be drawn to scale.

10.45. Map of the development plan. For socialized housing projects, blueprint copy of

the development plan submitted and certified by the HLURB as basis for its

certification that the project conforms to the minimum standards of Batas Pambansa

Bilang 220.

10.46. Topographic Map if the subject property is within an upland, hilly or mountainous

area.

10.47. As a general rule, the applicant shall submit all the foregoing applicable

requirements from Sections 10.1 to 10.28 hereof at the time of application filing.

However, for applications involving housing projects under EO-45-2001, he may

defer the submission of the requirements mentioned in Sections 10.15 to 10.18 hereof

and follow the alternative timetable in Sections 22.9.2 and 22.21 hereof.

47
CONCLUSIONS

Based on the results of the study, the following conclusions were drawn:

1. The factors that greatly affect the rice production in Cabanatuan City are natural

phenomenon like Typhoon, Flooding and pest manifestation.

2. That Cabanatuan City is still a good producer and exporter of rice.

3. That Cabanatuan City still supports its population by its own harvest rice.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of the study, the following are hereby recommended:

1. Promotion of jobs for unemployed residents.

2. Seminars or symposium about the importance of agricultural and the environmental

impacts associated with illegal logging.

3. Everybody should cooperate for the rehabilitation of the agricultural land.

4. Further study must be conducted to determine and know another efficient way of

stopping land conversion.

48
 5. Implementation of the proposal program “OPLAN BALIK SA DATING

KAPALIGIRAN”

6. The barangay must create ordinances regarding illegal conversion of lands.

7. The residents should be educated and raise awareness regarding land conversion

8. Residents of the community should consider the importance and benefits obtained

agricultural lands.

9. A regular Planting Act should be imposed in the community

BIBLIOGRAPHY

agris.fao.org

C. Valencia. “NEDA Against Ban on Land Conversion”. The Philippine Star. 0ctober 2016

J. Birion; E. de Jose; B. Dayrit; C. Mapa. Thesis and Dissertation Writing Without Anguish.
2005
H. Azadi; P. Ho; L Hasfiati. Agricultural Lnad Conversion Drivers: A Comparison Between Less
Developed, Developing and Developed Countries. September 2010.

J. Cabildo, K. Subingsubing, M. Reysio-Cruz. “Many Farms lost to Land Conversion”.

Inquirer.net. February 2017

49
Knox RG, et.at., Effects of Land Conversion in Biosphere and Atmosphere Model of Northern
South America – Part 2: Case Studies on the Mechanisms of Differential Hydrometerology.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences Discussion. 2010; 10:15337-15373.

Quasem, Md Abul. Conversion of Agricultural Land to non-Agricultural Uses in Bangladesh:

Extent and Determinants. Bangladesh Institute of Development Studies. March 2011.

www.dar.gov.ph

www.da.gov.ph

www.123.helpme.com

www.sciencedirect.com

Yichun Xie; Xing Xuerong. Socio-economic driving forces of arable land conversion; A case
study of Wushian City, China. March, 2005.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

50
 MAP

Map of Nueva Ecija

Map of Cabanatuan City

51
 DOCUMENTATIONS

The Researchers at the Cabanatuan City Agriculture and Livelihood Management Office,

City Hall Compound, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija.

52
CURRICULUM VITAE

53
 John Rey B. Quinones
Magsaysay Sur, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

09563007349

________________________________________________________________________
Personal Data:
Birthday : January 1, 1996
Birthplace : Cabanatuan City
Age : 21
Nationality : Filipino
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Roman Catholic
Father : Vergel C. Quinones

Mother : Myrna B. Quinones

Educational Background:

College : Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science

Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology
Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija
2014 – Present
Secondary : Pantabangan National High School

Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija

2010-2014

Elementary : Liberty Elementary School

Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija

54
 2004-2010

John Aaron C. Ramos

Samon, Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

09753226291

________________________________________________________________________
Personal Data:

Birthday : December 5, 1997

Birthplace : Cabanatuan City
Age : 19
Nationality : Filipino
Civil Status : Single
Religion : Roman Catholic
Father : Jon Jon C. Ramos

Mother : Virginia C. Ramos

Educational Background:
College : Bachelor of Science in Environmental Science
Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology
Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija
2014 – Present
Secondary : Marciano Del Rosario Mem. National High School

Cabanatuan, Nueva Ecija

2010-2014

Elementary : Marciano Del Rosario Mem. Elementary School

Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija

55
2004-2010

56