CHAPTER 1

COVERAGE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE

AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM

The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program

The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is

implemented by Republic Act No. 6657 (1988) otherwise known as the
“Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law”. Prior to its enactment on 10
June 1988, President Corazon C. Aquino issued Proclamation No. 131
(1987) instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program, and
Executive Order No. 229 (1987) providing the mechanics for its
implementation. RA 6657 took effect on 15 June 1988.

While expressly repealing specific provisions of prior enactments

on agrarian reform, RA 6657 provides that the provisions of RA 3844
(1963), Presidential Decree No. 27 (1972) and PD 266 (1973), EO 228
(1987) and EO 229 (1987) and other laws not inconsistent with it shall
have suppletory effect.

RA 6657 was enacted pursuant to the constitutional mandate

shrined in Section 4, Art. XIII of thee 1987 Constitution, which provides:

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 the 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 vs. 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 vs. 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 the 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 the CARP

The Constitution in Sec. 4, Art. XIII, mandates the just distribution

of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and to reasonable
retention limits that 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 lad 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 thereof 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 229
including other lands f the public domain suitable f agriculture. More
specifically, the following lands are covered by CARP:

a) All alienable and disposable lands of public domain

devoted to or suitable for agriculture;
b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific
limits as determined by the 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, Agricultural 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 conjuction with such farming
operations done by persons whether natural or juridical.

In Natalia v. DAR, 225 SCRA 278 (1993), the Supreme

Court held:

Section 4 of RA 6657 provides that the CARL “shall

cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity
produced, all public and private agricultural lands.” As to
what constitutes “agricultural land,” it is referred to as
“land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act
and not classified as mineral, forest, residential,
commercial or industrial land.” The deliberations of the
Constitutional Commission confirm this limitation.
“Agricultural lands” are only those lands which are “arable
and suitable agricultural lands” (at 282, 283).

Agricultural lands reclassified by local governments

into “forest conservation zones”

Agricultural lands reclassified by the local government units

(LGUs) into “forest conservation zones” even prior to the effectivity of
CARL do not become forest land under Sec. 3 (c) of RA 6657 as to be
exempted from CARP coverage.
 It should be noted that under the Constitution, lands of the public
domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands
and national parks (CONST., Art. XII, sec. 3). These classifications are
called primary classifications or “classification in the first instance.”
The same provision of the Constitution also provides that the
agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified
according to the uses to which they may be devoted. This further
classification of agricultural land is referred to as secondary
classification. The responsibility over primary classification of lands of
the public domain is vested in the President who exercises such power
upon the recommendation of the Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (DENR) (Com. Act No. 141 [1963], sec. 6; EO 192
[1987]). On the other hand, the authority to reclassify agricultural
lands into residential, commercial or industrial is lodged, among
others, in cities and municipalities (Rep. Act No. 7160 [1991], sec. 20).

The group of lands referred to in Sec. 3 (c) of RA 6657 as non-

agricultural (i.e., mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial)
is a mix of primary and secondary classifications. Forest and mineral
lands are, under the Constitution and Commonwealth Act No. 141
(1963), primary classifications, while the rest are secondary
classifications.

Reclassification by LGUs of agricultural lands into “forest

conservation zones” does not have the effect of converting such lands
into forest lands as to be exempted from CARP. Firstly, an agricultural
land is already a primary classification and, hence, can only be
subjected to secondary classification. Secondly, LGUs have no
authority or power to make primary classifications considering that
such power is the sole prerogative of the President exercising such
power upon the recommendation of the DENR.

The forest (or mineral) land referred to in Sec. 3 (c) of RA 6657 is

therefore to be understood as referring to forest (or mineral) land
declared to be such by the President/DENR and not by the LGUs. DAR
Administrative Order No. 1 (1990) makes this qualification in its
definition of “agricultural land,” as follows:

Xxx Agricultural land refers to those devoted to

agricultural activity as defined in R.A. 6657 and not
classified as mineral or forest by the Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) and its
predecessor agencies, and not classified in town plans and
zoning ordinances as approved by the Housing and Land
Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) and its preceding
 competent authorities prior to 15 June 1988 for residential,
commercial or industrial use.

Agricultural lands reclassified by LGUs into

residential, commercial or industrial

Taking into consideration the effectivity of the law, the

secondary classifications mentioned in Sec. 3 (c) of RA 6657 are
treated according to whether they were classified as such before or
after the effectivity of the law on June 15, 1988.

If the agricultural land was classified as residential, commercial

or industrial by the LGU and approved by the Housing and Land Use
Regulatory Board (HLURB), or its predecessor agencies, prior to 15
June 1988, the land will be recognized as so classified under Sec. 3 (c)
of RA 6657 and is therefore not covered by CARP. However, an
exemption clearance from DAR is still necessary to confirm or declare
its exempt status (DAR Adm. O. No. 6 [1994]).

This is based on Department of Justice Opinion No. 44 (1990)

which provides that with respect to the conversion of agricultural lands
covered by RA 6657 to non-agricultural uses, the authority of the DAR
to approve such conversion may be exercised from the date of its
effectivity or on 15 June 1988. Thus, all lands already classified as
commercial, industrial or residential before that date no longer need ay
conversion clearance from the DAR.

If an agricultural land is reclassified after 15 June 1988, the

provisions on land conversion under CARL and its implementing rules
will apply (Rep. Act No. 6657 [1988], sec. 65; DAR Adm. O. No. 1
[1991]).

Conversion prior to 15 June 1988 through

presidential proclamation binding before DAR

The reasoning in DOJ Opinion No. 44 (1990) was validated by the

Supreme Court in Natalia v. DAR, supra. This case involved the
question of whether or not lands already classified for residential,
commercial or industrial use, as approved by HLURB and its precursor
agencies, prior to 15 June 1988 are covered by CARP.

Natalia Realty, Inc. vs.

Department of Agrarian Reform
225 SCRA 278 (1993)
 Facts:

Petitioner Natalia Realty, Inc. is the owner of a

125.0078-ha land set aside by the 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 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 AR 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 the HLURB
and its predecessor 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

wildlife, 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 ad private research and
quarantine centers and all lands within 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 of RA 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 v. 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 so far as they include the
raising of livestock and swine in the coverage of CARP.

Luz Farms vs.

Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform
192 SCRA 51 (1990)
Facts:

Petitioner Luz Farms is a corporation engaged in

livestock and poultry business. It seeks to nullify Sec. 3 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 “farmworkers” 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 to 1 hectare; 2

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
Sine 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 prawn ponds 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 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 [1998], 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 nrt 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 prawnfarms
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.

Central Mindanao University vs.

Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board
215 SCRA 86 (1992)

Facts:
 On 16 January 1958, President Carlos Garcia issued
Proclamation No. 467 reserving for the Mindanao
Agricultural College, now the CMU, apiece 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.
 The CMU case is unique as it involves land
transferred by the state to CMU through PD 467 which
provided for its communication 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 power to determine whether lands reserved for
public uses by presidential proclamation is no longer
actually, directly, 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 thay 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 resereved continues to exist and therefore establish if
they continue to be exempt from CARP coverage.
 The Supreme Court’s statement that the 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 dare of the effectivity of the 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 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 (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 pr over and is agriculturally developed

as od 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 the Joint DAR-DENR AO 2 (1998);
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 an 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 6657 and 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 exemption 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

19 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.

Alita vs. Court of Appeals

170 SCRA 706 (1989)

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 personally 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 the
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 to lands covered by
homestead patents like those of the property in question,
reading:

Section 6. Retention Limits. xxx 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 out in DAR MC 4 (1991), to wit:
 a) That 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 tenants of lands covered by homestead

patents exempted from PD 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 the agricultural lands through a period of ten (10)
years from the effectivity of the Act:

Phas Lands Covered Schedule

e
I • Rice and corn lands under Presidential Decree 1988-1992
No. 27;
• all idle or abandoned lands;
• all private lands voluntarily offered by the
owners for agrarian reform;
• all lands foreclosed by the government financial
institutions;
• all lands acquired by the Presidential
Commission on Good Governance (PCGG); and
• all other lands owned by the government
devoted to or suitable for agriculture
II • All alienable and disposable public agricultural 1992-1995
lands;
• all arable public agricultural lands under agro-
forest, pasture and agricultural leases already
cultivated and planted to crops in accordance;
• all public agricultural lands which are to be
opened for new development and resettlement;
• and all private agricultural lands in excess of fifty
(50) hectares,
III-A • Landholdings above twenty-four (24) hectares up 1988-1992
to fifty (50) hectares; and
III-B • Private agricultural lands with areas above the 1994-1998
retention limit up to 24 hectares
 Though Sec. 7 of RA 6657 provides a fixed time table for the
implementation of the CARP law, this provision should be interpreted
as merely directory, rather than mandatory in character. This is the
gist of DOJ Opinion No. 9 (1997). It has been held that the difference
between a mandatory and a directory provision is often determined in
grounds of expediency. Where a provision embodies a rule of
procedure rather than one of substance, the provision as to time will
be regarded as directory only notwithstanding the mandatory nature of
the language used. Sec. 5 of RA 6657 is more procedural in nature
than substantive. The ten (10) year period is merely a time frame
given to DAR for the acquisition and distribution of private and public
agricultural lands covered by RA 6657. It is merely a guide to DAR in
setting its priorities, and it is not, by any means, a limitation of its
authority. Hence, Sec. 5 of RA 6657 should not be construed as a
prescriptive period, the lapse of which bars the DAR from covering the
land under CARP.

Thus, DAR need not wait for the full coverage of those lands in
the first phase before those in the succeeding phases could be
covered. DAR may also proceed with the coverage of lands in different
phases simultaneously.

In view of the passing of the ten (10) year period in 1998,

Congress passed RA 8532 (1998) providing for the funding for land
acquisitions for another ten (10) years.

Idle or abandoned land

Sec.22 of Art. XVIII of the 1987 Constitution and Sec. 18 (h) of EO

229 prioritizes the immediate expropriation or acquisition of the idle or
abandoned lands.

Sec. 3 (e) of RA 6657 defines idle or abandoned land as “any

agricultural land not cultivated, titled or developed to produce any crop
not devoted to any specific economic purpose continuously for a period
of three (3) years immediately prior to the receipt of notice of
acquisition by the government as provided under RA 6657. However
land that has become permanently or regularly devoted to non-
agricultural purposes is not to be considered as idle or abandoned.
Neither can it be considered as abandoned or idle any land which has
become unproductive by reason of force majeure or any other
fortuitous event, provided that prior to such event, such land was
previously used for agricultural to other economic purpose.”

Lands owned by government

 To expedite the disposition of lands owned by the government,
President Corzaon Aquino issued EO 407 (1990) directing all
government instrumentalities, government agencies, government
owned and controlled corporations or financial institutions to transfer
to the Republic of the Philippines, trhough the DAR, all landholdings
suitable for agriculture. Sec. 3 of EO 407 (1990) likewise provides for
the redistribution and award of fishponds, pasturelands and other
lands of public domain suitable for agriculture subject of cancelled or
amended lease agreement to the agrarian reform beneficiaries. EO 448
(1991) and EO 506 (1992) amended EO 407 by including all lands or
portions thereof reserved by virtue of presidential proclamations for
specific public uses by the government, its agencies and
instrumentalities, and no longer actually, directly or exclusively used or
necessary for the purposes for which they have been reserved. These
also excluded national parks and other protected areas, proposed
national parks, game refuge, bird sanctuaries, wildlife reserves,
wilderness areas and other protected areas, including old growth or
virgin forests and all forests above 1,000 meters elevation or above 50
percent slope until such time that they are segregated for agricultural
purposes or retained under the National Integrated Protected Areas
System.

Commercial farms

Sec. 11 of RA 6657 allowed the deferment of the coverage of

commercial farms. Deferred commercial farms shall be subject to
immediate compulsory acquisition and distribution after ten (10) years
from the effectivity of RA 6657 on 15 June 1988. For new farms, the
ten (10)-year deferment will begin from the first year of commercial
production and operation.

For a commercial farm to be qualified for deferment, it must

have been planted to commercial crop or devoted to commercial
farming operations before 15 June 1988. DAR AO 16 (1988) provided a
60-day period for the filing of application of deferment which lapsed on
2 May 1989.

DAR AO 16 (1988) explicitly allows the DAR to automatically

subject the lands to redistribution when it determines that the purpose
for which deferment s granted no longer exists as when the particular
farm area ceases to be economically productive. During the deferment
period, the DAR shall initiate steps to acquire the lands. Final land
transfer to the beneficiaries shall be effected at the end of the
deferment period. The acquisition and distribution of these deferred
commercial farms are governed by DAR AO 9 (1998).
Retention

Sec. 4, Art, XIII of the 1987 Constitution subjects the distribution

of agricultural lands for agrarian reform to “reasonable retention limits
as Congress may prescribe”. Sec. 6 of RA 6657 operationalizes this
mandate and observes the right of the persons to own, or retain,
directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of
which shall vary according to the factors governing a viable family-size
farm such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil
fertility, but in no case shall exceed five (5) hectares.

The retention limits under Sec. 6 of RA 6657 covers all persons

whether natural or juridical. Juridical persons like corporations and
partnerships are therefore subject to five (5)-hectare limit.

With respect to married couples, their maximum retention limit is

determined by the nature of their property relations. For marriages
covered by the New Civil Code, in the absence of an agreement for the
judicial separation of property, spouses who own only conjugal
properties may retain a total of not more than five (5) hectares of such
properties. However, if either or both of them are landowners in their
own respective rights (capital and/paraphernal), they may retain not
more than five (5) hectares of their respective landholdings. In no
case, however, shall the total retention of such couple exceed ten (10)
hectares. (DAR Adm. O. No. 5 [2000], sec. 9 [g])

For marriages covered by the Family Code, which took effect on

3 August 1988, a husband owning capital property and/or a wife
owning paraphernal property may retain not more than five (5)
hectares each provided they executed a judicial separation of
properties prior to entering into marriage. In the absence of such an
agreement, all properties (capital, paraphernal and conjugal) shall be
considered to be held in absolute community, i.e., the ownership
relation is one, and therefore, only a total of five (5) hectares may be
retained. (DAR Adm. O. No. 5 [2000], sec. 9 [h]).

The five (5)-hectare retention limit applies to all lands regardless

of how acquired (i.e., by purchase, award, succession, donation) as the
law does not distinguish. Thus, a child who was awarded three (3)
hectares as a preferred beneficiary under Sec. 6 of RA 6657 and
subsequently acquires a five (5)-hectare landholding of his parent by
succession can retain only five (5) hectares of the total landholding.

Landowners have the obligation to cultivate directly or through

labor administration, and thereby make productive the area he retains.
He is also prohibited from making any constructions therein or commit
it to purposes incompatible with its agricultural nature. Before a
landowner can commit the retained land to non-agricultural purposes,
he must first secure a conversion order from DAR, otherwise he can be
held liable for premature conversion (see DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999]).

Award to children

If a landowner has children, three (3) hectares may be awarded

to each subject to the following qualifications:

a) that he is at ;least fifteen (15) years old as of 15 June 1988;

and
b) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing it.
(Rep. Act No. 6657 [1988], sec. 6).

DAR MC 4 (1994)define the term “directly managing” as the

cultivation of the land through personal supervision under the system
of labor administration.

The award to the child is not to be taken from the retained land
of the owner 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 barangays 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 Association cases, the Supreme Court held that landowners
who failed to exercise their rights to retain under PD 27 can avail of the
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 reconsideration 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 land holdings, 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:

a) Those landowners who complied with the requirement of

either LOI 41, 45 or 52;
b) Those who filed their applications before the deadline set
(27 August 1985 as provided by AO. 1 [1985]) whether or
not they have complied with LOI Nos. 41, 45 and 52;
c) Those who filed their applications after the deadline but
complied with the requirements of LOI 41, 45 or 52; and

d) Heirs of a deceased landowner who manifested, while still

alive, the intention to exercise the right of retention prior
to 23 August 1990 (the finality of the Supreme Court
decision in Association of Small Landowners vs. Hon.
Secretary of DAR; supra.(DAR Adm. O. No. 4 [1991]).

Exercise of right of retention

While Sec.6 of RA 6657 acknowledges the right of the

landowners to choose the area to be retained, it requires that the area
be compact and contiguous, and shall be least prejudicial to the entire
landholding and the majority of the farmers therein. (DAR Adm. O. No.
5 [2000], sec. 2 [b]).

Sec. 4 of DAR AO 5 (2000) provides that under the Compulsory

Acquisition (CA) scheme, the landowner shall exercise his right of
retention within sixty (60) days from receipt of the Notice of Coverage
from DAR. Failure to exercise this right within the prescribed period
means that the landowner waives his right to choose which area to
retain. Thereafter, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) shall
designate the retained area for the landowner.
 Under the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) scheme, the right of
retention shall be exercised at the time the land is offered to sell. The
offer should specify and segregate the portion covered by VOS and the
portion applied for retentions; otherwise, the landowner shall be
deemed to have waived his right of retention over the subject property
(DAR Adm. O. No. 5 [2000], sec. 4).

As a matter of policy, all rights acquired by the tenant-farmers

under PD 27 and the security tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on
the land prior to the approval of RA 6657 shall be respected (DAR Adm.
O. No. 5 [2000], sec. 2 [c]).

In case the area selected by the landowner or awarded for retention

by the DAR is tenanted, the tenant has two (2) options:

a) To remains as a lessee. If he chooses to remain in the area

retained, he shall be considered a lease holder and shall lose his
right to be a beneficiary; or

b) Be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with

similar or comparable features.

The tenant must exercise either option within one (1) year after the
landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention, or from the
time the MARO has chosen the area to be retained by the landowner,
or from the time an order is issued granting the retention (DAR Adm.
O. No. 5 [2000], sec. 10).

Sec. 10 of DAR AO 5 (2000) further provides that in case the tenant

declines to enter into leasehold and there is no available land to
transfer, or if there is, the tenant refuses the same, he may choose to
be paid disturbance compensation by the landowner.

Where Certificates of Land Transfer (CLTs), Emancipation Patents

(EPs) or Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) have already
been issued on the land chosen by the landowner as retention area,
the DAR shall immediately inform the agrarian reform beneficiaries
(ARBs) concerned and provide them the opportunity to contest the
landowner’s claim. Moreover, the DAR shall ensure that the affected
ARBs, should they so desire, be given priority in the distribution of
other lands of the landowner or other lands identified by the DAR for
redistribution, subject to the rights of those already in the area (DAR
Adm. O. No. 5 [2000], sec. 11).

Waiver of right of retention

 Sec. 7 of DAR AO 5 (2000) provides that the following acts
constitute waiver on the landowner’s right of retention:

a) Executing an affidavit, letter or any other document duly

attested by the MARO, Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO)
or Regional Director (RD) indicating that he is expressly waiving
his retention right over subject landholding;
b) Signing of the Landowner-Tenant Production Agreement and
Farmer’s Undertaking (LTPA-FU) or Application to Purchase and
Farmer’s Undertaking (APFU) covering subject property;

c) Entering into a Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme

(VLT-DPS) agreement as evidenced by a Deed of Transfer over
the subject property;

d) Offering the subject landholding under VOS scheme and failure

to indicate his retained area;

e) Signing/submission of other documents indicating consent to

have the entire property covered, such as the form letter of the
LBP on the disposition of the cash and bond portions of a land
transfer claim for payment, and the Deed of Assignment,
warranties and undertaking executed in favor of the LBP;

f) Performing acts which constitute estoppel by laches; and

g) Doing such act or acts as would amount to a valid waiver in

accordance with applicable law and jurisprudence.

Public Lands

Public lands pertain to all lands that were not acquired by private
persons or corporations either by grant or purchase. These lands are
either (a) disposable (alienable) public lands or (b) non-disposable
public lands.

CA 141 (1936), otherwise known as the “Public Land Act”,

governs the administration and disposition of lands of the public
domain. Sec. 9 thereof classifies alienable or disposable lands of the
public domain as (a) agricultural; (b) residential, commercial, industrial
or for similar productive purposes; (c) educational, charitable, or other
similar purposes; or (d) reservations for town sites and for public and
quasi-public uses.
 Non-disposable public lands or those not susceptible of private
appropriation and include the following: (a) timber lands which are
governed by PD 705 (1975) or the Revised Forestry Code; and (b)
mineral lands which are governed by RA 7942 (1995) or the Philippine
Mining Act of 1995 and other related laws.

All lands of the public domain are under the exclusive jurisdiction
of the DENR except those placed by law and/or by executive issuances
under the jurisdiction of other government agencies. Under Sec.3 and
Sec. 5 of CA 141, the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources
(now the Secretary of DENR) is the executive officer charged with
carrying out the provisions of the Public Land Act. It is empowered to
prepare and issue such forms, instructions, rules and regulations
consistent with the Public Land Act. Sec.6 of CA 141 (see also EO 192
[1987]) reserves the power to classify lands in the public domain into
either agricultural (disposable, timber or mineral lands to the
President, with the recommendation of the Secretary of DENR.

Under Sec.4 of RA 6657, public and private agricultural lands and

lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture are covered by
CARP. It provides, among others, that all alienable and disposable
lands of the public domain devoted or suitable or devoted to
agriculture (Sec. 4 [a]) and all lands of the public domain in excess of
the specific limits of the public domain a determined by Congress (Sec.
4 [b]) shall be covered by CARP. It has also been determined that
public agricultural lands that are untitled and privately claimed are
covered by CARP. In response to a query by DAR, the Department of
Justice issued Opinion No. 176 (1992) which stated:

xxx… Thus, it has been held that there should be

no distinction in the application of the la 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. xxx

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 for 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 all
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 jurisdiction of DAR;

and

c) Lands previously proclaimed for the various government

departments, agencies and instrumentalities and
subsequently turned over to the DAR pursuant to EO 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 6940 on 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.

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 ijn the case is limited to the documentation and
protection of the leasehold arrangement between public and land
claimant and the tenants.

If the alienable and disposable land is no 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 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
lands should instead be committed for agrarian purposes.

A recently issued DENR MC 22 (1999) entitled “DENR Jurisdiction

over Alienable and 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 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 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”, has more
encompassing definition, to wit:

Sec. 3. Definition of Terms. –xxx

c) 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-interest, 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. System of land ownership, land use, and modes of settling land
disputes of ICCs/IPs shall be recognized and respected in line with the
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 provision 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 constrains.
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
not 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 alnds 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 expensive 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 either 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 to issue Certificates of Ancestral Domain/Land
Titles over ancestral lands.