AGRARIAN REFORM f.
Employed a sublessee
RA 3844
- Abolished shared tenancy. Now leasehold
tenancy.
- Why is it that leasehold relationship was
preferred?
a. Tenurial Security under Agrarian Land
Reform relationship can exist even if
there is death of the lessee or lessor,
sale , transfer or conveyance of
agricultural land.
- The transferee of the agriland, the vendee
is bound by the leasehold relationship
- Should it be annotated? No. Not
necessary. The law provides for that.
- Leasehold relationship will remain. To
protect the lessee from possible
ejectment or disposition of property.
- Refers to 2 parties
- It is referred as agricultural lessor and
agricultural lessee
- Lease somebody must pay rental
- Can the lessor eject the tenant?
Yes, the lessor has the grounds provided
by 3844 to eject the tenant. Unless the
ground for ejectment is not enumerated in
3844, the lessee cannot be ejected.
Grounds to dispossess a lessee: TOP-FNS
a. Failure to comply with terms and
conditions of agreement
b. Planting of crops or the use of land for
other purpose than that agreed upon
c. Failure to adopt proven farm practices
to conserve land
d. Fault or negligence resulting in
substantial damage
e. Non-payment of rental when due
- Normally the grounds are last two
grounds, under 3844, there is an express
provision that the lessee will allow a
sublessee.
- If they are agricultural workers under RA
3844, they are under Bill Of Rights, they
are entitled to minimum wage law, among
others.
- Agricultural lessee vs Civil lessee
To distinguish lessee under Civil Code and
under Agrarian Law
1. Grounds to eject - AL 3844 while CL
Civil Code
2. Where will you file the ejectment case
agri lessee DAR while civil lessee
in regular courts
- Lessee has substantial rights, you dont
have to allege , you have to support.
- Allegation only is not sufficient
Extinguishment of relation vs
dispossession
a. Extinguishment no court approval,
voluntary act (abandonment of land
without knowedge of lessor or
voluntary surrender by lessee) or an
act of God
b. Dispossession with court order,
premise of lessee
Can relationship be terminated by death? No.
continue bet. Lessor and members of lessees
immediate farm household to be chosen by lessor
within 1 month from death. 1. Surviving spouse;
2. Eldest, 1 month after death, the lessor will
choose
Lease rental
 Shall not be more than the equivalent of
25% of the average normal harvest during
the 3 agricultural years immediately
preceding the date of leasehold after
deducting amount used for the seeds and
costs of harvesting, threshing, loading,
hauling and processing.
PD 27 & RA 6657
DIFFERENCE:
PD 27 rice & corn land
RA 6657 all other agricultural land (including lands of
public domain).
Sigre v. CA : PD 27 is suppletory and operates
separately from RA 6657.
Can lands acquired under PD 27 be transferred by
DAR to another qualified beneficiary?
Estolas v. Mabalot : Land may only be transferred
either by succession or to government.
Land Bank v. Heirs of Cruz:
-The determination of just compensation
should be based on RA 6657 for lands covered under
PD 27. PD 27 applies only suppletorily.
CHAPTER 1
Is industrialization a component of Agrarian
Reform?Yes.
Sec.2 (RA 6657)
sound rural development and
industrialization
to promote industrialization
Industrial inputs necessary to
agriculture (fertilizers,
insecticides, hybrid seeds,
irrigation systems, tractors)
Can private corporation acquire ownership of
alienable lands of public domain?
Chavez v. PEA: No, only through lease not exceeding
25 yrs. Renewable not more than 25yrs. And not to
exceed 1,000 hectares
(CONST., Art. XII, Sec.3)
Sec. 3 (b) Agriculture or Agricultural Activity
- Means the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops,
growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish
including the harvesting of such farm products, and
other farm activities and practices performed by a
farmer in conjunction with such farming operations
done by person whether natural or juridical.
Luz Farms v. Sec. Sec.3 (b) unconstitutional
(raising of livestock, poultry and swine
per SC)
- use of land is incidental and not the
principal factor
RA 7881 (effective May 1995)
- amended Sec.3(b) and removed the raising
of livestock, poultry or fish
raising of livestock, swine and poultry is
different from crop or tree farming.
Industrial, not agricultural activity.
Great portion of the investment in this
enterprise is in the form of industrial fixed
assets, such as: animal housing structures and
facilities, drainage, waterers and blowers,
feedmill with grinders, mixers, conveyors,
exhausts and generators, extensive
warehousing facilities for feeds and other
supplies, anti-pollution equipment like bio-gas
and digester plants augmented by lagoons and
concrete ponds, deepwells, elevated water
tanks, pumphouses, sprayers, and other
technological appurtenances
DAR Admin. Order No. 01, S. 2004 (RULES &
REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE EXCLUSION
OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS USED FOR
CATTLE RAISING FROM THE COVERAGE OF
CARP)
Objective: To prevent circumvention of
CARP and to protect the rights of ARBs due to
unauthorized change/conversion or fraudulent
declaration of areas used for cattle purposes.
Coverage: All applications for exclusion from
CARP of private agricultural lands actually,
exclusively and directly used for cattle raising
as of 15 June 1988.
Types of animal: cattle (of bovine family), bull,
calf, cow.
Policies:
(1) Those ADE used for cattle raising as of 15
June 1988 shall be excluded (exclusion to be
granted only upon proof and continuously
utilized up to time of application);
(2) Any change in use shall be subject to
policies on land conversion
(3) Only the grazing/pasture area and for
infrastructure necessary for cattle raising shall
be excluded; all other areas shall be covered.
(4) Encourage growth of cattle industry
(5) If filing of exclusion is in response to notice
of CARP coverage, DAR shall deny due
course if application is filed 60 days after date
of receipt of notice.
(6) Only exclusion applications fully supported
by documents shall be accepted
DAR v. Sutton: Masbate land -cattle-breeding capital
of Phil
(VOS - due to Luz Farms - withdraw
VOS)
- Constitutionality of AO No. 9, S. 1993
(prescribing a maximum retention limit for
owners of lands devoted to livestock raising);
- SC nullified AO; RA 7881 changed
definition of agricultural activity by
dropping from its coverage lands that are
devoted to commercial livestock, poultry
and swine-raising. Congress clearly sought
to align the provisions of our agrarian laws
with the intent of the 1987 Constitutional
Commission to exclude livestock farms
from the coverage of agrarian reform.
Admin. Order No. 07, S. 2008
Policy guidelines:
Lands ADE used for livestock purposes as of
15 June 1988 and continuously used shall be
excluded; conversely, those not ADE are
subject to CARP if one or more of the following
conditions apply: (1) there is agricultural
activity in the area (i.e., cultivation of soil,
planting of crops, growing of trees including
harvesting); (2) land is suitable for agriculture
and occupied and tilled by farmers.
In line with principle of regularity in the
performance of official functions, all processes
by DAR per AO No. 9 are valid.
Sec. 3 (c) Agricultural land land devoted to
agricultural activity & not classified as mineral,
forest, residential, commercial or industrial
land.
Natalia Realty v. DAR 1979
Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312
hectares of land located in the Municipalities of
Antipolo, San Mateo and Montalban as townsite areas
to absorb the population overspill in the metropolis
which were designated as the Lungsod Silangan
Townsite. The NATALIA properties are situated within
the areas proclaimed as townsite reservation.
NATALIA properties later became the Antipolo Hills
Subdivision. Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped
portions of the Antipolo Hills Subdivision which
consisted of roughly 90.3307 hectares. NATALIA
immediately registered its objection to the Notice of
Coverage
SC:
They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of
the reservation. Lands previously converted by
government agencies, other than DAR, to non-
agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL
were outside the coverage of that law. Ruling not
confined solely to agricultural lands located within
townsite reservations, but applied also to real estate
converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the
effectivity of the CARL.
DAR AO No. 4 (Rules on exemption) - all lands
already classified as commercial, industrial or
residential before June 15,1988 no longer need
conversion clearance
Requirements: Sworn application, copy of
title, certification from HLURB (zoning or
classification, citing zoning ordinance), among
others. Public notice. Disturbance
compensation.
Roxas & Co.
Notice of coverage was wrongfully sent
SC: . DAR's failure to observe due process in
the acquisition of petitioners' landholdings
does not ipso facto give the Supreme Court
the power to adjudicate over petitioner's
application for conversion of its haciendas from
agricultural to non-agricultural. The power to
determine whether Hacienda Palico, Banilad
and Caylaway are non-agricultural which
exempts from the coverage of the CARL lies
with the DAR, not with the Supreme Court.
Case was remanded to DAR for proper
acquisition proceedings and determination of
petitioner's application for conversion
NHA v. Allarde
SC: As early as April 26, 1971, the Tala Estate
(including the disputed lots) was reserved
under Presidential Proclamation No. 843, for
the housing program of the National Housing
Authority, the same has been categorized as
not being devoted to the agricultural activity
contemplated by Section 3 (c) of R.A. No.
6657, and is, therefore, outside the coverage
of the CARL. Verily, the assailed Orders of the
respondent Court declaring the lots under
controversy as "agricultural land" and
restraining the petitioner from involving the
same in its housing project thereon, are
evidently bereft of any sustainable basis
Advincula-Velasquez v. CA
SC: Since the property was already
reclassified as residential by the Metro Manila
Commission and the HSRC before the
effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6657, there was no
need for the private respondent to secure any
post facto approval thereof from the DAR
Alangilan v. Office of President
 SC: It is beyond cavil that the Alangilan
landholding was classified as agricultural,
reserved for residential in 1982, and was
reclassified as residential-1 in 1994. However,
contrary to petitioner's assertion, the term
reserved for residential does not change the
nature of the land from agricultural to non-
agricultural. As aptly explained by the DAR
Secretary, the term reserved for residential
simply reflects the intended land use. It does
not denote that the property has already been
reclassified as residential, because the phrase
reserved for residential is not a land
classification category. Indubitably, at the time
of the effectivity of the CARL in 1988, the
subject landholding was still agricultural. This
was bolstered by the fact that the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan had to pass an Ordinance in
1994, reclassifying the landholding as
residential-1. If, indeed, the landholding had
already been earmarked for residential use in
1982, as petitioner claims, then there would
have been no necessity for the passage of the
1994 Ordinance.
AGRARIAN DISPUTE
any controversy relating to tenurial
arrangements (leasehold, tenancy,
stewardship) over lands devoted to agriculture
any controversy relating to compensation of
lands acquired under CARL and other terms
and conditions of transfer of ownership.
tenancy relationship
ESSENTIAL REQUISITIES: PSC-PPS
1) Parties (landowner & tenants)
2) Subject matter is agricultural land
3) Consent of parties
4) Purpose is agricultural production
5) Personal cultivation by tenant
6) Sharing of harvest between parties
All requisites must concur, absence of one
does not make one a tenant.
Isidro v. CA
- Private resp is owner of land. Sister of priv
resp allowed Isidro to occupy swampy portion
subject to condition to vacate upon demand.
Failure to vacate, unlawful detainer was filed
against Isidro. RTC dismissed bec land is
agricultural and so agrarian.
SC:
Jurisdiction over subject matter determined
from allegations of complaint. Court does not
lose jurisdiction by defense of tenancy
relationship and only after hearing that, if
tenancy is shown, the court should dismiss for
lack of jurisdiction. Case involving agri land
does not automatically make such case
agrarian. Six requisites were not present.
There was no contract to cultivate & petitioner
failed to substantiate claim that he was paying
rent for use of land.
SUPLICO v. CA
Suplico is a lessee of rice land. Private
respondent was allowed by Suplico to till the
land while Suplico will provide the farm
implements and thereafter Suplico was to
receive cavans from the palay by way of rental.
Years later, Suplico threatened to eject priv.
resp. from the property, so private respondent
filed an action for damages against Suplico in
CAR. Resp. Owner intervened in case and
alleged the absence of contractual
relationship. Trial court declared private
respondent as agricultural lessee and
confirmed by CA.
SC:
- SC found no reasons to disturb findings
1. Private respondent was in actual possession
of land with family in a farmhouse just like what
a farm tenant normally would.
2. Private resp. and wife were personally
plowing, planting, weeding and harvesting.
3. Management was left entirely to private
respondent
4. Private respondent shared the harvest with
Suplico.
MONSANTO v. ZERNA: tenancy relationship may be
established verbally or writing
Sps. Zerna were charged with qualified theft
for the taking of coconuts owned by petitioner.
They were acquitted but required Zerna to
return P1,100 to Monsanto on the ground that
Monsanto did not consent to harvest of
coconut. Who is entitled to P1,100 proceeds of
copra sale. This falls under DARAB
There is Agrarian dispute:
1. Subject of dispute was taking of coconuts
2. Private respondents were overseers at the
time of taking by virtue of Agreement .
tenancy relationship may be established
verbally or writing, expressly or impliedly
- here there was agreement which contradicts
petitioners contention that private respondents
are mere overseers. Being overseers does not
foreclose their being tenants. Petitioner
allowed respondent to plant coconut, etc.
Harvests: receipts of remittance by
respondent. Petitioner is claiming the amount
of P1,100 as balance from proceeds of copra
sale. Private respondents contend that this
 P1,100 is their compensation pursuant to
tenurial arrangements. Since this amount is
intertwined with the resolution of agra
dispute, CA correctly ruled that DARAB has
jurisdiction. RTC has only jurisdiction over
criminal and it acted beyond when it ruled
that agri tenancy between parties. This
belongs to DARAB.
BEJASA v. CA
FACTS:
Candelaria owned two parcels of land, which she
leased to Malabanan. Malabanan hired the Bejasas to
plant on the land and clear it, with all the expenses
shouldered by Malabanan. Bejasas continued to stay
on the land and did not give any consideration for its
use, be it in the form of rent or a shared harvest
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a tenancy
relationship in favor of the Bejasas
SC:
Court found that there was no tenancy relationship
between the parties. There was no proof that
Malabanan and the Bejasas shared the harvests.
Candelaria never gave her consent to the Bejasas
stay on the land . There was no proof that the
Dinglasans gave authority to the Bejasas to be the
tenant of the land in question. Not all the elements of
tenancy were met in this case. There was no proof of
sharing in harvest. While Bejasa testified, SC said only
Bejasas word was presented to prove this. Besides
testimony was suspicious because of inconsistency
Bejasa testified that he agreed to deliver 1/5 of harvest
as owners share, yet at one time, he also mentioned
that 25% was for Malabanan and 50% for owner.
Moreover, landowners never gave consent, citing
Chico vs. CA , 284 534 self serving statement are
inadequate, proof must be adhered. Even assuming
that landowner agreed to lease it for P20,000per year,
such agreement did not prove tenancy . Consideration
should be harvest sharing.
VALENCIA v. CA
FACTS:
- Valencia is the owner of land, she leased the
property for five (5)years to Fr. Andres Flores
under a civil law lease concept; lease with
prohibition against subleasing or encumbering
the land without Valencias written consent.
During the period of his lease, private
respondents were instituted to cultivate
without consent of Valencia. After lease,
Valencia demanded vacate but refused;
Private respondents were later awarded with
CLTs after they filed application with DAR;
CLTs were upheld by Exec Sec and CA.
ALMUETE v. ANDRES (Issue on Ownership)
Facts:
Almuete was in exclusive possession of
subject land. Unknown to Almuete, Andres
was awarded homestead patent due to
investigation report that Almuete was unknown
and waived his rights; Andres also represented
that Almuete sold the property to Masiglat for
radiophone set and that Masiglat sold to him
for a carabao and P600. Almuete filed an
action for recovery of possession and
reconveyance before trial court. Issue is who
between 2 awardees of lot has better right to
property.
SC:
This is controversy relating to ownership of
farmland so, beyond the ambit of agrarian
dispute. No juridical tie of landowner and tenant
was alleged between petitioners and respondent.
RTC was competent to try the case.
PASONG BAYABAS v. CA : no evidence
Development of land: converted from
agricultural to residential as approved by DAR.
Petitioners, claimed they are actual tillers of
land, they filed a complaint for damages
alleging surreptitious conversion; priv resp
denied cultivation & waiver of rights was
executed by some.
SC : no tenancy
no allegation in complaint that petitioners
members are tenants; waiver of rights
constitutes abandonment. No substantial
evidence that private respondent is landlord.
Possession/entry is w/o knowledge of owner.
Cultivation / possession not proven. As to the
remaining twenty and more other
complainants, it is unfortunate that they have
not shown that their cultivation, possession
and enjoyment of the lands they claim to till
have been by authority of a valid contract of
agricultural tenancy. On the contrary, as
admitted in their complaint a number of them
have simply occupied the premises in suit
without any specific area of tillage being
primarily mere farm helpers of their relatives
ESCARIZ v. REVILLEZA : tenancy is not presumed
Involving fruit on land owned by private
respondent. Petitioner is claiming tenancy.
DARAB considered petitioner a tenant; CA
reversed
SC: Tenancy is not presumed. There was no evidence
to prove consent of parties and sharing of harvest. SC
agreed with CA that there is no evidence on record to
prove the existence of the following elements: (a) the
consent of the parties and (b) the sharing of harvests.
HEIRS OF JUGALBOT V. CA
FACTS:
Jugalbot was issued EP; EP was challenged
by Heirs of priv resp before DARAB and seek
cancellation of title and recovery possession; on
appeal, DARAB upheld but CA reversed.
SC: Absence of tenancy relationship. The taking
of property violated due process (CA was correct in
pointing out that Virginia A. Roa was denied due
process because the DAR failed to send notice of the
impending land reform coverage to the proper party);
no ocular inspection or any on-site fact-finding
investigation and report to verify the truth of the
allegations of Nicolas Jugalbot that he was a tenant of
the property. By analogy, Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of
Appeals applies to the case at bar since there was
likewise a violation of due process. No concrete
evidence of cultivation; No proof was presented except
for their self-serving statements. Independent
evidence, aside from self-serving statements, is
needed. Plus CA findings- Jugalbot was soldier of US
Army and migrated to US and returned only in 1998,
wife and daughter were residents of California. Land
involved is residential and not agricultural because of
zoning ordinance. Coverage Section 4: All alienable
and disposable public lands. All private lands devoted
to or suitable to agriculture Schedule of implementation
Sec. 5 The distribution xxx shall be implemented
immediately and completed within ten years from
effectivity hereof. Sec. 63: The initial amount needed
to implement this Act for the period of ten years upon
approval hereof shall be funded from the Agrarian
Reform Fund created under Sections 20 and 21 of
Executive Order No. 299. xxx.. RA 8542: amended
Sec. 63 as follows: The amount needed to implement
this Act until 2008 shall be funded from the Agrarian
Reform Fund. RA 9700, Sec. 21:
The amount needed to further implement the
CARP as provided in this Act, until June 30, 2014,
upon expiration of funding under Republic Act No.
8532 and other pertinent laws, shall be funded from the
Agrarian Reform Fund and other funding sources in the
amount of at least One hundred fifty billion pesos
(P150,000,000,000.00)
HOMESTEAD GRANTEES (Sec.6)
HOMESTEAD PATENT
A mode of acquiring alienable and disposable
lands of public domain for agricultural
purposes conditioned upon actual cultivation
and residence.
filed at CENRO where land being
applied is located.
who are qualified - citizens of
Philippines over 18 years old & not an
owner of more than 12 hectares of
land (Art XII, Sec. 3, 1987
Constitution)
designed to distribute disposable agricultural
lots of the State to land-destitute citizens for
their home and cultivation. Pursuant to such
benevolent intention the State prohibits the
sale or encumbrance of the homestead (CA
141, Section 116) within five years after the
grant of the patent. After that five-year period
the law impliedly permits alienation of the
homestead, but in line with the primordial
purpose to favor with the homesteader and his
family the statute provides that such alienation
or conveyance (Section 117) shall be subject
to the right of repurchase by the homesteader,
his widow or heirs.
CARL recognizes rights of homesteaders(Sec.6,)
expressly recognized in Sec. 6, Art XIII,
Constitution
ALITA v. CA: (1989)
private respondents predecessors-in-
interest have acquired 2 parcels of
land in Zamboanga del Sur thru
homestead patent
petitioners/ tenants refuse to vacate
relying on PD27
SC:
PD decreed the emancipation of tenants from
bondage of soil and transferring to them
ownership of land they till.
However, PD27 cannot be involved to defeat
the very purpose of CA 141 (Public Land Act)
Phil. Constitution respects the superiority of
homesteaders rights and CARL also.
Sec. 6:
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.
PARIS v. ALFECHE (2001)
Paris is owner of 10 hectares in Bukidnon and
another property of 13 hectares. She admitted
that land is fully tenanted by private
respondents Alfeche,et al.
Paris claimed that she is entitled to retention
and that as original homestead grantee, she is
entitled to retain the lands to the exclusion of
tenants.
SC :
Petitioners contention is w/o legal basis. PD
applies to all tenanted private agriculture lands
primarily devoted to rice and corn. Nowhere
 does it appear that lots obtained by
homestead patents are exempted from its
operation. Under RA 6657, rights of
homestead grantee are provided but with
condition: only for as long as they continue to
cultivate them. That parcels of land are
covered by homestead will not automatically
exempt them from operation of land reform. It
is the fact of continued cultivation by original
grantees or direct compulsory heirs that shall
exempt their lands. Petitioner can retain
however 5 hectares which require no qualifying
condition (Sec.6)
RETENTION RIGHTS
NCC: conjugal total is 5; capital/paraphernal not
more than 5 each but not exceed 10
FC (Aug.3,1988) per DAR Adm. Order No. 2, s. 2003:
capital/paraphernal - not to exceed 5 provided
with judicial separation
absolute (presumed) not to exceed 5
LANDOWNERs RETENTION RIGHTS
Is this right defeated by the issuance of
CLTs/EPs or CLOAs?
DAEZ v. CA
Issuance of EPs/CLOAs to beneficiaries does
not absolutely bar landowner from retaining the area.
In fact, EP or CLOA may be cancelled if land covered
in later found to be part of landowners retained area.
In this case, CLTs of private respondent were leased
w/o according Daez her right of choice. So DAR was
ordered to fully accord Daez her rights under Sec.6 of
RA 6657.
Retention by landowner: 5 hectares
Retention by each child of landowner: 3
hectares provided:
1. at least 15 years of age; and
2. actually tilling the land or directly managing
the farm
DAR Adm. Order # 2, S.2003
Who may apply for retention
Period to exercise right of retention
Where to file
Instance where owner is considered to have
waived his right of retention
Operating produces : MARO PARO REG.
DIRECTOR- Sec. (Appeal)
That landholdings of landowners with a total area of
five (5) hectares and below shall not be covered for
acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries.
(RA 9700, Sec. 3)
SEC. 6-A. Exception to Retention Limits. -
Provincial, city and municipal government ,units
acquiring private agricultural lands by expropriation or
other modes of acquisition to be used for actual, direct
and exclusive public purposes, such as roads and
bridges, public markets, school sites, resettlement
sites, local government facilities, public parks and
barangay plazas or squares, consistent with the
approved local comprehensive land use plan, shall not
be subject to the five (5)-hectare retention limit under
this Section xxx. (RA 9700, Sec. 4)
Sec. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions from coverage of
CARL
(a) Lands ADE used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves,
reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds,
watersheds and mangroves (exempt);
(b) private lands ADE used for prawn farms and
fishponds (exempt)
(c) lands ADE used and found to be necessary for
national defense, school sites and campuses including
experimental farm stations, seeds and seedlings
research, church sites and convents, mosque sites,
communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal
colonies and farms and all lands with 18% slope and
over (exempt)
CENTRAL MINDANAO v. DARAB
The subject lands are exempted because they
are actually, directly & exclusively used and
found necessary for school site and campus,
including experimental farm stations for
educational purposes and for establishing
seed and seeding research
The construction of DARAB in Section 10
restricting the land area of CMU to its present
needs overlooked the significant factor it
growth of a university in years to come. By the
nature of CMU, which is a school established
to promote agriculture & industry, the need for
vast tract of agriculture land for future
programs of expansion is obvious.
While portion of CMU land was leased by Phil.
Packing Corp.(now Del Monte), the agreement
was prior to CARL & was directly connected to
the purpose & objectives of CMU as
educational institution
As to determination of when and what lands
are found to be necessary for use of CMU,
school is in best position to resolve & answer
the question. DARAB & CA have no right to
substitute unless it is manifest that CMU has
no real need for land.
Atlas Fertilizer v. Sec.
Atlas engaged in the aquaculture industry
utilizing fishponds and prawn farms;
challenged RA 6657 which coverage lands
devoted to the aquaculture industry,
particularly fishponds and prawn farms.
SC:
 R.A. No. 7881 expressly state that fishponds
and prawn farms are excluded from the coverage of
CARL. In view of the foregoing, the question
concerning the constitutionality of the assailed
provisions has become moot and academic with the
passage of R.A. No. 7881
Sanchez v. Marin
Issue:
Whether the subject fishpond is
exempted/excluded from the coverage of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the
government by virtue of the amendments introduced by
R.A. No. 7881 to R.A. No. 6657
SC:
Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7881 amended
Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657 by expressly
exempting/excluding private lands actually, directly and
exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds from
the coverage of the CARL.
REPUBLIC v. CA
Tax declaration classified subject land as agricultural.
DAR issued notice of coverage & owner applied for
exemption. Application was denied and on appeal the
Court of Appeals created a commission to conduct
ocular inspection and survey the land. Later, based on
the report submitted by the commission, the Court of
Appeals reversed the Order of the DAR and exempted
the lands from CARL. Republic contends that tax
declaration classified it as agriculture & which cannot
be altered by mere ocular inspection.
SC: There is no law/jurisprudence that land
classification in tax declaration is conclusive; tax
declaration is clearly not sole basis of classification of
land. SC gave credence to commissions report. Based
on their report, it was found that the land use map
submitted by private respondent was an appropriate
document consistent with the existing land use. It was
confirmed that the lands are not wholly agricultural as
they consist of mountainous area with an average of
28% slope. The CARL has further provided that all
lands with 18% slope and over except those already
developed shall be exempt from the coverage of
CARL.
. TO QUALIFIED FARMERS?
(Sec. 11) : COMMERCIAL FARMS
Commercial farms private agricultural lands devoted
to saltbeds, fruit farms, orchards, vegetable and cut-
flower farms and cacao, coffee and rubber plantations.
They are subject to compulsory acquisition and
distribution after 10 years from effectivity.
LUZ FARMS
Sec. II which includes private agricultural land
devoted to commercial livestock, poultry &
swine raising in definition of commercial
farms is invalid.
Adm. Order #01 (2004): rules & regulations governing
exclusion of agricultural land used for cattle raising
from CARP. Citing Luz Farms case private agricultural
land or portions thereof actually, exclusively &directly
used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 shall be
excluded. Exclusion shall be granted only upon proof
of AED prior to 15 June 1988 & continuously utilized
for such purpose up to application. Any act to change
or convert ; w/ intent to avoid CARP,shall be invalid.
Only the grazing area & portions of property required
for infrastructure necessary for cattle raising shall be
considered for exclusion
DAR A.O #9, S of 1998 allows commercial farms
certain options, subject to approval of DAR & workers:
(aside from voluntary & compulsory coverage)
DAR v. SUTTON :
Land devoted to cow & calf breeding. Lands
under VOS before CARP. After CARP & Luz Farms
case, Sutton filed withdrawal of VOS. DAR issued A.O
#9 (1993) which provide that only portions of land used
for raising of livestock, poultry & swine shall be
excluded. DAR partially exempted portion but ordered
acquisition the rest.
SC: AO is invalid as it contravene Constitution since
livestock , swine/poultry raising do not fall under
agriculture & agricultural activity
Adm. Order #7 (2008)
(Guidelines per Sutton Case (livestock raising)
Lands ADE used for livestock like cattle raising
as of 15 June 1988 & continuously devoted
shall be excluded.
Those not ADE are subject to CARP provided
that the agricultural activity in land is suitable
for agriculture presently tilled by farmers
IMPROVEMENT OF TENURIAL & LABOR
RELATION
WHAT ARE THE WAYS IN DISTRIBUTING LANDS
1. Compulsory acquisition (Sec.16)
2. Voluntary offer to sell/voluntary land
transfer (Sec.20)
3. Non-land transfer schemer stock
distribution option(SDO); production &
profit sharing (PPS)- Sec. 13/32;
leasehold operation(Sec.12)
Sec.12 of 6657 mandates DAR to determine & fix the
lease rentals within the retained areas and areas not
yet acquired.
Sec. 6 of 6657 recognizes the right of farmer to elect
whether farmer-beneficiary OR leaseholds in retained
area.
Sec.67 of 6657 directs RD to register patents, title &
documents required for implementation of CARP
Pursuant to DARs mandate to protect the
rights & improve tenurial & economic status of
farmers in tenanted lands, DAR issued AO 02-
06 (REVISED RULES & PROCEDURES
GOVERNING LEASEHOLD
IMPLEMENTATION IN TENANTED
AGRICULTURAL LANDS):
-Leasehold is based on tenancy relationship
(repeat 6 requisites)
-Leasehold relation shall not be extinguished
by expiration at term nor by sale. In case of
alienation, purchaser/transferee shall be
subjugated to rights/obligation of lessor.
-DARAB has jurisdiction to cancel leasehold
contract .
-The consideration of lease shall not be more
than 25% of average normal harvest during 3
agri years
-AO 02-06 states, among others, the rights &
obligations of lessor/lessee.
CHAPTER IV REGISTRATION
Sec. 14 & 15 require the registration of
landowners & beneficiaries w/ DAR. Purpose
is to establish databank & identify actual
famer-beneficiaries.
Fortich vs. Corona : intervenors claimed that they are
farmworkers & so intervened in case.
SC: There is no ruling yet from DAR whether
intervenors are beneficiaries, so they have no standing
yet to intervene in the case.
DAR safeguards the list of ARB & provide IDs
as proof of being bonafide beneficiaries
DARAB has jurisdiction to disqualify an ARB.
LAND ACQUISITION
Landlessness is acknowledged as the core
problem in the rural areas and the root cause
of peasant unrest.
In order to hasten the implementation of the
program, the Department of Agrarian Reform
has made compulsory acquisition the priority
mode of land acquisition. To the same end, the
law provides for the steps in acquiring private
lands through administrative instead of judicial
proceedings. This procedure is allowed
provided the requirements of due process as
to notice and hearing are complied with.
Compulsory acquisition may be defined as
the mandatory acquisition of agricultural lands
including facilities and improvements
necessary for agricultural production, as may
be appropriate, for distribution to qualified
beneficiaries upon payment of just
compensation.
The Notice of Coverage (NOC) commences
the compulsory acquisition of private
agricultural lands coverable under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP). Along the various phases of the
CARP proceedings, the process stalls because
of Land Owner (LO) resistance, most of whom
invoke the ground of lack of notice or non-
observance of due process in attacking the
proceedings.
CHAPTER V LAND ACQUISITION
Sec. 16 outlines the procedure for acquisition of
private land
Take note of Sec.16(d) & (e):
(1) practice of having no deed of transfer or
conveyance
(2) titles are cancelled w/o owners copy
surrendered (in Torren's System, if there is
refusal in involuntary dealings remedy is file
petition in court
(3) RD titles are cancelled while owners copy is
subsisting
Sec. 66 (Exemptions from taxes &fees of land transfer)
Sec. 67 (Free Registration of patents, titles &
documents required for implementation of CARP)
Sec. (e) : Once DAR request and LBP makes deposit
of initial valuation, DAR can request RD to cancel title
& transfer it to Republic of Phil. So even if landowners
protests valuation, distribution of land will proceed.
CLOAs are issued upon land acquisition: so
cancellation of title of landowner can simultaneously go
w/ issuance of CLOA.
In Association of small land owners, SC did not
say automatically. SC said that title and ownership
remain w/ LO until full payment of past conversation.
CONFED vs. DAR
Compulsory Acquisition
Notice of Acquisition
First step: identification of the land, the
landowners and the beneficiaries.
Law is silent
Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989
Valid implementation , two notices
DAR A.O. No.12, Series of 1989, amended in
1990 by DAR A.O. No.9, Series of 1990 and in
1993 by DAR A.O No.1, Series of 1993
Roxas case : CLOA was not properly issued, DAR
should be given chance to validate proceedings.
Fortich case: CLOA was illegal & should be cancelled
for being in violation of law.
Assoc. of Small Landowners:
Upheld validity of Sec. 16 RA 6657 (manner
of acquisition of private agricultural lands and
ascertainment of just compensation). Section 16(e) of
the CARP Law provides that: Upon receipt by the
landowner of the corresponding payment, or in case of
rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the
deposit with an accessible bank designated by the
DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in
accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take
immediate possession of the land and shall request the
proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of
the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with
the redistribution of the land to the qualified
beneficiaries
Sec. 16, RA 6657
The title of the section states: Procedure for
Acquisition of Private Lands.
Section 6, RA 9700
The title was amended: "SEC. 16.
Procedure for Acquisition and Distribution of
Private Lands."
Confed v. DAR
Under Section 16 of the CARL, the first
step in compulsory acquisition is the
identification of the land, the
landowners and the beneficiaries.
However, the law is silent on how the
identification process must be made.
Identification process in Sec. 16 is
silent so DAR filled gap (AO #12, s.
989)
Notice of Coverage:
Notifies landowner that his property shall be
placed under CARP and that he is entitled to
exercise his retention right;
Notifies him that a public hearing shall be
conducted where he and representatives of the
concerned sectors of society may attend to
discuss the results of the field investigation,
the land valuation and other pertinent matters.
Also informs the landowner that a field
investigation of his landholding shall be
conducted where he and the other
representatives may be present.
Notice of Acquisition:
The Notice shall include, among others, the
area subject of compulsory acquisition, and the
amount of just compensation offered by DAR.
Should the landowner accept the DAR's
offered value, the Bureau of Land Acquisition
and Distribution (BLAD) shall prepare and
submit to the Secretary for approval the Order
of Acquisition. However, in case of rejection or
non-reply, the DAR Adjudication Board
(DARAB) shall conduct a summary
administrative hearing to determine just
compensation.
Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's
decision on just compensation, the BLAD shall
prepare and submit to the Secretary for
approval the required Order of Acquisition.
Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in
case of acceptance, or upon deposit of
payment in the designated bank, in case of
rejection or non-response, the Secretary shall
immediately direct the pertinent Register of
Deeds to issue the corresponding Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines. Once the property
is transferred, the DAR, through the PARO,
shall take possession of the land for
redistribution to qualified beneficiaries.
RA 6657: Revolutionary kind of expropriation
affects all private agricultural lands whenever
found and of whatever kind as long in excess
of max retention limits;
intended for the benefit not only of a particular
community or of a small segment of the
population but of the entire Filipino nation, from
all levels of our society, from the impoverished
farmer to the land-glutted owner;
does not cover only the whole territory of this
country but goes beyond in time to the
foreseeable future;
Constitution has ordained this revolution in the
farms, calling for "a just distribution" among the
farmers of lands that have heretofore been the
prison of their dreams and deliverance
Despite the revolutionary or non-traditional
character of RA 6657, however, the chief
limitations on the exercise of the power of
eminent domain, namely: (1) public use; and
(2) payment of just compensation, are
embodied therein as well as in the
Constitution.
With respect to "public use, in Association of
Small Landowners declared that the
requirement of public use had already been
settled by the Constitution itself as it "calls for
agrarian reform, which is the reason why
private agricultural lands are to be taken from
their owners, subject to the prescribed
maximum retention limits.
 On just compensation, judicial determination
is expressly prescribed in Section 57 of RA
6657 as it vests on the Special Agrarian Courts
original and exclusive jurisdiction over all
petitions for the determination of just
compensation to landowners. It bears
stressing that the determination of just
compensation during the compulsory
acquisition proceedings of Section 16 of RA
6657 is preliminary only, court can review.
Section 16 (f) clearly provides:
(f)Any party who disagrees with the decision
may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction
for final determination of just compensation
Application of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court?
Rules of Court, including Rule 67 thereof, is
not completely disregarded in the
implementation of RA 6657 since the Special
Agrarian Courts, in resolving petitions for the
determination of just compensation, are
enjoined to apply the pertinent provisions of
the Rules of Court.
Section 58 of RA 6657, like Rule 67 of the
Rules of Court, provides for the appointment of
commissioners by the Special Agrarian Courts.
Sec. 58: may; motu proprio or instance of the DAR shall be considered, subject to the final
party
Rule 67: shall
Land Bank v. CA
Private respondent challenged the admin order
issued by DAR permitting the opening of trust
account by LBP, in lieu of depositing in cash or
in LBP bonds.
SC:
Sec. 16 (e) is explicit that deposit be in cash
or in LBP bonds;
Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred
that the deposit can be made in any other form
like a trust account;
There was no basis for issuance of order.
Santos v. LBP :
Facts:
RTC required payment of compensation for
petitioner's land taken under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program, to be made in cash and
bonds. According to petitioner, said order illegally
amended the judgment rendered which directs
payment of compensation to be made "in the manner
provided in RA 6657.
SC:
Trial court decision directing payment of just
compensation in the manner provided by RA 6657 is
not illegally amended but is merely clarified by an
order issued during execution proc that such amount
shall be paid in cash and bonds.
CHAPTER VI COMPENSATION
Just Compensation:
full & fair equivalent of property taken from
owner by expropriation (Assoc. of Small
Landowners). The word "just" is used to
intensify the meaning of the word
"compensation" to convey the idea that the
equivalent to be rendered for the property to
be taken shall be real, substantial, full, ample.
FACTORS (Section 17): 1. cost of acquisition ; 2.
current value of like properties;3. actual use & income
& nature; 4. sworn valuation by owner; 5. tax
declaration; 6. assessment made by Government
assessors.
Sec. 7, RA 9700:
"SEC. 17. Determination of Just
Compensation. In determining just compensation,
the cost of acquisition of the land, the value of the
standing crop, the current value of like properties, its
nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by
the owner, the tax declarations, the assessment made
by government assessors, and seventy percent (70%)
of the zonal valuation of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue (BIR), translated into a basic formula by
decision of the proper court. The social and economic
benefits contributed by the farmers and the
farmworkers and by the Government to the property as
well as the nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from
any government financing institution on the said land
shall be considered as additional factors to determine
its valuation."
LBP v. Dumlao
Facts:
Respondents are owners of agri lands covered
under PD 27; Determination of just
compensation remained pending with DAR, so
they filed complaint with RTC for
determination.
SC:
if just compensation was not settled prior to the
passage of RA No. 6657, it should be
computed in accordance with said law,
although property was acquired under PD No.
27;
the determination made by the trial court,
which relied solely on the formula prescribed
by PD No. 27 and EO No. 228, is grossly
erroneous. The amount of P6,912.50 per
hectare, which is based on the DAR valuation
of the properties "at the time of their taking in
the 1970s", does not come close to a full and
fair equivalent of the property taken from
respondents;
CA's act of setting just compensation in the
amount of P109,000.00 would have been a
 valid exercise of this judicial function, had it
followed the mandatory formula prescribed by
RA No. 6657. However, the appellate court
merely chose the lower of two (2) values
specified by the commissioner as basis for
determining just compensation, namely: (a)
P109,000.00 per hectare as the market value
of first class unirrigated rice land in the
Municipality of Villaverde; and (b) P60.00 per
square meter as the zonal value of the land in
other barangays in Villaverde. This is likewise
erroneous because it does not adhere to the
formula provided by RA No. 6657.
It cannot be overemphasized that the just
compensation to be given to the owner cannot
be assumed and must be determined with
certainty.
Section 17 was converted into a formula by the
DAR through AO No. 6, Series of 1992, as
amended by AO No. 11, Series of 1994:
Basic formula (Voluntary Offer to Sell) or
[Compulsory Acquisition] regardless of the date
of offer or coverage of the claim:
LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
Where:
LV = Land Value
CNI = Capitalized Net Income
CS = Comparable Sales
MV = Market Value per Tax
Declaration
The above formula shall be used if all the
three factors are present, relevant and applicable.
Note:
1. PD 27: uses average crop harvest as a
consideration;
RA 6657: factors for consideration in determining just
compensation.
2. RA 6657 for lands covered by PD 27 and just
compensation has not been determined at the time of
passage of RA 6657 applies because PD 27 and EO
228 have only suppletory effect.
Take into account the nature of land (i.e., irrigated),
market value, assessed value at the time of the
taking, location (i.e., along highway) and the volume
and value of its produce, like:
(a) prevailing market value of in the area
and adjacent areas;
(b) presence and availability of an
irrigation system to augment and increase
agricultural production;
(c) available comparable sales in the
area;
(d) average harvests per hectare.
The date of taking of the subject land for
purposes of computing just compensation
should be reckoned from the issuance dates of
the emancipation patents.
Why? EP constitutes the conclusive authority
for the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of
Title in the name of the grantee. It is from the
issuance of an emancipation patent that the
grantee can acquire the vested right
of ownership in the landholding, subject to the
payment of just compensation to the
landowner.
However, their issuance dates are not shown.
As such, the trial court should determine the
date of issuance of these emancipation
patents in order to ascertain the date of taking
and proceed to compute the just compensation
due to respondents.
Petitioners argument that respondents should
not be paid yet pending determination by DAR
is specious.
To wait for the DAR valuation despite its
unreasonable neglect and delay in processing
is to violate the elementary rule that payment
of just compensation must be within a
reasonable period from the taking of property;
Citing Cosculluela v. CA, just compensation
means not only the correct determination of
the amount to be paid to the owner of the land
but also the payment of the land within a
reasonable time from its taking. Without
prompt payment, compensation cannot be
considered "just" for the property owner is
made to suffer the consequence of being
immediately deprived of his land while being
made to wait for a decade or more before
actually receiving the amount necessary to
cope with his loss
Sps. Lee v. LBP
If valuation is based not on the factors, it is not
valid .
(Note that in this case, there was admission
that valuation was not based on factors under
CARL: a representative of the company admitted that it
did not consider the CARP valuation to be applicable).
Case remanded.
LBP v. Heirs of Cruz
If valuation is not based on any evidence, it is
w/o basis, so determination be remanded.
In this case, decision of PARAD and SAC
points to no evidence, so case was remanded.
Is prior recourse to DARAB necessary before case for
determination of JC may be filed?
No:
(a) because DAR may continue to alienate
the lots during the pendency of protest;
(b) Sec. 57 of RA 6657 states that SAC has
orig and exclusive jurisdiction.
Content and Manner (Section 18)
Sec. 18 speaks of cash or shares of stock, tax
credits or LBP bonds.
 Is this not violation of usual way of payment in
cash?
No, because revolutionary kind.
Parties involved (Section 18)
Land Bank v. CA:
The parties are DAR, landowner and LBP.
The law does not mention the participation of farmer-
beneficiary.
So consent of farmer-beneficiary is not
required in establishing proper compensation.
Voluntary offer (Section 19)
Section 19 provides for additional 5% cash
payment if LO voluntarily offers land for sale.
Voluntary land transfer (Secs. 20 and 21)
How is VLT made?
Sec. 20 LO may enter into voluntary arrangement for
direct transfer to qualified beneficiaries but subject to
guidelines (i.e., all notices for VLT be submitted to
DAR within 1st year of implementation of CARP, terms
and conditions shall not be less favorable to
transferee).
Sec. 21 direct payment may be made in cash or kind
by ARB under terms mutually agreed and which shall
be binding upon registration and approval by DAR.
Sec. 44 (2) provides that PARCOM shall
recommend to PARC the adoption of direct
payment scheme. So, AO #2, s. 1995 was
issued:
Beneficiaries are determined by DAR;
Area to be transferred to ARB should not be
less than the area which the govt would
otherwise acquire;
CLOAs should bear proper annotations.
QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES
(1) The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed
as much as possible to landless residents of the same
barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents
of the same municipality in the following order of
priority:
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;
(b) regular farmworkers;
(c) seasonal farmworkers;
(d) other farmworkers;
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above
beneficiaries; and
(g) others directly working on the land;
(2) The children of landowners who are qualified shall
be given preference in the distribution of the land of
their parents.
(3) Actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be
ejected or removed therefrom.
(4) Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No.27 who
have culpably sold, disposed of, or abandoned their
lands are disqualified to become beneficiaries under
the Program.
(5) A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his
willingness, aptitude, and ability to cultivate and make
the land as productive as possible.
(6) If, due to the landowners retention rights or to the
number of tenants, lessees, or workers on the land,
there is not enough land to accommodate any or some
of them, they may be granted ownership of other lands
available for distribution under the Act, at the option of
the beneficiaries.
(8) No qualified beneficiary may own more than three
(3) hectares of agricultural land. (Sec. 23)
AWARD TO BENEFICIARIES
Ownership of the beneficiary shall be
evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership
Award, which shall contain the restrictions and
conditions provided for in the Act, and shall be
recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned
and annotated on the Certificate of Title.
(Sec. 24)
Issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificate
When certificate issued. Section 24 of R.A.
No. 6657 provides that the rights and
responsibilities of the beneficiary shall
commence from the time the DAR makes an
award of the land to him, which award shall be
completed within 180 days from the time the
DAR takes actual possession of the land.
Ownership of the lands by the beneficiary shall
be evidenced by an Emancipation Patent (EP)
or a Certificate of Land Ownership Award
(CLOA), which shall contain the restrictions,
and conditions provided by law and which shall
be recorded in the Register of Deeds
concerned and annotated on the Certificate of
Title.
In several instances, however, the EP or CLOA cannot
be immediately issued pending the fulfillment of certain
legal and administrative requirements. Examples of
these are:
(a) The Supreme Court ruling in the case of
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines,
Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (G.R. No. 76742,
14,July 1989.) that title to all expropriated properties
shall be transferred to the State only upon full payment
of compensation to their respective landowners;
(b) The conduct of subdivision surveys to define the
specific parcel of land being awarded through the EP
or CLOA.
Cont. of Issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificate
(1)
 Thus, pending the fulfillment of the said
requirements, the identified beneficiaries may
already be in possession of the land but still
have no EP or CLOA therefor. For this
reason, the DAR shall first issue a CARP
Beneficiary Certificate (CBC) to provide the
would-be beneficiaries, an intermediate
document to evidence that they have been
identified and have qualified as agrarian reform
beneficiaries under the CARP. Moreover,
aside from attesting to the inchoate right of the
identified beneficiary to be awarded the land or
portion thereof, the CBC issued shall entitle
the recipient to receive support services under
the CARP.
PAYMENT BY BENEFICIARIES
(1)Lands awarded pursuant to the Act shall be paid
for by the beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual
amortization at 6% interest per annum subject to the
following rules:
(a) The payments for the first three (3) years
after the award may be at reduced amounts as
established by the PARC.
(b) The first five (5) annual payments may not
be more than 5% of the value of the annual gross
production as established by the DAR.
(c) Should the scheduled annual payments
after the fifth year exceed 10% of the annual gross
production and the failure to produce accordingly is not
due to the beneficiarys fault, the LBP may reduce the
interest rate or reduce the principal obligation to make
the repayment affordable.
(2) The LBP shall have a lien (i.e., prior right) by way
of mortgage on the land awarded to the beneficiary;
and this mortgage may be foreclosed by the LBP for
non-payment of an aggregate of three(3) annual
amortization. The LBP shall advice the DAR of such
proceedings and the latter shall subsequently award
the forfeited landholding to other qualified
beneficiaries. A beneficiary whose land has been
foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently disqualified
from becoming a beneficiary under the Act. (Sec. 26.)
TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LANDS
(1) Lands acquired by beneficiaries under the
Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except
through
hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the
LBP or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of
ten (10) years. However, the children of the spouse of
the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land
from the government or LBP within a period of two (2)
years. Due notice of the availability of the land shall be
given by the LBP to the Barangay Agrarian Reform
Committee (BARC) of the barangay where the land
is situated. The Provincial Agrarian Reform
Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) shall, in turn, be
given the due notice thereof by the BARC.
(2) If the land has not yet been fully paid by the
beneficiary, the rights to the land may be transferred or
conveyed, with prior approval of the DAR, to any heir
of the beneficiary or to any other beneficiary who, as a
condition for such transfer or conveyance, shall
cultivate the land himself.
NON-LAND TRANSFER SCHEMES
(1) Leasehold Operations (LO)- lands within the
land owners retained areas or lands not yet
due for distribution are placed under leasehold
to ensure farmers security over the land they
till and pre-empt their displacement while
waiting for the eventual distribution of the land;
(2) Production Profit Sharing (PPS)- This scheme
is an interim measure while the lands owned or
operated by agricultural entities await
coverage under the CARP. There entities are
companies mostly involved in the commercial
production of rubber, banana, and pineapple;
(3) Stock Distribution Option (SDO). - Under this
arrangement, the farmers are entitled to
dividends and other financial benefits and are
also assured of at least a representatives at
the Board of Directors, management or
executive committee to protect the rights and
interest of shareholders; and
(4) Commercial Farm Deferment (SFD). This
scheme provides corporate landowners of
newly-established commercial plantations
enough time to recover their investment before
such agricultural lands are covered by CARP.
The deferment period was up to 1998. Pending
final land transfer, however, these corporations
shall implement a production and profit-sharing
scheme in their farms.
The monitoring of non-land transfer activities by the
field offices of the DAR has not been given much
priority, as there has been greater pressure for them to
deliver their land acquisition and distribution (LAD)
targets.