AGRARIAN LAW REVIEWER 10/7/2017

Right of Pre-emption and Redemption

RA 3844 Section 11. Lessee's Right of Pre-emption - In case the agricultural lessor decides to
sell the landholding, the agricultural lessee shall have the preferential right to buy the same under
reasonable terms and conditions: Provided, That the entire landholding offered for sale must be
pre-empted by the Land Authority if the landowner so desires, unless the majority of the lessees
object to such acquisition: Provided, further, That where there are two or more agricultural
lessees, each shall be entitled to said preferential right only to the extent of the area actually
cultivated by him. The right of pre-emption under this Section may be exercised within ninety
days from notice in writing which shall be served by the owner on all lessees affected.

RA 3844 Section 12. Lessee's Right of Redemption - In case the landholding is sold to a third
person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem
the same at a reasonable price and consideration: Provided, That the entire landholding sold must
be redeemed: Provided, further, That where these are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall
be entitled to said right of redemption only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him.
The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised within two years from the
registration of the sale, and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption.

Share Tenancy

RA 3844 Section 4. Abolition of Agricultural Share Tenancy - Agricultural share tenancy, as

herein defined, is hereby declared to be contrary to public policy and shall be abolished:
Provided, That existing share tenancy contracts may continue in force and effect in any region or
locality, to be governed in the meantime by the pertinent provisions of Republic Act Numbered
Eleven hundred and ninety-nine, as amended, until the end of the agricultural year when the
National Land Reform Council proclaims that all the government machineries and agencies in
that region or locality relating to leasehold envisioned in this Code are operating, unless such
contracts provide for a shorter period or the tenant sooner exercise his option to elect the
leasehold system: Provided, further, That in order not to jeopardize international commitments,
lands devoted to crops covered by marketing allotments shall be made the subject of a separate
proclamation that adequate provisions, such as the organization of cooperatives, marketing
agreements, or other similar workable arrangements, have been made to insure efficient
management on all matters requiring synchronization of the agricultural with the processing
phases of such crops: Provided, furthermore, That where the agricultural share tenancy contract
has ceased to be operative by virtue of this Code, or where such a tenancy contract has been
entered into in violation of the provisions of this Code and is, therefore, null and void, and the
tenant continues in possession of the land for cultivation, there shall be presumed to exist a
leasehold relationship under the provisions of this Code, without prejudice to the right of the
landowner and the former tenant to enter into any other lawful contract in relation to the land
formerly under tenancy contract, as long as in the interim the security of tenure of the former
tenant under Republic Act Numbered Eleven hundred and ninety-nine, as amended, and as
provided in this Code, is not impaired: Provided, finally, That if a lawful leasehold tenancy
contract was entered into prior to the effectivity of this Code, the rights and obligations arising
therefrom shall continue to subsist until modified by the parties in accordance with the
provisions of this Code.

PD 1425

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1425

AMENDING PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1040 BY STRENGTHENING THE

PROHIBITION AGAINST AGRICULTURAL SHARE TENANCY AND PROVIDING
PENALTIES FOR VIOLATION THEREOF

WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Code of Agrarian Reforms, agricultural share tenancy
throughout the country, with the exceptions and/or qualifications provided for in said Code, has
been declared contrary to public policy and automatically converted into agricultural leasehold;

WHEREAS, under Presidential Decree No. 2 dated September 26, 1972, the whole country has
been proclaimed as a land reform areas;

WHEREAS, notwithstanding such provisions of the Code of Agrarian Reforms and Presidential
Decree No. 2, many landowners, landholders, civil law lessees, legal possessors, and
usufructuaries, including persons acting for and in their behalf, particularly in tenanted rice
and/or corn lands, still insist on the crop sharing system to govern the tenancy relationship with
their tenants; and

WHEREAS, the penal provisions of the Code of Agrarian Reform are inadequate to enforce full
compliance with the aforestated declared policy on leasehold and, therefore, there is a need to
strengthen said penal provisions by imposing stiffer penalties;

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by virtue of

the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby decree and order:

Section 1. The agricultural leasehold system shall continue to govern the relationship between
the landowner, landholder, civil law lessee, legal possessor, usufructuary or any person acting for
and in his behalf, and the tenant-farmer in rice and/or corn lands not covered by the land transfer
program under Presidential Decree No. 27 as well as in those tenanted lands devoted to other
crops with the exceptions and/or qualifications provided for in Sections 4 and 35 of the Code of
Agrarian Reforms.

Section 2. In all cases covered by Section 1 hereof, all agricultural leasehold contracts shall,
upon demand by either party, be reduced in writing and shall be registered in the form and
manner provided for in the Code of Agrarian Reforms: Provided, That the leasehold contract
may be acknowledged either before the municipal judge of the municipality where the land is
situated or before the field lawyer of the Department of Agrarian Reform duly commissioned as
a Notary Public for the province/city where the land is situated.

Section 3. Any landowner, landholder, civil law, lessee, legal possessor, usufructuary, or any
person acting for and in his behalf, who refuse upon the demand by the tenant to comply with the
provisions of Section 1 of this Decree by continuing and maintaining the share tenancy system,
or any person who induces another to enter into a share tenancy contract, relationship or
arrangement shall, upon conviction, suffer the penalty of two (2) years imprisonment or a fine of
not more than P5,000 or both in the discretion of the court: Provided, That the execution of a
share tenancy contract shall be considered prima facie evidence of such inducement. In the case
of judicial persons, the manager or the person who has charge of the management or
administration of the property, or in his absence the person acting in his stead, shall be liable
under this Section.

Section 4. In case the tenant refuses to enter into a leasehold contract, he may be proceeded
against before the Court of Agrarian Relations under the provisions of Section 4, Republic Act
No. 3844, as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, and other pertinent provisions of existing law.

Section 5. Violations of the penal provisions of this Decree shall exclusively be cognizable by
the Court of Agrarian Relations.

Section 6. Presidential Decree No. 1040 and all other laws, decrees, orders, and rules and
regulations, or parts thereof inconsistent herewith are hereby repealed, amended or modified
accordingly.

Section 7. This Decree shall take effect immediately.

Done in the City of Manila, this 10th day of June, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and
seventy-eight.

III. Land Acquisition

A. Legal Provisions

RA 6657 Section 3. Definitions. For the purpose of this Act, unless the context
indicates otherwise:

(a) Agrarian Reform means redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced,
to farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial
arrangement, to include the totality of factors and support services designed to lift the
economic status of the beneficiaries and all other arrangements alternative to the physical
redistribution of lands, such as production or profit-sharing, labor administration, and the
distribution of shares of stocks, which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of
the fruits of the lands they work.

(b) Agriculture, Agricultural Enterprise 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.
(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.

(d) Agrarian Dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether
leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including
disputes concerning farmworkers' associations or representation of persons in
negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of
such tenurial arrangements.

It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and
other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers,
tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the
proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and
lessee.

(e) Idle or Abandoned Land refers to any agricultural land not cultivated, tilled or
developed to produce any crop nor 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 this Act, but does not include land that
has become permanently or regularly devoted to non-agricultural purposes.t does not
include 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 or other economic purpose.

(f) Farmer refers to a natural person whose primary livelihood is cultivation of land or the
production of agricultural crops, either by himself, or primarily with the assistance of his
immediate farm household, whether the land is owned by him, or by another person
under a leasehold or share tenancy agreement or arrangement with the owner thereof.

(g) Farmworker is a natural person who renders service for value as an employee or
laborer in an agricultural enterprise or farm regardless of whether his compensation is
paid on a daily, weekly, monthly or "pakyaw" basis. The term includes an individual
whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, a pending agrarian
dispute and who has not obtained a substantially equivalent and regular farm
employment.

(h) Regular Farmworker is a natural person who is employed on a permanent basis by an

agricultural enterprise or farm.

(i) Seasonal Farmworker is a natural person who is employed on a recurrent, periodic or

intermittent basis by an agricultural enterprise or farm, whether as a permanent or a non-
permanent laborer, such as "dumaan", "sacada", and the like.

(j) Other Farmworker is a farmworker who does not fall under paragraphs (g), (h) and (i).
(k) Cooperatives shall refer to organizations composed primarily of small agricultural
producers, farmers, farmworkers, or other agrarian reform beneficiaries who voluntarily
organize themselves for the purpose of pooling land, human, technological, financial or
other economic resources, and operated on the principle of one member, one vote. A
juridical person may be a member of a cooperative, with the same rights and duties as a
natural person.

RA 6657 Section 4. Scope. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1989 shall
cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private
agricultural lands, as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229,
including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.

More specifically the following lands are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Program:

(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for
agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be
undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into account ecological,
developmental and equity considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific
limits of the public domain.

(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by
Congress in the preceding paragraph;

(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and

(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural
products raised or that can be raised thereon.

RA 6657 Section 7. Priorities. The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in

coordination with the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) shall plan and
program the acquisition and distribution of all agricultural lands through a period of ten
(10) years from the effectivity of this Act. Lands shall be acquired and distributed as
follows:

Phase One: Rice and corn lands under Presidential Decree 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 Government (PCGG); and all other lands owned by the
government devoted to or suitable for agriculture, which shall be acquired and distributed
immediately upon the effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to be completed
within a period of not more than four (4) years;
 Phase Two: All alienable and disposable public agricultural lands; all arable public
agricultural lands under agro-forest, pasture and agricultural leases already cultivated and
planted to crops in accordance with Section 6, Article XIII of the Constitution; 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, insofar as the excess hectarage
is concerned, to implement principally the rights of farmers and regular farmworkers,
who are the landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till, which shall be
distributed immediately upon the effectivity of this Act, with the implementation to be
completed within a period of not more than four (4) years.

Phase Three: All other private agricultural lands commencing with large landholdings
and proceeding to medium and small landholdings under the following schedule:

(a) Landholdings above twenty-four (24) hectares up to fifty (50) hectares, to begin on
the fourth (4th) year from the effectivity of this Act and to be completed within three (3)
years; and

(b) Landholdings from the retention limit up to twenty-four (24) hectares, to begin on the
sixth (6th) year from the effectivity of this Act and to be completed within four (4) years;
to implement principally the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless,
to own directly or collectively the lands they till.

The schedule of acquisition and redistribution of all agricultural lands covered by this
program shall be made in accordance with the above order of priority, which shall be
provided in the implementing rules to be prepared by the Presidential Agrarian Reform
Council (PARC), taking into consideration the following; the need to distribute land to
the tillers at the earliest practicable time; the need to enhance agricultural productivity;
and the availability of funds and resources to implement and support the program.

In any case, the PARC, upon recommendation by the Provincial Agrarian Reform
Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM), may declare certain provinces or region as
priority land reform areas, in which the acquisition and distribution of private agricultural
lands therein may be implemented ahead of the above schedules.

In effecting the transfer within these guidelines, priority must be given to lands that are
tenanted.

The PARC shall establish guidelines to implement the above priorities and distribution
scheme, including the determination of who are qualified beneficiaries: provided, that an
owner-tiller may be a beneficiary of the land he does not own but is actually cultivating
to the extent of the difference between the area of the land he owns and the award ceiling
of three (3) hectares.

B. Modes of Acquisition
RA 6657 Section 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands. For purposes of
acquisition of private lands, the following procedures shall be followed:

(a) After having identified the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries, the DAR shall
send its notice to acquire the land to the owners thereof, by personal delivery or
registered mail, and post the same in a conspicuous place in the municipal building and
barangay hall of the place where the property is located. Said notice shall contain the
offer of the DAR to pay a corresponding value in accordance with the valuation set forth
in Sections 17, 18, and other pertinent provisions hereof.

(b) Within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of written notice by personal delivery
or registered mail, the landowner, his administrator or representative shall inform the
DAR of his acceptance or rejection of the offer.

(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the Land Bank of the Philippines
(LBP) shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after
he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the
Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.

(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct summary administrative
proceedings to determine the compensation for the land requiring the landowner, the LBP
and other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just compensation for the land,
within fifteen (15) days from the receipt of the notice. After the expiration of the above
period, the matter is deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case
within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.

(e) 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.

(f) Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper
jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.

RA 6657 Section 17. Determination of Just Compensation. In determining just

compensation, the cost of acquisition of the land, the current value of the like properties,
its nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations,
and the assessment made by government assessors shall be considered. The social and
economic benefits contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the
Government to the property as well as the non-payment of taxes or loans secured from
any government financing institution on the said land shall be considered as additional
factors to determine its valuation.

RA 6657 Section 19. Incentives for Voluntary Offers for Sales. Landowners, other
than banks and other financial institutions, who voluntarily offer their lands for sale shall
be entitled to an additional five percent (5%) cash payment.
RA 6657 Section 20. Voluntary Land Transfer. Landowners of agricultural lands
subject to acquisition under this Act may enter into a voluntary arrangement for direct
transfer of their lands to qualified beneficiaries subject to the following guidelines:

(a) All notices for voluntary land transfer must be submitted to the DAR within the first
year of the implementation of the CARP. Negotiations between the landowners and
qualified beneficiaries covering any voluntary land transfer which remain unresolved
after one (1) year shall not be recognized and such land shall instead be acquired by the
government and transferred pursuant to this Act.

(b) The terms and conditions of such transfer shall not be less favorable to the transferee
than those of the government's standing offer to purchase from the landowner and to
resell to the beneficiaries, if such offers have been made and are fully known to both
parties.

(c) The voluntary agreement shall include sanctions for non-compliance by either party
and shall be duly recorded and its implementation monitored by the DAR.

Jurisprudence

Roxas and Co., Inc. vs Court of Appeals

GR 127876 December 17, 1999

Facts: This case involves three haciendas in Nasugbu Batangas owned by petitioner and
the validity of the acquisition of these by the government under RA 6657 or the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 9188. Petitioner Roxas and Co. is a domestic
corporation and is the registered owner of three haciendas, namely Hacienda Palico,
Banilad and Caylaway. The events of this case occurred during the incumbency of then
President Aquino, in the exercise of legislative power, the President signed on July 22,
1987, Proclamation No. 131 instituting a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and
Executive Order No. 229 providing the mechanisms necessary to initially implement the
program. Congress passed Republic Act No. 6657; the Act was signed by the President
on June 10, 1988 and took effect on June 15, 1988. Before the laws effectivity, petitioner
filed with respondent DAR a voluntary offer to sell Hacienda Caylaway pursuant to the
provisions of EO No. 229. Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later placed under
compulsory acquisition by respondent DAR in accordance with the CARL.

Petitioner was informed that 1,023.999 hectares of its land in Hacienda Palico were
subject to immediate acquisition and distribution by the government under the CARL.
Meanwhile in a letter dated May 4, 1993, petitioner applied with the DAR for conversion
of Haciendas Palico and Banilad from agricultural to non-agricultural lands under the
provisions of the CARL. Despite petitioners application for conversion, respondent DAR
proceeded with the acquisition of the two Haciendas. The Land Bank of the Philippines
trust accounts as compensation for Hacienda Palico were replaced by respondent DAR
with cash and LBP bonds. On October 22, 1993, from the title of the Hacienda,
respondent DAR registered Certificate of Land Ownership Award No. 6654. On October
30, 1993, CLOAs were distributed to farmer beneficiaries. On December 18, 1991, the
LBP certified certain amounts in cash and LBP bonds had been earmarked as
compensation for petitioners land in Hacienda Banilad. On May 4, 1993, petitioner
applied for conversion of both Haciendas Palico and Banilad. Hacienda Caylaway was
voluntarily offered for sale to the government on May 6, 1988 before the effectivity of
the CARL. Nevertheless, on August 6, 1992, petitioner, through its President, Eduardo
Roxas, sent a letter to the Secretary of respondent DAR withdrawing its VOS of
Hacienda Caylaway. The Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu, Batangas allegedly
authorized the reclassification of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to non-
agricultural. As a result, petitioner informed respondent DAR that it was applying for
conversion of Hacienda Caylaway from agricultural to other uses. Respondent DAR
Secretary informed petitioner that a reclassification of the land would not exempt it from
agrarian reform.

On August 24, 1993, petitioner instituted a case with respondent DAR Adjudication
Board praying for the cancellation of the CLOAs issued by respondent DAR in the name
of the farmers. Petitioner alleged that the Municipality of Nasugbu, where the haciendas
are located, had been declared a tourist zone, that the land is not suitable for agricultural
production, and that the Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu had reclassified the land to non-
agricultural. Respondent DARAB held that the case involved the prejudicial question of
whether the property was subject to agrarian reform; hence, this question should be
submitted to the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform for determination.

Petitioner filed a petition with the CA. It questioned the expropriation of its properties
under the CARL and the denial of due process in the acquisition of its landholdings.
Meanwhile, the petition for conversion of the three haciendas was denied. Petitioners
petition was dismissed by the CA. Hence, this recourse.

Issue: Whether or not the acquisition proceedings over the haciendas were valid and in
accordance with the law.

Held: No, for a valid implementation of the CAR Program, two notices are required first
the Notice of Coverage and letter of invitation to a preliminary conference sent to the
landowner, the representatives of the BARC, LBP, farmer beneficiaries and other
interested parties and second, the Notice of Acquisition sent to the landowner under
Section 16 of the CARL. The importance of the first notice, the Notice of Coverage and
the letter of invitation to the conference, and its actual conduct cannot be understated.
They are steps designed to comply with the requirements of administrative due process.
The implementation of the CARL is an exercise of the States police power and the
power of eminent domain. To the extent that the CARL prescribes retention limits to the
landowners, there is an exercise of police power for the regulation of private property in
accordance with the Constitution. But where, to carry out such regulation, the owners are
deprived of lands they own in excess of the maximum area allowed, there is also a taking
under the power of eminent domain. In this case, respondent DAR claims that it sent a
letter of invitation to petitioner corporation, through Jaime Pimentel, the administrator of
Hacienda Palico but he was not authorized as such by the corporation. The SC stressed
that the failure of respondent DAR to comply with the requisites of due process in the
acquisition proceedings does not give the SC the power to nullify the CLOAs already
issued to the farmer beneficiaries. The Court said, to assume the power is to short-circuit
the administrative process, which has yet to run its regular course. Respondent DAR
must be given the chance to correct its procedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings.
In Hacienda Palico alone, CLOA's were issued to 177 farmer beneficiaries in 1993. Since
then until the present, these farmers have been cultivating their lands. It goes against the
basic precepts of justice, fairness and equity to deprive these people, through no fault of
their own, of the land they till. The petition is granted in part and the acquisition
proceedings over the three haciendas are nullified for respondent DAR's failure to
observe due process.

Hacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), et al.,
G.R. No. 171101, July 5, 2011

I. THE FACTS

In 1958, the Spanish owners of Compaia General de Tabacos de Filipinas (Tabacalera)

sold Hacienda Luisita and the Central Azucarera de Tarlac, the sugar mill of the
hacienda, to the Tarlac Development Corporation (Tadeco), then owned and controlled
by the Jose Cojuangco Sr. Group. The Central Bank of the Philippines assisted Tadeco in
obtaining a dollar loan from a US bank. Also, the GSIS extended a PhP5.911 million loan
in favor of Tadeco to pay the peso price component of the sale, with the condition that
the lots comprising the Hacienda Luisita be subdivided by the applicant-corporation and
sold at cost to the tenants, should there be any, and whenever conditions should exist
warranting such action under the provisions of the Land Tenure Act. Tadeco however
did not comply with this condition.

On May 7, 1980, the martial law administration filed a suit before the Manila RTC
against Tadeco, et al., for them to surrender Hacienda Luisita to the then Ministry of
Agrarian Reform (MAR) so that the land can be distributed to farmers at cost.
Responding, Tadeco alleged that Hacienda Luisita does not have tenants, besides which
sugar lands of which the hacienda consisted are not covered by existing agrarian
reform legislations. The Manila RTC rendered judgment ordering Tadeco to surrender
Hacienda Luisita to the MAR. Therefrom, Tadeco appealed to the CA.

On March 17, 1988, during the administration of President Corazon Cojuangco Aquino,
the Office of the Solicitor General moved to withdraw the governments case against
Tadeco, et al. The CA dismissed the case, subject to the PARCs approval of Tadecos
proposed stock distribution plan (SDP) in favor of its farmworkers. [Under EO 229 and
later RA 6657, Tadeco had the option of availing stock distribution as an alternative
modality to actual land transfer to the farmworkers.] On August 23, 1988, Tadeco
organized a spin-off corporation, herein petitioner HLI, as vehicle to facilitate stock
acquisition by the farmworkers. For this purpose, Tadeco conveyed to HLI the
agricultural land portion (4,915.75 hectares) and other farm-related properties of
Hacienda Luisita in exchange for HLI shares of stock.

On May 9, 1989, some 93% of the then farmworker-beneficiaries (FWBs) complement of

Hacienda Luisita signified in a referendum their acceptance of the proposed HLIs Stock
Distribution Option Plan (SODP). On May 11, 1989, the SDOA was formally entered
into by Tadeco, HLI, and the 5,848 qualified FWBs. This attested to by then DAR
Secretary Philip Juico. The SDOA embodied the basis and mechanics of HLIs SDP,
which was eventually approved by the PARC after a follow-up referendum conducted by
the DAR on October 14, 1989, in which 5,117 FWBs, out of 5,315 who participated,
opted to receive shares in HLI.

On August 15, 1995, HLI applied for the conversion of 500 hectares of land of the
hacienda from agricultural to industrial use, pursuant to Sec. 65 of RA 6657. The DAR
approved the application on August 14, 1996, subject to payment of three percent (3%) of
the gross selling price to the FWBs and to HLIs continued compliance with its
undertakings under the SDP, among other conditions.

On December 13, 1996, HLI, in exchange for subscription of 12,000,000 shares of stocks
of Centennary Holdings, Inc. (Centennary), ceded 300 hectares of the converted area to
the latter. Subsequently, Centennary sold the entire 300 hectares for PhP750 million to
Luisita Industrial Park Corporation (LIPCO), which used it in developing an industrial
complex. From this area was carved out 2 parcels, for which 2 separate titles were issued
in the name of LIPCO. Later, LIPCO transferred these 2 parcels to the Rizal Commercial
Banking Corporation (RCBC) in payment of LIPCOs PhP431,695,732.10 loan
obligations to RCBC. LIPCOs titles were cancelled and new ones were issued to RCBC.
Apart from the 500 hectares, another 80.51 hectares were later detached from Hacienda
Luisita and acquired by the government as part of the Subic-Clark-Tarlac Expressway
(SCTEX) complex. Thus, 4,335.75 hectares remained of the original 4,915 hectares
Tadeco ceded to HLI.

Such, was the state of things when two separate petitions reached the DAR in the latter
part of 2003. The first was filed by the Supervisory Group of HLI (Supervisory Group),
praying for a renegotiation of the SDOA, or, in the alternative, its revocation. The second
petition, praying for the revocation and nullification of the SDOA and the distribution of
the lands in the hacienda, was filed by Alyansa ng mga Manggagawang Bukid ng
Hacienda Luisita (AMBALA). The DAR then constituted a Special Task Force (STF) to
attend to issues relating to the SDP of HLI. After investigation and evaluation, the STF
found that HLI has not complied with its obligations under RA 6657 despite the
implementation of the SDP. On December 22, 2005, the PARC issued the assailed
Resolution No. 2005-32-01, recalling/revoking the SDO plan of Tadeco/HLI. It further
resolved that the subject lands be forthwith placed under the compulsory coverage or
mandated land acquisition scheme of the CARP.

From the foregoing resolution, HLI sought reconsideration. Its motion notwithstanding,
HLI also filed a petition before the Supreme Court in light of what it considers as the
DARs hasty placing of Hacienda Luisita under CARP even before PARC could rule or
even read the motion for reconsideration. PARC would eventually deny HLIs motion for
reconsideration via Resolution No. 2006-34-01 dated May 3, 2006.

II. THE ISSUES

(1) Does the PARC possess jurisdiction to recall or revoke HLIs SDP?

(2) [Issue raised by intervenor FARM (group of farmworkers)] Is Sec. 31 of RA 6657,

which allows stock transfer in lieu of outright land transfer, unconstitutional?

(3) Is the revocation of the HLIs SDP valid? [Did PARC gravely abuse its discretion in
revoking the subject SDP and placing the hacienda under CARPs compulsory
acquisition and distribution scheme?]

(4) Should those portions of the converted land within Hacienda Luisita that RCBC and
LIPCO acquired by purchase be excluded from the coverage of the assailed PARC
resolution? [Did the PARC gravely abuse its discretion when it included LIPCOs and
RCBCs respective properties that once formed part of Hacienda Luisita under the CARP
compulsory acquisition scheme via the assailed Notice of Coverage?]

III. THE RULING

[The Court DENIED the petition of HLI and AFFIRMED the PARC resolution placing
the lands subject of HLIs SDP under compulsory coverage on mandated land acquisition
scheme of the CARP, with the MODIFICATION that the original 6,296 qualified FWBs
were given the option to remain as stockholders of HLI. It also excluded from the
mandatory CARP coverage that part of Hacienda Luisita that had been acquired by
RCBC and LIPCO.]

(1) YES, the PARC has jurisdiction to revoke HLIs SDP under the doctrine of
necessary implication.

Under Sec. 31 of RA 6657, as implemented by DAO 10, the authority to approve the plan
for stock distribution of the corporate landowner belongs to PARC. Contrary to petitioner
HLIs posture, PARC also has the power to revoke the SDP which it previously
approved. It may be, as urged, that RA 6657 or other executive issuances on agrarian
reform do not explicitly vest the PARC with the power to revoke/recall an approved SDP.
Such power or authority, however, is deemed possessed by PARC under the principle of
necessary implication, a basic postulate that what is implied in a statute is as much a part
of it as that which is expressed.

Following the doctrine of necessary implication, it may be stated that the conferment of
express power to approve a plan for stock distribution of the agricultural land of
corporate owners necessarily includes the power to revoke or recall the approval of the
plan. To deny PARC such revocatory power would reduce it into a toothless agency of
CARP, because the very same agency tasked to ensure compliance by the corporate
landowner with the approved SDP would be without authority to impose sanctions for
non-compliance with it.

(2) NO, Sec. 31 of RA 6657 is not unconstitutional. [The Court actually refused
to pass upon the constitutional question because it was not raised at the earliest
opportunity and because the resolution thereof is not the lis mota of the case. Moreover,
the issue has been rendered moot and academic since SDO is no longer one of the modes
of acquisition under RA 9700.]
When the Court is called upon to exercise its power of judicial review over, and pass
upon the constitutionality of, acts of the executive or legislative departments, it does so
only when the following essential requirements are first met, to wit: (1) there is an actual
case or controversy; (2) that the constitutional question is raised at the earliest possible
opportunity by a proper party or one with locus standi; and (3) the issue of
constitutionality must be the very lis mota of the case.

Not all the foregoing requirements are satisfied in the case at bar.

While there is indeed an actual case or controversy, intervenor FARM, composed of a

small minority of 27 farmers, has yet to explain its failure to challenge the
constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657 as early as November 21, 1989 when PARC
approved the SDP of Hacienda Luisita or at least within a reasonable time thereafter, and
why its members received benefits from the SDP without so much of a protest. It was
only on December 4, 2003 or 14 years after approval of the SDP that said plan and
approving resolution were sought to be revoked, but not, to stress, by FARM or any of its
members, but by petitioner AMBALA. Furthermore, the AMBALA petition did NOT
question the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, but concentrated on the purported
flaws and gaps in the subsequent implementation of the SDP. Even the public
respondents, as represented by the Solicitor General, did not question the constitutionality
of the provision. On the other hand, FARM, whose 27 members formerly belonged to
AMBALA, raised the constitutionality of Sec. 31 only on May 3, 2007 when it filed its
Supplemental Comment with the Court. Thus, it took FARM some eighteen (18) years
from November 21, 1989 before it challenged the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657
which is quite too late in the day. The FARM members slept on their rights and even
accepted benefits from the SDP with nary a complaint on the alleged unconstitutionality
of Sec. 31 upon which the benefits were derived. The Court cannot now be goaded into
resolving a constitutional issue that FARM failed to assail after the lapse of a long period
of time and the occurrence of numerous events and activities which resulted from the
application of an alleged unconstitutional legal provision.

The last but the most important requisite that the constitutional issue must be the very lis
mota of the case does not likewise obtain. The lis mota aspect is not present, the
constitutional issue tendered not being critical to the resolution of the case. The
unyielding rule has been to avoid, whenever plausible, an issue assailing the
constitutionality of a statute or governmental act. If some other grounds exist by which
judgment can be made without touching the constitutionality of a law, such recourse is
favored.

The lis mota in this case, proceeding from the basic positions originally taken by
AMBALA (to which the FARM members previously belonged) and the Supervisory
Group, is the alleged non-compliance by HLI with the conditions of the SDP to support a
plea for its revocation. And before the Court, the lis mota is whether or not PARC acted
in grave abuse of discretion when it ordered the recall of the SDP for such non-
compliance and the fact that the SDP, as couched and implemented, offends certain
constitutional and statutory provisions. To be sure, any of these key issues may be
resolved without plunging into the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657. Moreover,
looking deeply into the underlying petitions of AMBALA, et al., it is not the said section
per se that is invalid, but rather it is the alleged application of the said provision in the
SDP that is flawed.
It may be well to note at this juncture that Sec. 5 of RA 9700, amending Sec. 7 of RA
6657, has all but superseded Sec. 31 of RA 6657 vis--vis the stock distribution
component of said Sec. 31. In its pertinent part, Sec. 5 of RA 9700 provides: [T]hat after
June 30, 2009, the modes of acquisition shall be limited to voluntary offer to sell and
compulsory acquisition. Thus, for all intents and purposes, the stock distribution scheme
under Sec. 31 of RA 6657 is no longer an available option under existing law. The
question of whether or not it is unconstitutional should be a moot issue

(3) YES, the revocation of the HLIs SDP valid. [NO, the PARC did NOT
gravely abuse its discretion in revoking the subject SDP and placing the hacienda under
CARPs compulsory acquisition and distribution scheme.]

The revocation of the approval of the SDP is valid: (1) the mechanics and timelines of
HLIs stock distribution violate DAO 10 because the minimum individual allocation of
each original FWB of 18,804.32 shares was diluted as a result of the use of man days
and the hiring of additional farmworkers; (2) the 30-year timeframe for HLI-to-FWBs
stock transfer is contrary to what Sec. 11 of DAO 10 prescribes.

In our review and analysis of par. 3 of the SDOA on the mechanics and timelines of stock
distribution, We find that it violates two (2) provisions of DAO 10. Par. 3 of the SDOA
states:

3. At the end of each fiscal year, for a period of 30 years, the SECOND PARTY [HLI]
shall arrange with the FIRST PARTY [TDC] the acquisition and distribution to the
THIRD PARTY [FWBs] on the basis of number of days worked and at no cost to them of
one-thirtieth (1/30) of 118,391,976.85 shares of the capital stock of the SECOND
PARTY that are presently owned and held by the FIRST PARTY, until such time as the
entire block of 118,391,976.85 shares shall have been completely acquired and
distributed to the THIRD PARTY.

[I]t is clear as day that the original 6,296 FWBs, who were qualified beneficiaries at the
time of the approval of the SDP, suffered from watering down of shares. As determined
earlier, each original FWB is entitled to 18,804.32 HLI shares. The original FWBs got
less than the guaranteed 18,804.32 HLI shares per beneficiary, because the acquisition
and distribution of the HLI shares were based on man days or number of days
worked by the FWB in a years time. As explained by HLI, a beneficiary needs to work
for at least 37 days in a fiscal year before he or she becomes entitled to HLI shares. If it
falls below 37 days, the FWB, unfortunately, does not get any share at year end. The
number of HLI shares distributed varies depending on the number of days the FWBs
were allowed to work in one year. Worse, HLI hired farmworkers in addition to the
original 6,296 FWBs, such that, as indicated in the Compliance dated August 2, 2010
submitted by HLI to the Court, the total number of farmworkers of HLI as of said date
stood at 10,502. All these farmworkers, which include the original 6,296 FWBs, were
given shares out of the 118,931,976.85 HLI shares representing the 33.296% of the total
outstanding capital stock of HLI. Clearly, the minimum individual allocation of each
original FWB of 18,804.32 shares was diluted as a result of the use of man days and
the hiring of additional farmworkers.

Going into another but related matter, par. 3 of the SDOA expressly providing for a 30-
year timeframe for HLI-to-FWBs stock transfer is an arrangement contrary to what Sec.
11 of DAO 10 prescribes. Said Sec. 11 provides for the implementation of the approved
stock distribution plan within three (3) months from receipt by the corporate landowner
of the approval of the plan by PARC. In fact, based on the said provision, the transfer of
the shares of stock in the names of the qualified FWBs should be recorded in the stock
and transfer books and must be submitted to the SEC within sixty (60) days from
implementation.

To the Court, there is a purpose, which is at once discernible as it is practical, for the
three-month threshold. Remove this timeline and the corporate landowner can veritably
evade compliance with agrarian reform by simply deferring to absurd limits the
implementation of the stock distribution scheme.

Evidently, the land transfer beneficiaries are given thirty (30) years within which to pay
the cost of the land thus awarded them to make it less cumbersome for them to pay the
government. To be sure, the reason underpinning the 30-year accommodation does not
apply to corporate landowners in distributing shares of stock to the qualified
beneficiaries, as the shares may be issued in a much shorter period of time.

Taking into account the above discussion, the revocation of the SDP by PARC should be
upheld [because of violations of] DAO 10. It bears stressing that under Sec. 49 of RA
6657, the PARC and the DAR have the power to issue rules and regulations, substantive
or procedural. Being a product of such rule-making power, DAO 10 has the force and
effect of law and must be duly complied with. The PARC is, therefore, correct in
revoking the SDP. Consequently, the PARC Resolution No. 89-12-2 dated November 21,
l989 approving the HLIs SDP is nullified and voided.

(4) YES, those portions of the converted land within Hacienda Luisita that RCBC and
LIPCO acquired by purchase should be excluded from the coverage of the assailed PARC
resolution.

[T]here are two (2) requirements before one may be considered a purchaser in good faith,
namely: (1) that the purchaser buys the property of another without notice that some other
person has a right to or interest in such property; and (2) that the purchaser pays a full and
fair price for the property at the time of such purchase or before he or she has notice of
the claim of another.

It can rightfully be said that both LIPCO and RCBC arebased on the above
requirements and with respect to the adverted transactions of the converted land in
questionpurchasers in good faith for value entitled to the benefits arising from such
status.

First, at the time LIPCO purchased the entire three hundred (300) hectares of industrial
land, there was no notice of any supposed defect in the title of its transferor, Centennary,
or that any other person has a right to or interest in such property. In fact, at the time
LIPCO acquired said parcels of land, only the following annotations appeared on the
TCT in the name of Centennary: the Secretarys Certificate in favor of Teresita Lopa, the
Secretarys Certificate in favor of Shintaro Murai, and the conversion of the property
from agricultural to industrial and residential use.
The same is true with respect to RCBC. At the time it acquired portions of Hacienda
Luisita, only the following general annotations appeared on the TCTs of LIPCO: the
Deed of Restrictions, limiting its use solely as an industrial estate; the Secretarys
Certificate in favor of Koji Komai and Kyosuke Hori; and the Real Estate Mortgage in
favor of RCBC to guarantee the payment of PhP 300 million.

To be sure, intervenor RCBC and LIPCO knew that the lots they bought were subjected
to CARP coverage by means of a stock distribution plan, as the DAR conversion order
was annotated at the back of the titles of the lots they acquired. However, they are of the
honest belief that the subject lots were validly converted to commercial or industrial
purposes and for which said lots were taken out of the CARP coverage subject of PARC
Resolution No. 89-12-2 and, hence, can be legally and validly acquired by them. After
all, Sec. 65 of RA 6657 explicitly allows conversion and disposition of agricultural lands
previously covered by CARP land acquisition after the lapse of five (5) years from its
award when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural
purposes or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic
value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes. Moreover, DAR notified all the
affected parties, more particularly the FWBs, and gave them the opportunity to comment
or oppose the proposed conversion. DAR, after going through the necessary processes,
granted the conversion of 500 hectares of Hacienda Luisita pursuant to its primary
jurisdiction under Sec. 50 of RA 6657 to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform
matters and its original exclusive jurisdiction over all matters involving the
implementation of agrarian reform. The DAR conversion order became final and
executory after none of the FWBs interposed an appeal to the CA. In this factual setting,
RCBC and LIPCO purchased the lots in question on their honest and well-founded belief
that the previous registered owners could legally sell and convey the lots though these
were previously subject of CARP coverage. Ergo, RCBC and LIPCO acted in good faith
in acquiring the subject lots.

And second, both LIPCO and RCBC purchased portions of Hacienda Luisita for value.
Undeniably, LIPCO acquired 300 hectares of land from Centennary for the amount of
PhP750 million pursuant to a Deed of Sale dated July 30, 1998. On the other hand, in a
Deed of Absolute Assignment dated November 25, 2004, LIPCO conveyed portions of
Hacienda Luisita in favor of RCBC by way of dacion en pago to pay for a loan of
PhP431,695,732.10.

In relying upon the above-mentioned approvals, proclamation and conversion order, both
RCBC and LIPCO cannot be considered at fault for believing that certain portions of
Hacienda Luisita are industrial/commercial lands and are, thus, outside the ambit of
CARP. The PARC, and consequently DAR, gravely abused its discretion when it placed
LIPCOs and RCBCs property which once formed part of Hacienda Luisita under the
CARP compulsory acquisition scheme via the assailed Notice of Coverage.

[The Court went on to apply the operative fact doctrine to determine what should be done
in the aftermath of its disposition of the above-enumerated issues:

While We affirm the revocation of the SDP on Hacienda Luisita subject of PARC
Resolution Nos. 2005-32-01 and 2006-34-01, the Court cannot close its eyes to certain
 operative facts that had occurred in the interim. Pertinently, the operative fact
doctrine realizes that, in declaring a law or executive action null and void, or, by
extension, no longer without force and effect, undue harshness and resulting unfairness
must be avoided. This is as it should realistically be, since rights might have accrued in
favor of natural or juridical persons and obligations justly incurred in the meantime. The
actual existence of a statute or executive act is, prior to such a determination, an operative
fact and may have consequences which cannot justly be ignored; the past cannot always
be erased by a new judicial declaration.

While the assailed PARC resolutions effectively nullifying the Hacienda Luisita SDP are
upheld, the revocation must, by application of the operative fact principle, give way to
the right of the original 6,296 qualified FWBs to choose whether they want to remain as
HLI stockholders or not. The Court cannot turn a blind eye to the fact that in 1989, 93%
of the FWBs agreed to the SDOA (or the MOA), which became the basis of the SDP
approved by PARC per its Resolution No. 89-12-2 dated November 21, 1989. From 1989
to 2005, the FWBs were said to have received from HLI salaries and cash benefits,
hospital and medical benefits, 240-square meter homelots, 3% of the gross produce from
agricultural lands, and 3% of the proceeds of the sale of the 500-hectare converted land
and the 80.51-hectare lot sold to SCTEX. HLI shares totaling 118,391,976.85 were
distributed as of April 22, 2005. On August 6, 20l0, HLI and private respondents
submitted a Compromise Agreement, in which HLI gave the FWBs the option of
acquiring a piece of agricultural land or remain as HLI stockholders, and as a matter of
fact, most FWBs indicated their choice of remaining as stockholders. These facts and
circumstances tend to indicate that some, if not all, of the FWBs may actually desire to
continue as HLI shareholders. A matter best left to their own discretion.]

[WHEREFORE, the instant petition is DENIED. PARC Resolution No. 2005-32-01

dated December 22, 2005 and Resolution No. 2006-34-01 dated May 3, 2006, placing the
lands subject of HLIs SDP under compulsory coverage on mandated land acquisition
scheme of the CARP, are hereby AFFIRMED with the MODIFICATION that the
original 6,296 qualified FWBs shall have the option to remain as stockholders of HLI.
DAR shall immediately schedule meetings with the said 6,296 FWBs and explain to them
the effects, consequences and legal or practical implications of their choice, after which
the FWBs will be asked to manifest, in secret voting, their choices in the ballot, signing
their signatures or placing their thumbmarks, as the case may be, over their printed
names.]

C. Retention Rights

Section 6. Retention Limits. Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may
own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of
which shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as
commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the
Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall
retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded
to each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at
least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly
managing the farm: provided, that landowners whose lands have been covered by
Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the areas originally retained by them
thereunder: 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.

The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall
pertain to the landowner: provided, however, that in case the area selected for retention
by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to
remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or
comparable features.n case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be
considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this Act.n case
the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as a
leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this option
within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the
area for retention.

In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on the land prior to the
approval of this Act shall be respected.

Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management, contract or
transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of
the Act shall be null and void: provided, however, that those executed prior to this Act
shall be valid only when registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3)
months after the effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds shall inform the
Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) within thirty (30) days of any transaction
involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares.

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 27 October 21, 1972

DECREEING THE EMANCIPATION OF TENANTS FROM THE BONDAGE OF

THE SOIL, TRANSFERRING TO THEM THE OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND
THEY TILL AND PROVIDING THE INSTRUMENTS AND MECHANISM
THEREFOR

In as much as the old concept of land ownership by a few has spawned valid and
legitimate grievances that gave rise to violent conflict and social tension,

The redress of such legitimate grievances being one of the fundamental objectives of the
New Society,

Since Reformation must start with the emancipation of the tiller of the soil from his
bondage,

NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines, by

virtue of the powers vested in me by the Constitution as Commander-in-Chief of all the
Armed Forces of the Philippines, and pursuant to Proclamation No. 1081, dated
September 21, 1972, and General Order No. 1 dated September 22, 1972, as amended do
hereby decree and order the emancipation of all tenant farmers as of this day, October 21,
1972:
This shall apply to tenant farmers of private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice
and corn under a system of sharecrop or lease-tenancy, whether classified as landed estate
or not;

The tenant farmer, whether in land classified as landed estate or not, shall be deemed
owner of a portion constituting a family-size farm of five (5) hectares if not irrigated and
three (3) hectares if irrigated;

In all cases, the landowner may retain an area of not more than seven (7) hectares if such
landowner is cultivating such area or will now cultivate it;

For the purpose of determining the cost of the land to be transferred to the tenant-farmer
pursuant to this Decree, the value of the land shall be equivalent to two and one-half (2
1/2) times the average harvest of three normal crop years immediately preceding the
promulgation of this Decree;

The total cost of the land, including interest at the rate of six (6) per centum per annum,
shall be paid by the tenant in fifteen (15) years of fifteen (15) equal annual amortizations;

In case of default, the amortization due shall be paid by the farmers' cooperative in which
the defaulting tenant-farmer is a member, with the cooperative having a right of recourse
against him;

The government shall guaranty such amortizations with shares of stock in government-
owned and government-controlled corporations;

No title to the land owned by the tenant-farmers under this Decree shall be actually
issued to a tenant-farmer unless and until the tenant-farmer has become a full-fledged
member of a duly recognized farmer's cooperative;

Title to land acquired pursuant to this Decree or the Land Reform Program of the
Government shall not be transferable except by hereditary succession or to the
Government in accordance with the provisions of this Decree, the Code of Agrarian
Reforms and other existing laws and regulations;

The Department of Agrarian Reform through its Secretary is hereby empowered to

promulgate rules and regulations for the implementation of this Decree.

All laws, executive orders, decrees and rules and regulations, or parts thereof,
inconsistent with this Decree are hereby repealed and or modified accordingly.

Done in the City of Manila, this 21st day of October, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen
hundred and seventy-two.

Section 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. Lands actually, directly and exclusively
used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish
sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds, and mangroves, national defense, school
sites and campuses including experimental farm stations operated by public or private
schools for educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research and pilot production
centers, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic centers
appurtenant thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal
farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and quarantine
centers and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already
developed shall be exempt from the coverage of the Act.

DAR AO 11 Series of 1990 see attachments

DAR AO 2 Series of 2003 see attachments

DAR AO 4 Series of 1991 see attachments