Agrarian Reform Law Class

Black Font – PPT slides Common good - broad term and it involves with the time.
Blue Font – Transcript Maleable notion such that common good, can vary from
time to time.
MODULE 1-A PRELIMINARY TOPICS AND CONCEPTS Because of the recent developments, common good has its
scope that set of laws which will help, not really the
population as a whole, but portion of the population that are
NATURE AND SUBJECT OF THE COURSE in the disadvantage.
TOPIC STRUCTURE
QUESTIONS TO TACKLE Protection to the weaker - those who have less in life should
1. What is the nature and subject of Social have more in law; goal of social legislation. Because they are
Legislation? at the disadvantage of the society. This affords protection to
2. What is the nature and subject of Agrarian Reform the weaker.
Law?
SOCIAL LEGISLATION: NATURE In this process, it does not mean we will deprive those who
Social Inequality are in the upper bracket of society. The importance of
 There exists a social inequality in all many aspects balancing act.
of life, more pertinently in wealth, status, and
power. In order for a social legislation to be valid, it does not aim
the common good and protection of the weaker, but also to
State as “Equalizer” balance the existing rights and privileges of those who are
 Social inequalities are – more often than not – affected.
caused by historical developments of the system
or lack thereof. The state has the power to rectify AGRARIAN REFORM IS A PIECE OF SOCIAL
that. LEGISLATION
Agrarian reform as social legislation
Social Legislation  Agrarian reform has characteristics of a social
 Laws passed. By congress to implement the non- legislation because of its nature and subject.
executory principle of social justice.
Addresses the fact that there exists social inequality in “REFORM”
many aspects of life, more on wealth, status in life and WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR REFORM?
power. we want to know why we need to know use the term
reform? And why is there a need for reform?
Because the disparity between wealth and power, so there’s EQUALITY
gap in status in life.  All Filipinos had equal access to land.
 Prior to colonization, all Filipinos had equal access
By nature, therefore, social legislation is a specie of laws to land and its fruits, more or less.
which are passed and used by the state being the All these changed when the Spaniards arrived.
supposedly equalizer of these social inequities.
CONQUEST
Social inequalities is somehow rooted in the system. The  Deprivation of access to land
state has the power to rectify inequities.  Subjugation and land-grabbing deprived many of
the Filipinos access to land
Social legislations are passed in order to implement this
role for the state as equalizer among the people in society. DIVIDE WITHIN
 Hacienda and Encomienda
SOCIAL LEGISLATION:  While conquerors sought to consolidate power and
SUBJECT wealth, some select “favored” Filipinos were
Common Good granted lands.
 Pieces of social legislation are passed with the Spanish system also implemented hacienda and
common good in mind. encomienda, these are large tracks of lands granted to very
few people who were favored by the Spanish govt. some
Protector to the Weaker who were selected, were granted huge tracks of land.
 Affording protection to the weaker sectors is the
main subject Hence, this system of encomienda happened, wherein
those. Select favored Filipinos were given to have other
Balancing Act Filipinos to work for them in those large tracks of lands,
 But doing so must not be confiscatory or however, those workers, will not get anything from there
oppressive. It must take into consideration existing work instead they are paid small. Who profits are those the
rights.
1
AGRARIAN REFORM / ATTY. FELONGCO I | NACUA, VINCENT JOHN V.
very few owners of land, there is a divide and disparity AGRICULTURAL LANDS
among the state.  Not all lands are subject of Agrarian Reform
NEW “BOSS” AGRARIAN REFORM:

 Arrival of Americans SUBJECT
 While supposed to liberate the Filipinos from the Restoration of Balance and Inequality
Spaniards. Americans instead became the new  “reform” implies that something is broken because
boss. it seeks to repair it for the better.
The Americans assumed through the treaty of Paris, the
legal authority from the Spaniards over the whole territory Therefore, agrarian reform and social legislation have one
of the Philippines. lands, ownership of lands were common denominator which is social justice. Social justice
preserved by the Americans because it favored them. – a policy or principle enshrined within the constitution
After the American freed us…
PRE-AGRARIAN REFOMR
 Imbalance and Inequality DENOMINATOR: SOCIAL JUSTICE
 Pre-agrarian reform efforts, the system is so Calalang vs Williams
broken that only a few-including the State – own  Social justice is the humanization of laws and the
lands while the rest do not. equalization of economic forces.
We were handed down a situation there is imbalance and
inequality. The system is so broken. SOCIAL JUSTICE:
We can say therefore, from the earliest time of equality WHAT IT IS NOT
where all Filipinos had equal access to their land and their  Not Communism
fruits (workers have direct relation to their output) TO a
 Not Despotism or Atomism
situation where there is gross inequality where land is
 Not Anarchy
consolidated and agricultural production alienated.
(workers do not have direct relation to their output.)
WHAT IT IS:
EQUALITY
 Humanization of laws
 All Filipinos, more or less, had equal access to lands
 Approximation of justice
and their fruits.
 Adoption of government measures for social
INEQUALITY
equilibrium
 Land ownership is consolidated and agricultural
Calalang vs Williams
production is alienated.
 The promotion of social justice, however, is to be
achieved not through a mistaken sympathy towards
AGRARIAN REFORM LAW
NATURE any given group. Social justice is "neither
communism, nor despotism, nor atomism, nor
Agricultural Policy
anarchy," but the humanization of laws and the
 Smaller land size managed and owned by farm
equalization of social and economic forces by the
workers produce greater agricultural efficiency.
State so that justice in its rational and
objectively secular conception may at least be
Redistributive Policy
approximated. Social justice means the promotion
 In order to achieve this agricultural policy, land
of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by the
redistribution is required.
Government of measures calculated to insure
Because of the consolidation of ownership of land, the
economic stability of all the competent elements of
impracticalities of absentee land ownership, agrarian
society, through the maintenance of a proper
reform law sees that as problematic, in order to change that
economic and social equilibrium in the
there has to be redistribution of agricultural lands.
interrelations of the members of the community,
constitutionally, through the adoption of measures
AGRARIAN REFORM
legally justifiable, or extra- constitutionally, through
There are four characteristics of Agrarian Reform:
the exercise of powers underlying the existence of all
POSITIVE ACT OF THE STATE
governments on the time-honored principle of salus
 Agrarian reform is a policy that is carried out by a
populi est suprema lex.
positive act of the state.
 Social justice, therefore, must be founded on the
POWERS OF THE STATE
recognition of the necessity of interdependence
 Implementation of Agrarian Reform involves the
among divers and diverse units of a society and of the
exercise of the powers of the State.
protection that should be equally and evenly
TRIPARTITE SET-UP extended to all groups as a combined force in our
 It is a set-up that is not purely contractual, but social and economic life, consistent with the
essentially involves three parties. fundamental and paramount objective of the state of
2
promoting the health, comfort, and quiet of all Despite being a non-executory (there has to be an
persons, and of bringing about "the greatest good to enabling law)
the greatest number.” Legislation and arguments in favor of social justice now
have a Constitutional Basis.
Philippine Sugar Estate Development Co vs Gabriela Expropriation
Prudencio From mere regulation of ownership rights
 The magic words "social justice" are not a shibboleth The state acquired lands to become the middle-man for
which courts may readily avail of as a shield for agricultural contracts.
shirking their responsibility in the application of law.
 Appellant clamors for social justice, not the one in Leasehold
the mind of the authors of our Constitution — all Abolition of Tenancy
embracing, inspired by the spirit of Christian charity, In 1963, tenancy was abolished and, in its stead, the concept
based on the principle of universal brotherhood, of leasehold was placed, granting them security of tenure
intended "to insure the well-being and economic as lessees.
security of all the people" — but narrow-minded, one
sided, egoistic, stone-deaf to the cries of human Transfer / Redistribution
sufferings, absolutely blind to the miserable Abolition of Tenancy
situation of others. First implemented through PD 27 and then through CARL,
as amended, agricultural lands started being subject of
MODULE 1-B acquisition and transfer.
Recognizing leasehold and security of tenure proves to be
BRIEF LEGAL HISTORY OF AGRARIAN REFORM not enough in terms of effecting agrarian reform. It took a
step higher from just recognizing leasehold arrangements
Pre-Agrarian Reform to actually acquiring properties, to actually redistributing
land holdings from the landowner to the farmers.
Imbalance and Inequality
Pre-Agrarian Reform efforts, the system is so broken that CURRENT FRAMEWORK: ACQUISITION –
only a few-including the State – own lands while the rest do
not. REDISTRIBUTION
Equality Inequality
All Filipinos, more or less, Land ownership is The state does not anymore act as middle man for
had equal access to lands consolidated and agricultural relationships. Rather, it acquires land and
and their fruits. agricultural production is redistributes it to others.
alienated.
In a nutshell…
How does the legal framework seek to address this
inequality? Lands owned by one person (X owns 100 hectares of land
Pre-Agrarian Reform suitable for farming) Acquired by the Government
Imbalance and Inequality (forcibly buys a big portion of the landholding of X)
Pre-Agrarian Reform efforts, the system is so broken that Transferred to another person (A,B,C, and D are given a
only a few-including the State – own lands while the rest do portion of the landholdings) Government is
not. reimbursed (A, B, C, and D, pays the government for the
1st step: land in favorable arrangements.
Tenancy Laws
Creation of Bond MODULE 1- C
Tenancy laws (e.g. Rice Tenancy Act and Sugar Tenancy Act
in 1933) create a tenancy relationship that requires 50-50
CHARACTER AND LEGAL BASES OF AGRARIAN
sharing between worker and landowner.
This bond is regulated by the state. REFORM LAW: How is it legal?
After tenancy laws were passed, procedural laws also were Basically, lands are taken from one person and then given
adjusted in order to skew the scale in favor of farmers. to several others.
Testimony as Evidence for Tenancy
Skewing the Scale for Farmers Constitutional Bases: How is this allowed?
After a while, testimonial evidence became prima facie How is Agrarian Reform legal under the 1987 Constitution?
evidence to establish verbal tenancy contracts.
There are two approaches to that: 1st by identifying the
In 1935 the term social justice has been constitutionalized provisions of the constitution which allow agrarian reform
or incorporated in the highest law of the land. in the Philippines.
Social Justice “Constitutionalized”
3
PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION: Allowing Agrarian Violation of Separation of Powers
Reform Laws in the Philippines Payment other than money is not just
compensation
AGRARIAN REFORM AS SOCIAL JSUTICE Outright change of ownership before payment is
Section 9, 10 & 21 Article 2 of the consti emphasize the illegal
crucial policies and principle of social justice, a dynamic
social order, in all phases of national development. Response
AGRARIAN REFORM AS EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION Courts still have the last say in the determination of
OF WEALTH just compensation
Section 1, Article 12 implies that, one way of achieving Revolutionary kind of eminent domain.
social justice, is through equitable distribution of wealth, Government resources considered.
opportunities, or resources. No outright change of ownership. Payment by
government is still required.
AGRARIAN REFORM AS SANCTIONED RESTRICTION In this case the court made a pronouncement which made
TO PROPERTY agrarian reform peculiar because now the court said the
Section 3, Article 12 and section 1, Article 13 sanction exercise is not only eminent domain in relation to the
restriction of acquisition and use of property for acquisition of land but at the same time an exercise of police
purposes of agrarian reform and as a means of achieving power in the sense that agrarian reform law restricts
social justice. ownership of land to a maximum area, we call as retention
AGRARIAN REFORM THROUGH EXPROPRIATION limit.
Section 4, Article 13 and section 22 article 18 sanction Agrarian reform: Police Power
the use of expropriation as a means to implement Agrarian reform restricts the maximum area a covered
agrarian reform. landowner can own.
HOW IS AGRARIAN REFORM A VALID EXERCISE OF Discussion ni torni: 9-8-20

STATE POWERS? Social justice and common good, are they capable of
definition of black and white? NO.
Review: Powers of the State: Police Power; Eminent
Domain; Taxation There is a need to distinguish when deifning equality and
equity.
Association of Small Landowners v. Secretary of DAR
 This case of association of small land owners is the How do we defining and differentiate equality and
leading land mark case of SC upholding the validity inequality?
of CARL. So it's actually about the importance of Equality means equal treatment regardless of their need,
land. That is how he justified Agra. status, position. – goal (we have a situation of inequality in
 The CARP Law, for its part, conditions the transfer of order ot address that we have social justice, the goal is
possession and ownership of the land to the equality)
government on receipt by the landowner of the
corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of How does the government move from inequality to equality
the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an – employs the means of equity. The govt has to treat
accessible bank. Until then, title also remains with differently the ppl depending on their need. If sige lang
the landowner. No outright change of ownership is equality the status quo will not change. The gap will stay the
contemplated either. same. In odrder to have an effect in closing the gap or
What are the powers of the state exercised through agrarian achiving equilibrium the goverrmnet has to resort to
reform and how is it a valid exercise thereof? equity, treating the ppl differently depenfing on their
need.
Acc to court agrarian reform is an exercise of the power of
eminent domain in the sense that it deprives private Equity defined as not equal treatment but difference in
persons of their private property. There are 2 treatment depending on the needs. – means
requirements: 1st public use and 2nd just compensation.
The means in achieving social justice is EQUITY.
Agrarian Reform: Eminent Domain
Public Use TRIPARTITE SETUP OF AGRARIAN REFORM
 Agrarian Reform is a specie of public use, a broad
concept. in order to appreciate the tripartite set up we have to
Just Compensation illustrate first where the government is not there yet.
 There is payment for acquired parcels of land. Where there are only 2 parties, land owner and farmer, they
can enter into contract with one another.
Objections
4
Contracting parties are deemed to be on equal footing with The state limits the maximum limits of a land owner. the
one another. They are considered equals on terms of their state exercise pp in the sense by merely restriction the
standing as contracting parties. maximum ownership of land owners.
In reality, it is not on equal footing. The land owner is more Agrarian reform laws are mandatory and no way
often than not is more influence and the farmer and their discretionary.
family more often depends on the landowner. All these matters, concerns in our module 1 are supposed to
be general in nature.
By law they supposed to be on equal. Still the land owner
can influence or abuse the farmer.
What does the tripartite set up do?

When the govt enters into the picture, the govt breaks the
contract between the land owner and the farmer.
The govt which deals the land owner in terms of coverage…

after all those, the govt will turn around and go to the
farmers to identify its benefits etc…
Land owner and the farmer will now deal with the
government and the land owner cannot anymore abuse the
farmer. That is the role of the government.
Agricultural reform as agricultural policy
 Smaller lands better than absentee ownership

 Farmer is the owner-cultivator
 Direct relationship with product
 Exposure to abuse is lessened
Other clarifications on the nature of agrarian reform
 Continuing positive act in terms of acquisition,

Distribution, and classification of lands
 It is both an exercise if eminent domain and police

power. lands taken need no noxious.
 When covered agrarian reform is mandatory

landowners are still protected by law.
In the exercise of PP, should it be noxious, this agrarian

reform is unique on the exercise of powers of the state,
because we can see the simultaneous exercise of powers of
the state.
In the case of association of small landowners, in the whole

framework of agrarian reform there is an exercise of ED, as
the state acquire private property upon just compensation.
According to the court, this is not a pure exercise of ED, in

the aspect of regulating the maximum ownership, there is
an exercise of PP, there is no more need of an noxious object,
the exercise of PP was only restricting the maximum size of
ownership.
5
MODULE 2 – LEASEHOLD ARRANGEMENTS UNDER In order to grant more protection to the laborer, the
LAND REFORM ACT framework of share tenancy imposes equal division of
fruits, meaning the minimum share of the laborer must be
TENANCY AND LEASEHOLD: CONCEPT AND CONTRAST 50% and the other 50% to the landowner.
Outline:
 Tenancy and Agricultural Leasehold The landowner therefore cannot stipulate a sharing
 Lands covered wherein the laborer can get less than 50% under share
 Parties to agricultural leasehold tenancy relationship.
 Creation, Duration and Termination
 Other Relevant Rights in Agricultural Leasehold If there is an arrangement which has all these elements,
 Legal Status of RA 3844 then we have share tenancy.
RA 3844 – LAND REFORM ACT The problem with share tenancy, even though under the law
TENANCY and ideally it provides a minimum standard, benefits to the
 One of the first attempts to recognize a form legally laborer thereby protecting the share of the laborer, it is not
sanctioned agricultural arrangements that grant abuse proof.
some sort of protection to the farmworkers.
If we recall in our module 1, we said that one of the first few It may be that a tenant after having worked in the land, after
attempts in recognizing a form of system of agrarian reform, having agreed to a certain percentage, a tenant at the time
one of the first few attempts of granting rights in favor of of payday, the landowner may suddenly say “you’re not
farm workers, laborer, is to recognize share tenancy, is to anymore a tenant, therefore, get out of my property and you
impose minimum standards when share tenancy exists. are not entitled to anything.”
In this portion we want to ask, what is tenancy and how do The landowner, under this framework of share tenancy,
we recognize a share tenancy? may validly circumvent even this equal division of fruits,
simply because the landowner has the right to exclude
We can answer those by pointing the elements. others from the use, possession of the land.
ELEMENTS WHAT HAPPENED TO TENANCY ARRANGEMENTS?

How do we recognize a share tenancy?
 Agreement on joint undertaking “With the enactment of RA 3844… the system of agricultural
 One furnishes land share tenancy was abolished for being contrary to
public policy. (Ganzon vs CA)
 One furnishes labor
 Equal division of fruits
So if a share tenancy relationship was abolished, then what
A share tenancy is the response to the status quo which is
law now will grant rights and priviliges to farm workers?
marked by oppression, if this arrangement is left purely
What law will gratn minimum benefits to farm workers?
contractual in nature, meaning there are just 2 parties in
this arrangement, we said that a landowner can enter into a
We answer that question by examining the provisions RA
contract with a farm laborer wherin the farm laborer will do
3844.
the work and he/she will get a share.
RA 3844 does not merely abolish share tenancy
Within the framework of contract law, the 2 parties are
relationship, it firstly abolishes share tenancy relationship
considered as equal contracting parties. Meaning equal
and secondly puts agricultural leasehold system in lieu of
footing. In reality, however, notwithstanding the legal
share tenancy.
fiction of equal footing, the laborer is susceptible to abuses
from the landowner such that they can stipulate whatever
Share Tenancy Agricultural Leasehold
amount of share the laborer could get for his work even the
laborer can get even 1% if left unregulated.
What then is agricultural leasehold?
How is it different from share tenancy?
Under the status quo this can be a tool for undue influence,
Why does agricultural leasehold the preferred mode /
oppression on the part of the landowner.
framework than share tenancy?
The response to this is to impose minimum
standards/share when there is a contract share tenancy. It
AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD
is imposed by making, recognizing minimum 50-50 division
 Placed in the stead of share tenancy, the system of
of fruits.
agricultural leasehold was recognized as the
preferred mode of agrarian reform system.
Check elements to recognize share tenancy.
How do we know what is an agricultural leasehold? Ho how
e recognized?
6
Another feature of leasehold arrangement which makes it a
Elements that may very well understood if we discuss the more preferred mode of agrarian reform than a shared
concept of leasehold under our civil law. tenancy is continuity of relations assured. Meaning, even if
the agricultural lessee dies, there may be succession as to
You will learn in your property class the concept of who will be recognized as an agricultural lessee.
leasehold.
1. Owner possession e.g. In a shared tenancy, the tenant is the father for example
2. Not the owner and in that land, he established his family, upon his death,
e.g. you are the owner and you own a car then you enjoy all because it’s just a shared tenancy, the landowner may
the attributes of ownership including possession, use and choose not to enter into a shared tenancy with the surviving
the right to dispose of ownership of the car. Such that the heirs.
owner will have thew power to transfer the possession and
the use of the land to the other (e.g. contract of lease). While Compare that to a leasehold arrangement, now even though
if you are not the owner you have no right whatsoever over the agricultural lessee has died, then there is still continuity
a property owned by another. of relations, there is still succession provided under the law.
The heirs of the agricultural lessee are somehow protected
How then do we recognize and agricultural leasehold? from said scenario.
ELEMENTS
 Land belonging to a person/landowner Section 166 (25)
 Land is possessed and cultivated by another/lessee  “Share tenancy" as used in this Code means the
 Possession and cultivation is with consent relationship which exists whenever two persons
 There is payment of rent agree on a joint undertaking for agricultural
production wherein one party furnishes the land
This is not anymore, a join undertaking/ share tenancy, and the other his labor, with either or both
because now the land the possession, the use and the contributing any one or several of the items of
entitlement to the fruits are transferred from the production, the tenant cultivating the land
landowner to the agricultural lessee. personally with the aid of labor available from
members of his immediate farm household, and
Now the land even though owned by the landowner, is the produce thereof to be divided between the
possessed and cultivated by an agricultural lessee. Of landholder and the tenant.
course, because there is a transfer of possession and use,
there is consent on the part of the owner. Section 15 – Agricultural Leasehold Contract in General
 The agricultural lessor and the agricultural lessee
Of course, this is a form of rent or leasehold, an agricultural shall be free to enter into any kind of terms,
leasehold must be for consideration for payment of rent. conditions or stipulations in a leasehold contract, as
long as they are not contrary to law, morals or public
If all these elements are present then we have an policy. A term, condition or stipulation in an
agricultural leasehold. This is different from a shared agricultural leasehold contract is considered
tenancy, because a shared tenancy is a joint undertaking, in contrary to law, morals or public policy:
here there is no transfer of possession, use and entitled to 1. If the agricultural lessee is required to pay a rental
fruits, no payment of rents. in excess of that which is hereinafter provided for in
this Chapter;
FEATURES 2. If the agricultural lessee is required to pay a
Why switch to leasehold? consideration in excess of the fair rental value as
 Protect tenurial status defined herein, for the use of work animals and/or
 Physical possession granted farm implements belonging to the agricultural lessor
 Continuity of relations assured or to any other person; or
3. If it is imposed as a condition in the agricultural
In a share tenancy there is no such thing as tenurial status leasehold contract: (a) that the agricultural lessee is
because as a contract there must be meeting of minds. required to rent work animals or to hire farm
implements from the agricultural lessor or a third
In an agricultural leasehold, because possession, use, person, or to make use of any store or services
entitlement to the fruits, is transferred to the lessee, the operated by the agricultural lessor or a third person;
tenurial status of the farmworker is protected because or (b) that the agricultural lessee is required to
physical possession is guaranteed to the agricultural lessee perform any work or render any service other than
while the agricultural leasehold still subsist. While that his duties and obligations provided in this Chapter
relationship till subsist, physical possession is guaranteed. with or without compensation; or (c) that the
agricultural lessee is required to answer for any 􏰋ne,
deductions and/or assessments.
7
Any contract by which the agricultural lessee is required to Republic Act Numbered Eleven hundred and ninety-nine, as
accept a loan or to make payment therefor in kind shall also amended, until the end of the agricultural year when the
be contrary to law, morals or public policy. National Land Reform Council proclaims that all the
government machineries and agencies in that region or
Section 166 (2) locality relating to leasehold envisioned in this Code are
 "Agricultural lessee" means a person who, by operating, unless such contracts provide for a shorter period
himself and with the aid available from within or the tenant sooner exercises his option to elect the leasehold
his immediate farm household, cultivates the system: Provided, further, That in order not to jeopardize
land belonging to, or possessed by, another with international commitments, lands devoted to crops covered
the latter's consent for purposes of production, by marketing allotments shall be made the subject of a
for a price certain in money or in produce or separate proclamation that adequate provisions, such as the
both. It is distinguished from civil law lessee as organization of cooperatives, marketing agreements, or
understood in the Civil Code of the Philippines. other similar workable arrangements, have been made to
insure efficient management on all matters requiring
LANDS COVERED UNDER THE LAND REFORM ACT synchronization of the agricultural with the processing
Lands Covered phases of such crops: Provided, furthermore, That where the
What lands are covered? agricultural share tenancy contract has ceased to be
 Not all lands are covered by the law because not all operative by virtue of this Code, or where such a tenancy
lands serve the same purpose. contract has been entered into in violation of the provisions
of this Code and is, therefore, null and void, and the tenant
We said the first few attempts in providing agrarian reform continues in possession of the land for cultivation, there shall
rights and benefits to farm worker/laborers is tenancy, be presumed to exist a leasehold relationship under the
share tenancy, minimum share but then it has become provisions of this Code, without prejudice to the right of the
contrary to public policy and therefore abolished and landowner and the former tenant to enter into any other
instead agriculturally sold that place. lawful contract in relation to the land formerly under tenancy
contract, as long as in the interim the security of tenure of the
Now, under the law RA 3844 by placing agricultural former tenant under Republic Act Numbered Eleven hundred
leasehold, it does not mean that all lands in the Philippines and ninety-nine, as amended, and as provided in this Code, is
are covered by agricultural leasehold. There are only not impaired: Provided, finally, That if a lawful leasehold
identified lands which are considered to be covered. tenancy contract was entered into prior to the effectivity of
this Code, the rights and obligations arising therefrom shall
In this topic we want to know what lands are covered? continue to subsist until modified by the parties in accordance
with the provisions of this Code.
There are 3 groups of lands that are covered.
CHAPTER IV - Landbank
Covered Lands Section 74 - Creation
 Tenanted Area - conversion ispo jure of all To finance the acquisition by the Government of landed
tenancy agreements into leasehold agreements estates for division and resale to small landholders, as well as
(Sec 4&5) the purchase of the landholding by the agricultural lessee
 Landed Estates – mandatory imposition of from the landowner, there is hereby established a body
leasehold on huge tracts of land identified as corporate to be known as the "Land Bank of the Philippines",
landed estates. (Sec. 74) hereinafter called the "Bank", which shall have its principal
 Public Lands – identified lands of the public place of business in Manila. The legal existence of the Bank
domain that are conducive to agricultural activities. shall be for a period of 􏰋fty years counting from the date of
(Sec. 51 (5)) the approval hereof. The Bank shall be subject to such rules
and regulations as the Central Bank may from time to time
In all these groups of lands the law operates, imposes a promulgate.
certain framework wherein the land is still owned by the
landowner/government, but the possession, use and ARTICLE III – Distribution of Agricultural Lands of the
entitlement to the fruits of the lands are transferred to Public Domain
another person who will now be called a lessee with the Section 66 – Title to Public Agricultural Land
considereation that the lessee will pay rent. Upon reservation by the President of the Philippines of public
agricultural land available for disposition by the Land
Section 4 – Abolition of Agricultural Share Tenancy Authority, such land shall be surveyed, titled and transferred
Agricultural share tenancy, as herein defined, is hereby to the Land Bank, which shall reduce said title into individual
declared to be contrary to public policy and shall be titles for specific parcels or lots in accordance with the
abolished: Provided, That existing share tenancy contracts subdivision survey conducted by the Land Authority under
may continue in force and effect in any region or locality, to paragraph 9 of Section fifty-one: Provided, however, That
be governed in the meantime by the pertinent provisions of existing laws governing the acquisition of public lands shall
have been complied with.
8
PARTIES IN AN AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD Section 51 (2)
WHO ARE THE PARTIES TO AN AGRICULTURAL To help bona fide farmers without lands or agricultural
LEASEHOLD? owner-cultivators of uneconomic-size farms to acquire and
Note that if you recall on our discussion on tripartite own economic family-size farm units;
relationship. or set up, there seems to be a break on contact
between the landowner and farm worker because the Crisostomo vs. Victoria
government steps in as a third party. “tenancy relations cannot be expedient artifice for
vesting in the tenant rights over the landholding which
AGRICULTURAL LESSOR far exceed those of the landowner.”
May be juridical or natural person, who is the owner, civil
law lessee, usufructuary. (Referring to the video illustration)
One, there is a property belonging to the landowner. Two,
AGRICULTURAL LESSEE the land owner constituted a civil lease in favor of one
A natural person who cultivates the land of the agricultural person. Three, the civil law lessee leased the same property
lessor further to an agricultural lessee. And then these agricultural
In an agricultural leasehold, the contact is not yet broken lessees, upon the death of this civil law lessee, invoked their
the contact is still there because there is still a direct contact right as agricultural lessee in the property.
between the agricultural lessor and agricultural lessee
through a contract. We have to note the in the illustration, the owner did not
have the knowledge or consent to the civil law lessee that
The government is still there but it’s not yet such that the an agricultural lease is permissible.
government becomes now the third party breaking the
contact between the land owner and the worker. The The question now, since the landowner wants the land back
government is still there by virtue of the law… from the agricultural lessee and the land owner wants to
eject those persons who claims to be agricultural lessee. The
So far as the agricultural leasehold there are 2 parties, refer question now, can those persons who contracted with
above. the civil law lessee, by virtue of an agricultural
leasehold, be considered as agricultural lessees to the
The question, however, arises or a controversy arises when land and therefore can they be validly ejected if they are
a person purports to be an agricultural lessor but that not?
person is not an owner. that person is merely a civil law
lessee. This is important because under the definition of
agricultural lessor, a civil law lessee is identified as one of
And the question is whether there is a valid constitution of the persons who may be considered as agricultural lessor.
agricultural leasehold. So, now you have an owner who
transfers possession, use and utilization of the land to Yes, because he is not considered as an agricultural lessee.
another who is the civil law lessee and this civil law lessee Answering this question, the court said, you people who
transfers further to another person by virtue of an claim to be agricultural lessees, you may eb ejected from the
agricultural leasehold, without even the knowledge of the land because you are not considered as agricultural lessees.
land owner. Why???
We have here a scenario where a civil law lessee may The law specifically states that civil law lessees may be
transfer what is transferred to him/her? agricultural lessors. And in the case of Crisostomo vs
Victoria, those persons who claimed to be agricultural
Section 6 lessee contracted with a civil lessee who may be considered
The agricultural leasehold relation shall be limited to the as agricultural lessor.
person who furnishes the landholding, either as owner, civil
law lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor, and the person But why is it they may be ejected and not considered as
who personally cultivates the same. agricultural lessees?
SC provided several reasons.
Section 166 (2)
 "Agricultural lessee" means a person who, by REASONS:
himself and with the aid available from within NO AUTHORITY
his immediate farm household, cultivates the A civil law lessee, while listed in the definition of an
land belonging to, or possessed by, another with agricultural lessor, cannot constitute an agricultural lessee
the latter's consent for purposes of production, if there is no specific authority from the owner.
for a price certain in money or in produce or
both. It is distinguished from civil law lessee as NO CONSENT
understood in the Civil Code of the Philippines. Thus, without consent from the owner, a civil law lessee
does not have the power to constitute an agricultural lessee.
9
EXERCISE OF OWNERSHIP code. It’s not a civil law lease but an agricultural lease.
This is because constituting an agricultural lessee on a Therefore, it’s governed by RA3844.
particular land is an exercise of ownership.
Under 3844 there are two ways in which an agricultural
PERSONAL IN NATURE leasehold may arise:
Lessor-lessee relationship is, by default, personal in nature. 1. BY OPERATION OF LAW
2. BY EXPRESS CONTRACT
Constituting an agricultural leasehold in the property, is an
exercise of ownership. When you have a civil law lessee, By operation of law (refer lands covered katong tenanted
only the possession, use and entitlement of fruits are lands kato ipso jure something)
transferred, the right of ownership is not transferred.
Otherwise it’s not anymore, a lease. After converting all those shared tenancy contracts intro
agricultural leasehold, the law RA 3844also allows for
What is the difference between a civil law lessee and an subsequent mga contracts, leasehold arrangements by
agricultural lessee? express contract.
CIVIL LAW LESSEE AGRICULTURAL LESSEE Under RA3844 the contract must follow the prescribed
Governed by the Civil Code, Governed by the land requirements.
specifically on Lease, reform act. Actions on
Actions against lessee may lessee are governed by the REQUIREMENTS FOR WRITTEN AGRICULTURAL LEASE
be unlawful detainer. Land Reform Act  Four copies
 Signed or thumb-marked by both parties
In the case of Crisostomo vs Victoria, a civil law lessee,  In a language or dialect known to the LESSEE
although identified by the law as one of the persons who  Two witnesses
may become agricultural lessor, a civil law lessee may not  Notarized or acknowledged before the
constitute an agricultural leasehold if there is no Authority municipal court
and no Consent from the owner.  Registered with the municipal treasurer
This is because the constitution of an agricultural leasehold TERM / DURATION

it’s an act of ownership. And a civil law lessee does not have
ownership only the owner. also the constitution of an AS A RULE, AN AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD
agricultural leasehold is personal in nature that means the RELATIONSHIP LASTS FOR AN INDEFINITE PERIOD.
owner must himself be a party to that agricultural
leasehold. This brings us to the matter of RIGHT TO SECURITY OF
TENURE. – the lessee will have the right to possess to use
AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD: CREATION, DURATION, and to cultivate the property as long as the relationship
AND EXTINGUISHMENT subsist / the relationship is terminated for cause.
CREATION POSSESSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LESSEE SHALL

NOT BE DISTURBED UNLESS THE RELATIONSHIP IS
How is a leasehold relationship created, how does a TERMINATED OR THE LESSEE IS DISPOSSESSED OF THE
leasehold arrangement arise? PROPERTY.
Lease arrangements for more than one year must be in TERMINATION AND DISPOSSESSION
writing otherwise those not in writing are unenforceable in
courts. TERMINATION
STATUTE OF FRAUDS: What are the grounds for termination of leasehold

Lease for mor than 1 year must be in writing. relationship?
Since we said that an agricultural leasehold is a form of There are 3 modes under the law.
lease, if it is more than 1 year, should it therefore be reduced WHAT ARE THE MODES OF EXXTINGUISHING AN
in writing? If not reduced in writing will they become AGRICULTURAL LEASE RELATIONSHIP?
unenforceable?
 ABANDONMENT
SHOULD AGRICULTURAL LEASE AGREEMENTS ALWAYS  VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
BE REDUCED INTO WRITING?  ABSENCE OF SUCCESSOR
ABANDONMENT
The answer is no. As an agricultural leasehold, although its  Abandonment of the landholding without the
concept is lease, it’s not primarily governed by the civil knowledge of agricultural lessor. (Section 8 (1))
10
Abandonment basically it’s leaving without saying goodbye. agricultural lessor within one month from such death or
permanent incapacity, from among the following: (a) the
Section 4 – Abolition of Agricultural Share Tenancy surviving spouse; (b) the eldest direct descendant by
Agricultural share tenancy, as herein defined, is hereby consanguinity; or (c) the next eldest descendant or
declared to be contrary to public policy and shall be descendants in the order of their age: Provided, That in case
abolished: Provided, That existing share tenancy contracts the death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee
may continue in force and effect in any region or locality, to occurs during the agricultural year, such choice shall be
be governed in the meantime by the pertinent provisions of exercised at the end of that agricultural year: Provided,
Republic Act Numbered Eleven hundred and ninety-nine, as further, That in the event the agricultural lessor fails to
amended, until the end of the agricultural year when the exercise his choice within the periods herein provided, the
National Land Reform Council proclaims that all the priority shall be in accordance with the order herein
government machineries and agencies in that region or established.
locality relating to leasehold envisioned in this Code are
operating, unless such contracts provide for a shorter period In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural
or the tenant sooner exercises his option to elect the leasehold lessor, the leasehold shall bind his legal heirs.
system: Provided, further, That in order not to jeopardize
international commitments, lands devoted to crops covered SECTION 10. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not
by marketing allotments shall be made the subject of a Extinguished by Expiration of Period, etc.
separate proclamation that adequate provisions, such as the The agricultural leasehold relation under this Code shall not
organization of cooperatives, marketing agreements, or be extinguished by mere expiration of the term or period in a
other similar workable arrangements, have been made to leasehold contract nor by the sale, alienation or transfer of
insure efficient management on all matters requiring the legal possession of the landholding. In case the
synchronization of the agricultural with the processing agricultural lessor sells, alienates or transfers the legal
phases of such crops: Provided, furthermore, That where the possession of the landholding, the purchaser or transferee
agricultural share tenancy contract has ceased to be thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to
operative by virtue of this Code, or where such a tenancy the obligations of the agricultural lessor.
contract has been entered into in violation of the provisions
of this Code and is, therefore, null and void, and the tenant Gua-an vs Quirino
continues in possession of the land for cultivation, there shall  Abandonment is willful failure of the agrarian
be presumed to exist a leasehold relationship under the reform beneficiary, together with his farm
provisions of this Code, without prejudice to the right of the household, to cultivate, till, or develop his land to
landowner and the former tenant to enter into any other produce any crop, or to use the land… for a period of
lawful contract in relation to the land formerly under tenancy two calendar years.
contract, as long as in the interim the security of tenure of the Coderias vs chioco
former tenant under Republic Act Numbered Eleven hundred  the agricultural lessee cannot be said to have
and ninety-nine, as amended, and as provided in this Code, is abandoned the landholding when the landowner
not impaired: Provided, finally, That if a lawful leasehold forcible ejected him from the property through
tenancy contract was entered into prior to the effectivity of threats and intimidation.
this Code, the rights and obligations arising therefrom shall
continue to subsist until modified by the parties in accordance VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
with the provisions of this Code.  Voluntary surrender of the landholding by the
agricultural lessee, written notice of which shall be
SECTION 8. Extinguishment of Agricultural Leasehold serves three months in advance. (section 8 (2)
Relation. This time there is notice.
The agricultural leasehold relation established under this
Code shall be extinguished by: The last ground for termination of leasehold, contract or
1. Abandonment of the landholding without the relationship is ABSENCE OF SUCCESSOR.
knowledge of the agricultural lessor;
2. Voluntary surrender of the landholding by the Section 9, RA 3844 provides that in case of death or
agricultural lessee, written notice of which shall be incapacity of the lessee, the lease subsists provided the
served three months in advance; or following successors are present:
3. Absence of the persons under Section nine to succeed  Surviving spouse
to the lessee, in the event of death or permanent  Eldest direct descendant by consanguinity
incapacity of the lessee.  Next eldest descendants in the order of their age.
SECTION 9. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not
Extinguished by Death or Incapacity of the Parties If wala na ang either sa ulo, that is a situation of absence of
In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural successor. And the leasehold contract will be deemed
lessee to work his landholding, the leasehold shall continue terminated.
between the agricultural lessor and the person who can
cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by the
11
Q: will this surviving spouse of the eldest direct descendant case. This means that the ground of dispossession has
be considered as one of the successors? No. to be invoked with the aid of the court. In order to give
the agricultural lessee to pull out investments or recover
Velasquez vs Sps Cruz investments that are poured to the landholding.
 the law is clear. The successors must either bet he
spouse (or the descendants) by blood… As to time limit, there is a bar there bec there’s separate in
consanguinity is not affinity. If no other persons in the effect of time limit. Under this ground there are 2
the list exists, the leasehold relationship is reasons that may be invoked by the landowner.
extinguished.
Note there must be a court case filed in court. In that court
DISPOSSESSION case, the landowner must specify what is the intended
GROUNDS FOR DISPOSSESSION action in relation to the land. whether it’s personal
 Owner will cultivate or convert the land cultivation or conversion.
 Substantial Breach of Contract
 Substantial Damage to Land or Improvement due It matters bec the time limit under the law will differ if its
to negligence personal or conversion of the land.
 Non-payment of rental
 Sub-leasing the property If personal cultivation, there has to be personal cultivation
within 3 years from the grant of dispossession.
OWNER WILL CULTIVATE OR CONVERT THE LAND
Or if conversion, the conversion must be done within 1 year
It’s possible diay atty that an agricultural lessor will say from the ground of dispossession.
“lessee please now get out of the property bec I will cultivate
for myself bec I will convert the land to other uses”. Is it Why is it important to comply with the time limit?
possible atty? Yes, but there are consequences and
requirements under the law. In case the owner will not comply, the lessor will be
considered as in bad faith. Then what is the effect if bad
See Illustration faith?
The lessee may demand for repossession with the aid of the
courts and payment of damages.
Meaning the lessor was just using the law and the courts in
order to deprive the agricultural lessee, in bad faith.
Because there is bad faith, the lessee is granted under the
law to demand for repossession and payment for damages.
Note: when we are talking about conversion, within the

purview of RA 3844, we are talking about conversion prior
to the effectivity of the CARL, as amended.
prior to the effectivity of CARL, there are separate sets of

rules of conversion, but after the promulgation of CARL, lain
an agricultural lessor will say “lessee please now get out of napud sets of rules for conversion. That is why it is
the property bec I will cultivate for myself bec I will convert important when CARL took effect.
the land to residential use”, what happens? There are
effects. Can it be that the conversion is effected through what we
call as re-classification, such that it’s not the landowner
The effect will have to depend on the size of the landholding. himself which converts the land but it’s the mga pertinent
If the landholding that is leased is more than 5 hectares, the governmental agencies, which will declare a specific
effect is that the agricultural lessee is entitled to portion of land to be residential rather than agricultural.
disturbance compensation.
Is it possible that governmental agencies will reclassify
This is where the owner will pay the lessee for the an agricultural land into residential, industrial etc.?
dispossession because the landholding is vast and
perhaps the lessee already has made some investment. Yes. Specifically in the case of Davao New Town vs Sps
Saliga
What if it’s not more than 5 hectares? What happens is that,
there is no entitlement to disturbance compensation.
but 1-year notice prior to filing of the dispossession
12
Davao New Town vs Sps Saliga crumble simply by a declaration. Therefore, all the rights,
 Under section 36 (1) of RA 3844, as amended, by privileges, frameworks, that are there under RA 3844 are
section 7 of RA 6389 declaration by the department reduced to not applicable anymore.
head, upon recommendation of the National
Planning Commission, to be suited for residential, But the congress realizing that this is what happens before
commercial, industrial or some other urban CARL, the congress addresses that problem by giving or
purposes, terminates the right of the agricultural imposing more stringent requirements within the
lessee to continue in its possession and enjoyment. framework of CARL. We will discuss that as we go along
module 4.
The court decided whether there existed and agricultural
leasehold. What the petitioners wanted the court to do was BREACH OF CONTRACT
to declare that there was an agricultural leashold  Failure to comply with the terms
arrangement bec formerly there was share tenancy  Deviation from agreed crops and use
relationship.  Failure to adopt proven farm practices
Diba RA 3844 converts all shared tenancy to agricultural NON-PAYMENT OF RENTAL MUST BE:
leashold after its effectivity. According to the farmers, they  Willful and Deliberate (Sta. Ana vs Sps Carpo)
should eb considered as agricultural lessees, therefore, they  Involves lawful rental amount (Heirs of Tan vs
cannot be deprived of the property unless there are grounds Pollescas)
for termination or dispossession.
If civil law lessee nya di mu bayad, unlawful detainer.
The court said, there was no shared tenancy in the first
place so there’s nothing to convert to agricultural leasehold. In contrast, an agricultural lessee, if non-payment of rental,
the landowner will not go to court and file unlawful
But the court engaged their argument saying that “even detainer, what will happen is that the landowner will have
though there was such shared tenancy that was converted to file a dispossession governed by RA 3844 and it must be
to agricultural leasehold, still in this case, We say that you filed with the court of agrarian relations (RTC)
are no longer agricultural lessees.
There are qualifications, refer above.
According to the court, you are no longer considered as
agricultural lessees, because the land subject or the The fact alone of non-payment of rental is not a
purported agricultural leasehold was already reclassified sufficient ground for the dispossession, there has to be
by appropriate government agencies citing RA 3844, as willful and deliberate of non-payment.
amended RA 6389.
Sta. Ana vs Sps Carpo
In this case, what is for me lacking is the discussion on  SC categorically stated that the mere fact alone that
whether this is a ground for termination or a ground for there’s non-payment of rental does not already grant
dispassion. Bec if termination, the three grounds. If the landowner the right to dispossess the property, it
dispossession, there has to be court action. has to be shown it must be willful and deliberate.
 Mere failure of a tenant to pay does not necessarily
According to the court here, since there is this amended of give the landowner the right to eject the former
RA 3844, the declaration by the department head becomes when there is lack of deliberate intent on the part
now a ground for termination. It now extinguishes the right of the tenant to pay.
of the agricultural lessee to continue its possession.
Heirs of Tan vs Pollescas
This pronouncement by the court, is in relation to  The rental is 2/3 amount of the harvest or 66%,
conversion and classification of agricultural lands, PRIOR to according to the court, it’s not even a reasonable
CARL. amount in terms of shared tenancy, shared tenancy
is 50-50 and you have here an agricultural leasehold
This is because after the effectivity of CARL, there are new where the share of the agricultural lessee is less than
rules. 50% because what you want is 66% rental.
According to the court, even if there is non-payment,
If you can observe, before CARL it seems that the whole that cannot be considered as ground for
framework of agricultural leasehold will have to depend on dispossession because the rental amount here is
the declaration or on the classification of lands by the govt, unlawful or unconscionable.
such that this one becomes a loophole for abuses such that
if by the mere declaration of the department head…these Natividad vs Mariano
persons may or may not be subject to influence by the  The agricultural lessee’s failure to pay the lease
landowner. If they are indeed influenced, the whole rentals, in order to warrant his dispossession of the
framework of agricultural leasehold arrangements will
13
landholding, must be willful and deliberate and
must have lasted for at least 2 years. Another effect in case the owner sells the land to another,
there arises rights on the part of the lessee in relation to the
Because of the amendments of the law, non-payment of land. these are what we call pre-emption and redemption.
rental must not only be willful and deliberate, it must not
only involve lawful amounts but in order for it to be a Will the leasehold be terminated?
ground for dispossession this willful and deliberate non-  No, because the leasehold subsists and, in addition,
payment of rentals must last for at least 2 years before it the lessee shall have the rights to preemption and
could be considered as a ground for dispossession. redemption.
TERMINATION DISPOSSESSION PRE-EMPTION vs REDEMPTION

No court approval is Requires court order and, They pertain to a scenario where there is either an intended
needed. Done either as a therefore, must be proven sale or there is already a sale of the property.
voluntary act or act of God. with sufficient evidence.
There are rules when they can be exercised.
They are both means to extinguish that relationship or
contract but they are different not only in their grounds but What are the requirements in order for the right of
also on how they are invoked. Refer table above. preemption be exercised? Refer below.
RELEVANT RIGHTS IN AN AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD PRE-EMPTION

 Landowner notifies DAR and the lessees of the
What are the other rights vested under RA 3844? intended sale
 If lessee wishes to preempt, notice shall give notice
RIGHT TO HOME LOT of intention
 An agricultural lessee shall have the right to have  If more than one lessee, preemption limited to
specific portions of the area for residential respective actually cultivated area.
purposes. This is considered as included in the area  Exercised within 180 days from notice.
leased.
Even though eh primary used agreed is agricultural, the GENERAL FLOW (PREEMPTION)
agricultural lessee is not barred in using a portion in the Notice of intention to preempt to Landowner Tender
land leased for his family or residential use because they are Payment or Present Certificate from Land Bank If
guaranteed this right. This area is included in the area landowner refuses cosign with the court.
leased. Technically a deviation of use but not a ground
because this is a right guaranteed by the law. REDEMPTION
 Leased land was sold without knowledge of lessee
RIGHT TO PRE-EMPTOIN AND REDEMPTION  Exercised within 180 days from notice by vendee
These are rights that are granted under RA 3844 in order to  Entirety of the land must be redeemed, unless there
address the concern “what if the LO in order to circumvent are more than lessee
all the rules and privileges under RA 3844 just sells the  Initiated by a petition or request filed in DAR or in
property to another person?” “what if in order for the LO to Court.
get rid of the agricultural lessees, the LO will just dispose
the property.” This is when the sale was already done and the sale was not
a subject in a notice from the Land owner. it can be that the
This right to pre-emption and redemption are guaranteed land owner may disregard that duty imposed by the law.
by RA 3844 to address that scenario.
The law grants the right of redemption. In here, the lease
What are the rights to pre-emption and redemption? land was sold without the knowledge of the lessee… (refer
above) when will redemption be done? May be redeemed
Example scenario within 180 days from the notice by vendee and not by the
The owner contracts an agricultural leasehold to an vendor, not by the seller but the buyer.
agricultural lessee, now there is transfer of possession, use
and entitlement of the fruits thereof. However, the owner Meaning we have here a land which is leased to a specific
still has ownership and can still validly sell the landholding person, and this land was sold to another person. This
even it is in the possession of the agricultural lessee. Now another person, now the owner, there is an agricultural
what if the owner sold this land to another, what will lessor in the land that I bought.
happen to the agricultural lessee who was in possession?
This new owner, the buyer, will have to notify the
The answer is that, the buyer now who is the owner will agricultural lessee that the land was already sold to
assume the part of the lessor, the leasehold relationship will him/her. Now, that 180 days it starts from the day the
still subsist.
14
vendee or the buyer gives notice of the sale to the Even though there are no intended sale to the third person.
agricultural lessee. Regardless of the fact of sale or intended sale, an
agricultural lessee may also have the right to acquire the
What if for example the land was sold without the landholding. How to do that? Refer above about filing.
knowledge of the lessee and then the LO sees there’s an
agricultural lessee but we will not notify the agricultural DAR will institute expropriation proceedings with the
lessee otherwise he will the right of redemption so let’s not courts whereby the state or DAR will acquire the property
notify them. So, what will happen? from the landowner, payment of just compensation, and
now the DAR will now grant ownership to the agricultural
Po, et al vs Dampal lessees.
 The admitted lack of written notice on [the lessee]
and the DAR thus tolled the running of the Under the law, it requires that the majority of the
prescriptive period. [The contention] of agricultural lessee in an agricultural holding is required to
constructive knowledge… fails in light of the express file the petition in writing.
requirement for notice to be in writing.
The requirement of 180 days, it does not run because the What if isa lang, that’s more than majority, it’s perfectly
law is clear the it will only run when there is notice from the permissible (huh???)
vendee. Thus, the agricultural lessee mays till have the right
of redemption. This right is only an option, it’s not the main theme of RA
3844, the main theme here is agricultural leasehold,
This is what happen when there is an exercise of
redemption. The general procedure is like this: Kay sa pd 26 and ra 6657 the main theme is acquisition of
land and distribute to farmers. DAR or govt exercise its
GENERAL FLOW (REDEMPTION) power of eminent domain.
See illustration
Section 7 – Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation
The agricultural leasehold relation once established shall
confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue
working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is
extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to
security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected
therefrom unless authorized by the Court \for causes herein
provided.
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,
Castro vs Mendoza unless the majority of the lessees object to such acquisition:
 An offer to redeem is validly effected through: (a) a Provided, further, That where there are two or more
formal tender with consignation, or (b) a complaint agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said preferential
filed in court coupled with consignation of the right only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him.
redemption price within the prescribed period… The right of pre-emption under this Section may be exercised
tender or consignation is an indispensable within ninety days from notice in writing which shall be
requirement to the proper exercise of the right of served by the owner on all lessees affected.
redemption.
Tender of money or certificate from the landbank or Section 12 – Lessee’s Right of Redemption
consignation if refused these are indispensable In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the
requirement to the proper exercise not only on the right of knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the
redemption but also to the right of preemption. right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and
Those are the rights to preemption to redemption. consideration: Provided, That the entire landholding sold
We not go to the right to acquire the land holding. must be redeemed: Provided, further, That where these are
two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said
RIGHT TO ACQUIRE LAND HOLDING right of redemption only to the extent of the area actually
 Agricultural lessees may file a petition in writing cultivated by him. The right of redemption under this Section
with the Land Reform Authority (now DAR) may be exercised within two years from the registration of the
sale, and shall have priority over any other right of legal
redemption.
15
Section 21 – Exemption from Lien and/or Execution
The following shall be exempt from lien and/or execution
against the agricultural lessee:
(1) Twenty-five per centum of the entire produce of the
land under cultivation; and
(2) Work animals and farm implements belonging to the
agricultural lessee: Provided, That their value does
not exceed one thousand pesos. But no article or
species of property mentioned in this Section shall be
exempt from execution issued upon a judgment
recovered for its price or upon a judgment of
foreclosure of a mortgage thereon
LEGAL STATUS OF RA 3844

IS IT STILL EFFECTIVE?
Reyes vs Reyes
 the governing law is RA 3844, which, except for
Section 35 thereof, was not specifically repealed by
the passage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Law of 1988 (RA 6657) but was intended to have
suppletory effect to the latter law.
LEASEHOLD CAN ONLY EXIST NOW IN THE FOLLOWING

CIRCUMSTANCS:
 leased areas which are retained by land owner

 farmer-beneficiary leases land awarded to him’
 farmer’s cooperatives lease the land awarded to
them to agricultural corporations.
16
MODULE 3 – TENANT EMANCIPATION UNEDR PD 27 corn but only incidental or seasonal in nature; it is not the
primary crop of the land holding.
TENNANT EMANCIPATION DECREE Analysis
PD NO 27
If all these elements are present in the property, then such
This module is tenant emancipation decree… this is property is considered covered under this Decree.
considered as a step forward from the previous module Note – this law states that only tenant-farmers in this kind
because the law merely imposing some forms of restrictions of properties are considered as beneficiaries because this
in the form of tenancy and agricultural leasehold to now law applies only to them. Those tenant-farmers who does
sanctioning the use of state’s fundamental power of not belong in those private agricultural lands, may not be
eminent domain, that means, by virtue of this law, the govt qualified as beneficiaries under this framework.
is now sanctioned to acquire private property, as long as it However, it must be noted that PD 27 is still flawed which
is covered, and give the acquired private properties to resulted to struggles among tenant farmers. The loopholes
identified beneficiaries. This now is a step forward because of this decree had led to the passage of another subsequent
now it’s the acquisition is not anymore optional under the law – RA 6657.
framework, as long as it is covered under the tenant
emancipation decree, then it is considered as private OPERATION
property that must be acquired by the government for What does the law do?
distribution to those identified beneficiaries. However, - through the law, a government program dubbed as
limited this is, the standard emancipation degree this is “Operation Land Transfer” was initiated.
considered as a step forward from merely regulating, mere
restricting ownership to now aside from restricting the “OPERATION LAND TRANSFER”
ownership of landowners state the government may also
acquires private property for the benefit of identified RATIONALE: PREAMBLE
beneficiaries.  Spawning Valid and Legitimate Grievances
 Start of Reformation
PD 27: BREIF BACKGROUND  Emancipation of Tiller from Bondage
- Tenant Emancipation decree was issued pursuant
to the legislative powers possessed by the 1. Emancipation of tiller from bondage
president. It took effect on October 21, 1972. 2. Spawning valid and legitimate grievances
3. Start of reformation
WHAT AND WHO ARE COVERED UNDER THE DECREE?
In the preamble of PD 27, it says that the old concept of
COVERAGE ownership specifically land holdings, it has spawned valid
- Limited in coverage, this decree does not cover all and legitimate grievances coming from farmers or the
agricultural lands tenants. These grievances are calling for reform because the
system is wanting and needs re-adjustment. Realizing these
FROM THE DECREE grievances, PD 27 proclaims that this is the start of
“This shall apply to tenant farmers of private agricultural reformation. PD 27 recognizes that the start of reform is
lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of through Emancipation. This law somehow operates as a
sharecrop or lease-tenancy, whether classified as landed form of liberation of the farmers from their bondage with
estate or not.” the status quo with the land-owner. By virtue of this law,
- Tenant Emancipation Decree farmers are now set free from the land-owners. How? By
making them land-owners themselves who also cultivate
Q. What are the elements that determines WON a land or the land awarded to them.
property is covered under PD 27?
A. (1) primarily devoted to rice and corn; (2) private What does the law do?
agricultural lands; and (3) under a share-crop or -lease “TRANSFER”
tenancy - The law authorizes the government to take
private property (provided it is covered) and
Note – Tenant Emancipation Decree does not apply to a gives it to a covered beneficiary.
property, to a land holding even if it is a private agricultural
land if such land is not primarily devoted to rice and corn The operative word in this Operation Decree is “Transfer.”
but to some other crops. Now it does not merely involve the recognition of some
arrangement, the imposition of some contract, under this
Illustration framework, it involves transfer of ownership over the
Those farmers who belong to large lands or lease holding properties from the landowner to the covered farmers.
involved in the agricultural activities but their crops were The law authorizes the government to take private property
not rice or corn or agricultural activity may involve rice and (provided it is covered) and gives it to a covered beneficiary.
17
After the acquisition of the government, the government  ISSUE: are the emancipation patents valid?
now undertakes the redistribution of the land properties tot  Incidentally therefore, to answer WON
eh covered beneficiaries. emancipation patents are void or valid, we have to
answer first whether the subject lands are
FROM THE DECREE excluded by virtue of the reclassification in 1973?
“The tenant farmer, whether in land classified as landed  This reclassification was done after the PD 27 took
estate or not, shall be deemed owner of a portion effect. If the deemed owner phrase is construed as
constituting a family-size farm of five (5) hectares if not an automatic conferment of ownership rights, then
irrigated and thee (3) hectares if irrigated.” – Tenant this reclassification could not have excluded the
Emancipation Decree land. In 1972, they were deemed owners already.
 HELD: Land acquisition by virtue of PD 27
Note – the size of the land for their entitlement will have to (…partakes of the nature of expropriation. In fact,
depend on whether the covered land is irrigated or non- jurisprudence states that it is an extraordinary
irrigated. method of expropriating private property. As such,
Irrigated (is the presence of constant running water in the the law on the matter must be strictly construed.)
field)
Atty’s Discussion:
What does the phrase “deemed owner” mean?  The implications of this extraordinary
Under PD 27, the tenant farmer of a covered land is deemed expropriation is not just on the forms of just
an owner of a family size farm. The area will vary depending compensation but also it has an implication as to
whether or not the area, is irrigated or non-irrigated. how the provisions should be construed. Since
here, there is an act of the state to the government
See illustration of taking private property, therefore the provisions
WHAT DOES THE PHRASE “DEEMED OWNER” MEAN? of the laws that sanctioned this kind of
governmental power must be strictly construed
against the government and liberally in favor of the
citizens affected here being the land owner.
Are the subject Lands excluded by virtue of the

reclassification in 1973?
- Yes, the lands are excluded from the coverage of
PD 27.
The reclassification was reclassified by govt agencies with

expertise on the matter.
How does this timeline introduce us to the construction of
the phrase deemed owner? Emancipation Patents issued on lands not covered by the
If the phrase deemed owner is construed as automatic law are null and void.
conferment of ownership rights by virtue of the
promulgation of the law, then this means on October 21, Between coverage and transfer, reclassification may
1972, the ay PD 27 took effect the tenant farmers who operate to exclude the land from the law.
occupied the land are considered as automatically owners.
Therefore, if this deemed owner phrase is construed as an Coverage under the law was not proven by the tenant-
automatic conferment of ownership rights, the farmers.
reclassification in 1973 and the certification in 1983 will not “deemed owners” does not mean automatic ownership. At
matter. best, beneficiaries have inchoate rights.
 [T]he provision declaring tenant-farmers as owners
Cabral vs Heirs of Adolfo [...] should not be construed as automatically vesting
 Land acquisition by virtue of PD 27 […] partakes of upon them absolute ownership over the land they
the nature of expropriation. In fact, jurisprudence are tilling. [...] Clearly, thus, prior to the compliance
states that it is an extraordinary method of with the prescribed requirements, tenant-farmers
expropriating private property. As such, the law on have, at most, an inchoate right over the land they
the matter must be strictly construed. were tilling.
 The tenant farmers have been staying in the land
holding before the operation of PD 27 and before What is the implication if the provisions of PD 27 are strictly
the classification. After it took effect, the land was construed?
reclassified and certified. Notwithstanding, the The lands are excluded from the coverage of PD 27 by virtue
reclassification, emancipation patents were still of that strict construction of the provision including the
issued over the land. deemed owner phrase.
18
1. The reclassification by the government agencies
were done not just by one agency but several
agencies (it was first done in 1973 and certified in
1983 – these are findings of administrative
agencies who have expertise on the matter)
Note – According to the court, the lands were excluded from

the coverage of PD 27 by virtue of reclassification in 1973
and as certified in 1983 because the deemed owner phrase
under PD 27 does not mean automatic ownership. The law
does not say that they are automatically the owners, but
rather only the phrase “deemed owners”, they are
considered as eligible beneficiaries (who do not have real
rights yet on the covered land; at best they have inchoate
rights – right that will exist but cannot be yet enforced or IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS
claimed because of some conditions or requisites has not CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER
yet been fulfilled) EMANCIPATION PATENT
Between the promulgation of the law and the actual transfer Dela Cruz vs Domingo, et. al
of the land, reclassification may still operate to exclude the AS TO STAGE:
land from the law. According to the court, there is no - Certificate of Land Transfer – issued in the
ownership conferred yet because the landowners are still preparatory stage of transfer
owners under the law. As previously discussed, it must be noted that this is not the
Illustration basis for the transfer, this certificate is just a document that
If a land is covered initially by the provisions of PD 27 and is issued in the preparatory stage. In this stage, all the
this land is reclassified, even after PD 27 took effect but preliminary things must have been identified first.
prior to the transfer of the land to the qualified - Emancipation Patent – issued in the conclusion
beneficiaries, the land may still be reclassified from an stage of transfer
agricultural land to industrial, residential and other This is the last document that is issued and the basis of
purpose thereof. transfer. This is the document which now grants rights and
Before the principles and framework of reclassification emancipation of the farmers.
under RA 6657, the prevailing rule was that, since there was
no transfer of ownership yet, then, the owner may validly AS TO REQUIREMENTS:
reclassify the land from agricultural to other classification. - Certificate of Land Transfer – requires that the
That reclassification may operate to exclude the land from land, character of the land, and the identity of the
the coverage of PD 27. In this case, the fact of reclassification beneficiaries have been identified,
has been proven, and because there have been no transfer
yet, then that reclassification operated to exclude the land Since CLT is issued in the preparatory stage of the
from the coverage of PD 27. procedure, then a CLT requires that all those preparatory
2. VOID. Emancipation Patents issued on lands not things must be complied with.
covered by the law are null and void. What needs to be complied with?
1. Identification of the covered land
Emancipation patents under PD 27 must only be issued 2. Identification of the covered beneficiary farmer
towards tenant farmers who are in private agricultural 3. Identification of the boundaries of the land
lands which are primarily devoted to rice and corn. If the
land is not anymore private agricultural, then the It is only after all these identifications; preparatory things
provisions of PD 27 no longer applies. that have bene complied with, can a CLT be issued. The CLT
In this case, the court held that emancipation patents are as a preparatory stage requires all preparatory matter must
therefore null and void. have been complied with.
3. Coverage under the law was not proven by the - Emancipation Patent - requires that a CLT has
tenant-farmers. Since they are the one asserting a been issued and that valuation and payment of just
specific fact, then they are the one responsible to compensation have been made.
have the burden to prove that fact. In this case, they This is the basis for transfer of ownership, it then therefore
a re asserting coverage, they need to establish that requires that there has been:
all elements of coverage are present on this case. 1. Evaluation of the land
4. Between coverage and transfer, reclassification 2. Payment of that evaluation – just compensation
may operate to exclude the land from the law
5. “Deemed owners” does not mean automatic In order for the principles of eminent domain to not be
ownership. At best, beneficiaries have inchoate violated there must be a payment of just compensation
rights. before a private property is taken.
19
AS TO EFFECTS: In order to exercise the retention rights, the landowner
- CLT – Not an evidence of title. It merely signifies must:
that land and beneficiary have been identified 1. Express intention to exercise right by application
pursuant to PD 27 2. The application must be filed on or before the
These beneficiaries have inchoate rights; not real rights deadline (August 27, 1985)
over the land.
- EP – serves as a valid basis for the issuance of COT, Because it is a right, it may be waived if not availed of
as it conclusively entitles the beneficiary the rights through the recognize means. The recognize means of
of absolute ownership over the subject land. exercising the right of retention is to file an application to
Note – this is not CoT. Just like homestead patent, this needs the DAR expressing the intention of the landowner to retain
to eb registered in the Register of Deeds and will becomes a a portion of the covered land. Since the whole program for
basis for the issuance of a Duplicate Certificate of Title. This operation land transfer has timeline, the administrative
vests ownership to the farmer beneficiary over the government agencies imposed a deadline. Such that not
identified size of farm. only must a landowner exercise the right of retention by
impressing his intention in application, that application
RETENTION RIGHTS must also be filed on or before the deadline.
After the deadline, as a general rule, under the rules before
PROTECTION OF LANDOWNER’S RIGHTS CARP, the landowner is considered to have waive his right
Since PD 27 essentially adopts the notion and concept of to retention policy.
transfer of ownership from the land owner to the covered
beneficiaries, it is necessary for this law to create a balance. Illustration
Depriving one of his property would be prejudicial to a Since there is now RA 6657, and this also has rules on
person. retention rights. What happens now to landowners who
failed to apply for the retention rights on or before August
In order to balance the interest, because this deprivation of 27, 1985?
property is not for private use, this deprivation is for the The court seems to favor the construction that within RA
common good for the social justice. In order to balance 6657, those landowners whose land were covered by PD 27
social justice of common good of society, and the interest of but failed to submit application on the deadline, may still
affected landholders whose lands may be deprived from entitled to retention rights. But retention rights is not
them, the law must strike a balance. This balance is sought anymore under PD 27 which is 7 hectares but under RA
to be approximated by including this provision on retention 6657 which is only 5 hectares.
rights.
Basic requirement for the exercise of the right to
Retention rights are places in this law because this law retention
implements agrarian reform by deprivation of ownership of 1. Actual direct cultivation
property. In RA 3844 and Tenancy laws there is no such 2. Actual indirect cultivation
thing as Retention Policy. The primary mode of 3. Intended cultivation
implementing Agrarian reform is not through transfer of
ownership, this restriction on the conduct of the parties. However, this is also viewed as one of the loopholes or
Here since it involves acquisition and redistribution of weaknesses of the law because intended cultivation may
lands, there has to be some form of protection. There has to easily be proven; actual indirect cultivation may be used as
be mitigation as to the effects of Agrarian Reform. a toll to expand the whole retention rights;
THE LAW STATES WHO CAN EXERCISE THE RIGHT OF RETENTION?

“In all cases, the landowner may retain an area of not more
than 7 hectares if such landowner is cultivating such area or THE LAND OWNER
will now cultivate it.” – PD 27 - Specific Right The Decree specifically mentions the
"landowner" who can exercise the right.
Digan vs Malines
 Retention Right is the mechanism of the law to - Transferability is Limited While the right is
mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition, transferrable, it is limited so it may not be used
to strike a balance between the rights of the unscrupulously.
landowners and the tenant” Saguinsin vs Liban
By virtue of the availment of retention rights, the landowner  The court had to adjudicate the validity of ownership
is not deprived of all the landholdings. The landowner is of this buyer in 1972. In order to resolve the matter,
deprived only of a part or a huge part of the landholding. He the court examined whether this current owner had
is given the opportunity to retain some of the landholding. the right to exercise retention rights.
To retain a portion of the landholding not more than 7  The court said, the buyer who bought the land after
hectares of the land. 1972, that buyer cannot exercise the right of
retention because: (1) he is not the owner in this case
20
– the sale being in violation of the law is void; (2) the moment of death. Thus, the rights over the properties of the
buyer is not a buyer in good faith. decedent will automatically be transferred to the heirs.
 Who then can exercise retention rights in case the There is no break of the ownership.
landowner is now dead? Second exception is that it would be transferred back to the
 SC – the heirs may exercise the original landowner’s Government. If the landowner or the beneficiary realizes
right to retention if they can prove that the decedent that perhaps there is a better option where the beneficiary
had no knowledge of OLT coverage over the subject cannot continue or opts not to continue to be the owner of
property. As such, the intent must be proven by the the land; the farmer beneficiary may sell back the property
heirs seeking to exercise the right. (Because there to the government.
was no knowledge, there was no opportunity for the What’s the reason for the exception?
original land owner to avail of the retention rights.
Therefore, if the heirs are able to prove that the Estolas v. Mabalot
decedent had no knowledge of this coverage, then  Their emancipation gave them the rights to possess,
they are given the chance to prove or express the cultivate and enjoy the landholding for themselves.
intention to exercise the right) These rights were granted by the government to
The buyer cannot exercise the right of retention because: them as the tillers and to no other. Thus, to insure
- The sale, being in violation of the law, is void. their continuous possession and enjoyment of the
- The buyer is not a buyer in good faith. property, they could not, under the law, effect any
transfer except back to the government or, by
Who then can exercise retention right in case the hereditary succession, to their successors.
landowner is not dead?
 [The] heirs may exercise the original landowner's LEGAL STATUS OF PD 27
right to retention if they can prove that the decedent Has it been repealed?
had no knowledge of OLT Coverage over the subject The law states
property. As such, the intent must be proven by the - the provisions of […] PD 27 […] not inconsistent
heirs seeking to exercise the right. with this ACT shall have suppletory effect. – Sec.
Note - The provision in PD 27, prohibits the owners of 75, RA 6657, as amended
covered agricultural lands from selling their agricultural
lands primarily devoted to rice and corn.
LIMITATION
PROHIBTION AGAINST TRANSFER
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 [...] – PD 27
There is a paragraph in PD 27 which prohibits transfers of By virtue of this provision, it is clear that the intention of the
lands that are acquired by virtue of the provisions of PD 27. lawmakers is not to repeal or supersede PD 27. Thus, it can
The decree states, “Title to land acquired pursuant to this still be effective not anymore in a primary manner but
Decree or the Land Reform Program of the Government rather suppletory. The provisions of PD 27 are not in
shall not be transferable except by hereditary succession or inconsistent with RA 6657 because PD 27 is limited in
to the Government.” character. What RA 6657 does is it expands the coverage of
GR – PD 27 prohibits transfers title to land the law. Such that we can view it from the perspective that
XPN – hereditary succession or to the government. RA 6657 expands PD 27. This is why RA 6657 is called
Comprehensive as it does not anymore limit its application
This is a recognize exception because there is no farmer to private agricultural lands that are primarily devoted to
beneficiary who will live forever. Upon passing away, these rice and corn.
farmers leave their lands to their beneficiaries. This
scenario is covered by succession laws, hereditary Illustration
succession. Farmer beneficiaries have no control over that. There is a land that is covered under PD 27 then
subsequently RA 6657 takes effect. Although it is already
So, this is a necessary exception as it would be absurd even covered under PD 27, its whole process was not yet
if hereditary succession is not allowed under the law; it will complete. It has been superseded by the passage of RA
be absurd because there will be a scenario where the 6657. Now, we have come to the point that we will just pay
property will have no owner simply because the owner just compensation.
died. As you will learn later on, in your succession class, the
policy of the state is to avoid properties that are ownerless. On what law do we base our evaluation of just
This is why under our succession laws – ownership over the compensation?
properties of the decedent are passed to the heirs at the
21
AS TO FACTORS IN JUST COMPENSATION  The court unfortunately ruled that saguinsin did
PD 27 not have retention rights.
- basis for just compensation is more simplistic, i.e. 2
½ times the average of three normal crop years 1, The transfer was void. 2, Saguinsin was not a buyer in
immediate preceding the promulgation of the Good faith.
Decree
RA 6657 1st reason: why was it void?
- More complex because there are several factors,  According to the court, the sale from the orig owner
e.g. cost of acquisition, current benchmarked value, to saguinsin was void bec it was in violation of the
actual use and income etc. law pd 27. Prohibit the owner of mga covered lands
form selling the properties to another person after
Where do we base the evaluation for just compensation? the effectivity of PD 27 bec the sale from the orig
Land Bank vs Heirs of Cruz owner to saguinsin happened after the effectivity of
 The application of the process of agrarian reform PD 27 then the sale is considered void.
was still incomplete thus, the Court held therein that  Although contracts are considered as laws between
with the passage of R.A. No. 6657 before its the parties, except when the terms or subject of the
completion, the process should now be completed contract they are violative to the law, contrary to
under R.A. No. 6657, with P.D. No. 27 [...] applying law, moral and public policy.
only suppletorily.  Because this transaction was in violation of the law
then void. If void, there’s no transfer of ownership,
Therefore, the evaluation shall be based on RA 6657 so saguinsin cannot be considered as a landowner.
because under this law there are several factors. This more As a general rule retention rights are available only to
complex basis for evaluation is that it grants more landowners.
protection to the landowner. There is a greater chance to
arrive at a meaningful just compensation with t justifiable What if the sale was valid (assuming valid? Can we say
price corresponding to the land. then that retention rights are available?
DISCUSSION (SYNCHRO MODULE 3) Digan vs Malines

Retention rights are necessary rights in order to grant some The sale to the tiller was valid, although the owners are
form of protection to the landowners to mitigate prohibited from transferring lands, an exception is
compulsory land recission. recognized that the landowners may transfer to the tenant
beneficiaries not through pd 27 but through a direct
Grants the right towards the landowners to retain a portion payment scheme.
of the landholding covered by the provisions of the law not
more than 7 hectares. SC this is a recognized exception because ethe purpose is to
give baya lands to our farmers. Of that is achieved,
We made mentioned Saguinsin case. therefore, it is valid.
As a general rule – it pertains to the landowners. In this case the sale was valid, if the sale is valid, would the
transferees have the right of retention? SC said, you are
Saguinsin vs Liban entitled to right of retention? There exists a right of
 In this case, this original land owner before he died retention? Whether Malines et al can exercise retention
was able to transfer the land form another person rights?
who is not a tenant farmer, a third person. Imagine
nalang fellow landowner r who bought lands from Malines et. al argued, assuming that this land is covered
another land owner. the land was a private under pd 27, at least recognized our retention rights. Can
agricultural land and there was a lease tenancy now the transferee exercise retention rights? Provided that
agreement there. the sale was transfer.
 Now, saguinsin, having all the documents that Can they have the right of retention?
would evidence her ownership over the land, now
wants to exercise retention rights. This land was According to SC, Malines and co cannot still exercise
covered by PD 27. Upon notice that the land that retention rights. WHY????
saguinsin acquired was subject to pd 27, no
saguinsin wants to retain a portion of the In that case, the transaction is valid but unfortunately
landholding with a maximum of 7 hectares. the court cannot recognize rights of retention with
regards to the land because Malines’ are not
 The primary question was, can saguinsin exercise landowners.
retention rights? Sc resorted to the provision of pd 27 which states that a
landowner who owns private agricultural land… and
22
there is this time element, this person is identified as
such to be the owner as of October 21, 1972.
What’s the significance of this date?
This is when the PD 27 took effect, there is a cutoff, by

the time pd 27 took effect, all those existing landowners
covered by landholdings are the ones considered as
landowner. Any subsequent nga mga owners will not
have the right of retention simply bec the term
landowner is defined with such time element.
There are important documents
What are these 2 important documents?

Certificate of land Transfer
Emancipation patent
These 2 docs are different. In the distinction we’ve

consulted the distinction by the SC in the case of dela cruz
vs dominggo.
Why was it necessary to distinguish a certificate of title and
emancipation patent in this case of dela cruz vs dominggo?
What happened in the case that created the necessity of the

SC to distinguish the 2?
Sc had to distinguish the 2 docs because there are 2

beneficiaries on the same properties. De la cruz claimed
ownership by virtue of CLT and dominggo by virtue of EP.
Sc said, dominggo has ownership of the land because he was

issued by EP. Because the CLT does not operate to transfer
the land yet, it is only a preparatory document, only
evidences that a person issued is a qualified beneficiary…
While and EP issued at a conclusion stage of the whole
procedure, and EP grants absolute ownership of the land.
EP, it is the one that is registered in RD, pursuant to that
registration, a TCT is issued in favor of the beneficiary.
Coverage is module 4 – B for purposes of graded oral

discussion.
23
MODULE 4A – THE COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN some other aspects that need to beaddressed by the
REFORM LAW (CARL), AS AMENDED governemtn such that this compreheeinve agrarian reform
law not only authorizes and mandates the government to
INTRODUCTION TO CARL, as amended RA 6657 acquire and distribute properties, it also mandates the
government to aid to provde aid to the farmers after the
What to expect? trasnsfer and train the farmers after the transfer.
How is it “Comprehensive”?
Schema of Amendments Third aspect
Government Offices Concerned KEEPING UP WITH THE TIMES
Recognizing the impact of technology and development on
How is this law comprehensive? What justifies this use agriculture, agro-industrialization is recognized component
of comprehensive? of agrarian reform.
There are several features of the law which might be a basis It recognizes the impact of techonology on agricultural
for its use of comprehensive. acitivites on how agricukture is being done. Because
technology has prvided aid and improvement on the quality
First feature – coverage on agricultural actiivites and the quality fo the products,
NOT LIMITED TO RICELAND AND CORNLAND this law recognizes gthat the goveremnt also needs to
Coverage has been expanded to “agricultural lands” without provide the farmer beneficiaries some forms of techonolgy
regard to primary crops. and training and education on these techonoligeis that will
help tehm, to sustain their agricultural busniesss activities
Under PD 27, it seems and it appears that the operation of and to be successful by themselves.
this PD is limted and the most limiting of them all is the
qualification of primary crops by which the law does not This law does ont just limit to the practices but trad
apply anymore to tneneats or landholdings which are practices are stillrecognized, but because of developments
primarly devoted to rice and corn although agricultural of techonloghises, this law also madates the government to
activites are being undertaken therein. provide the trainng, necessary knowledge and in some
cases the equipment nad machinery in order the farmer
This law somehow comprehensive because the beneficiaries to maximize their resources that are granted
qualification on the primary crops is not anymore found in to tghema dn improve their not only their produxcts, ways
this new law. All agricultural lands whotiout regard to the they undertake agri activities but more imporatntnly their
primary crops therein are coverd under this law. aultiy way of life.
Under PD 27 it only applies ot private agri lands. Under RA Next Feature

6657 is comprehensive enough not only covers private agri WOMEN’S RIGHT RECOGNIZED
lands but also mga landholdings of the state. Public in To address anecdotal reports of sex discriminated, the law
nature. But these lands are identified as susceptible for expressly recognizes the inherent and independent right of
agricultural actiivites and therefore deemed or identified as a woman.
covered under the law.
Those 2 poitns because this law does not anymore limit iits This law addresses concerns arising frm reports concners
application depending on it sprimary crpos planted and of discrimination on the basis of sex. Sch thatn because
does not apply to private agri lands, this law can be said to ewomen in the far-flung areas, they are not given that
be comprehensive to that regards. regards, there have been discrimination on the basis of sex
especially in the determiatnion of beneficiary. Such tahtn
Another point jsutrfies the word comprehensive there are women who should have become beneficiary
under before or predecessor laws, but they were not
NOTE MERE LAND TRANSFER prioritized in fact they somehow experienced
After land transfer, farmers are not left on their own. They sdiscrimination maybe because they dooo not have
will eb aided and trained on how to fully and efficiently use husbands or other male beneficiaries have been
human and natural resources. priotoitrized.
When we say agrarian reform, eys it involves transfer of The women who amy be qualified to be beneficiaries now
lands,re disitribution of lands to beneficiaries, it means also are protected and recognized independently of some man
more than that more than land transfer ebcasue agragraian of antoehr person. She can own or beneficiary regardless of
reform has an agricultural aspect. It’s just not transferring whehtehr married, widowed etc.
the land. agrarian reform seeks to transfer land, seeks to
bestow ownerhsip to farmers with the end in view that
there be agricultural activities undertaken in that specific
portion of land. therefore, aftetr transfer of land,a fter the
acquisition and distribution of the land there must also be
24
Another Feature DISPUTE RESOLUTION
DISPUTE RESOLUTION MECHANISM  Carried out by the quasi-judicial bodies of within
Addressing concerns over dispute resolution mechanism in the framework of CARL
the past. The law establishes a dispute resolution
mechanism particularly applicable to agrarian disputes. Remember Agrarian reform can exercise power of eminent
domain.
It provides more streamlined mechanism a clear
mechanism because there are many cases that will arise or Davao Fruits vs LBP
legal disputes that arise from the operation of agrarian  Once an expropriation proceeding for the acquisition
reform. of private agricultural lands is commenced by the
DAR, the indispensable role of the LBP begins,
This law establishes streamlined and relatively clear because it is the one ordered to pay the landowner.
mechanism to address or resolve the dispute arising from It can agree or disagree with the valuation of DAR,
agrarian reform. This feature is one of the things make it and in case of the latter,it can invoke the judicial
comprehensive. power of the determination of just compensation,
Lastly MODULE 4B
ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY MODULE 4B (Part 1)
Agricultural activities have environmental and ecological COVERAGE UNDER RA 6657, as amended
implications which are now recognizes and addressed It does not apply to all lands in the PH, there are rules and
under the law. criteria before a particular land is covered under this law.
Here, there are specific exemptions and exclusions, which
There are activities of men in relation to agricultural operate. Meaning, if a land falls under the description under
activities that have environmental and ecological the provisions of exclusions and exceptions, then these land
implications, there has to be an aspect or feature of this law are outside the coverage of this law.
that addresses that effect.
This law is comprehensive enough o cover that concerns AGRICULTULRE VS. AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY
arising out of agri activities. How are they construed?
This law has undergone several amendments. A lex specialis definition
SCHEMA OF AMENDMENTS Significance of the discussion: in our StatCon, we were

taught that as a default rule, in construing a law, we give the
ordinary meaning to the provisions or terms employed by
the law.
We construe the law literally. But somehow, in some cases,

that literal construction or plain meaning rule is
problematic since there are terms and provisions that need
to be specially defined. Without a special definition, the
spirit of the law might not be served.
Such that when there are terms that are specially defined,
GOVERNMENT OFFICES then that special definition under the law will govern, not
Involved in Agrarian Reform anymore the plain meaning rule.
THREE PRIONGED-APPROACH Such is the case for the terms agriculture and agricultural
Agrarian reform in the Philippines activity.
Implementation, Rule-Making, and Dispute Resolution Under RA 6657, these terms are given special meaning (lex
specialis definition) such that this meaning within the
IMPLEMENTATION framework will have to govern the definition or the
 Carried out by the Central Office (OSEC) and the meaning of agriculture and agricultural activity as legal
field offices (Regional, Provincial, City or terms.
Municipal)
RULE-MAKING HOW ARE THESE TERMS DEFINED UNDER THE LAW?

 Is primarily carried out by the Presidential Reform They are collectively defined as:
Council, which is chaired by the President of the
Philippines. “(b) Agriculture. Agricultural Enterprise or agricultural
activity means the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops,
25
growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish, Although the plain meaning may include agro farming, we
including the harvesting of such farm products and other would still refer to the lex specialis definition which has
farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in been deliberately adopted in such a manner as to exclude
conjunction with such farming operations done by persons piggery, poultry and livestock, the court concluded that
whether natural or juridical. “ such could not have been included in the definition of
Agrarian reform and agriculture as used in the Constitution.
Under this unamended section, agriculture includes raising
of livestock, poultry or fish. This is the reason why this Since they are excluded, any law should not have included
particular part of the definition under Section 3b was them because by doing such, the law would now contravene
questioned in the case of (see below) the constitution and would consequently insofar as that
part is concerned is unconstitutional.
LUZ FARMS V. HONORABLE SECRETARY OF DAR
The effect of the constitutionality of this phrase is that once
In 1990, over 2 years after the effectivity of the CARL, this it is declared such then that portion is considered as
particular inclusion of raising of livestock, poultry or fish stricken down.
was assailed as unconstitutional before the court. The farm As such as the definition of these terms should not include
owners, specifically raising livestock, poultry or fish are “raising of poultry and livestock”.
assailing the unconstitutionality of this inclusion in the
definition of agriculture enterprise/activity. But this was also addressed by the Amendment
Reason: if that provision stays in the law, then the farms When the court rules a law to be unconstitutional, Congress
raising livestock, fish, would be subject to the operation of may have 2 reactions:
agrarian reform laws (RA 6657), therefore they ask that 1. Congress will abide by the ruling
that portion be stricken down as unconstitutional. 2. Challenge by reenacting the same
Petitioner wanted to nullify the part which states that We have seen this in the case of Serrano where after having
agricultural activity involves raising of livestock, raising of declared a portion of the OFWs Act as unconstitutional;
poultry and fish since it is not within the meaning of Congress passed another law reiterating the same.
agrarian reform as stated in the constitution.
Or, congress may respect the ruling and do nothing or may
In our intro to this course, there are provisions in the after agreeing with the SC, amend the law in order to reflect
constitution, which are the basis for the implementation of the reasoning or outcome of the case.
agrarian reform. One of those bases specifically use the
word “agrarian reform”. The latter is the case here since under RA 7881, Congress
amended Section 3(b) such that agriculture, agricultural
WHAT WAS THE INTENT BEHIND THE USE OF THE enterprise/activity means only the following.
TERM AGRARIAN REFORM AND AGRICULTURAL
LANDS? Reacting to the ruling in Luz Farms case, Congress passed
RA 7881, amending the definition into:
SC: Including the phrase “raising of livestock, poultry or
fish” is unconstitutional. “(b) agriculture, agricultural enterprise or agricultural
activity means the cultivation of soil, planting of crops
The intention was to exclude agro-farming activities (growing of fruit trees, including the harvesting of such
from agrarian reform under the Constitution. farm products, and other farm activities and practices
Constitutional deliberations show that the term performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming
“agricultural” was adopted to mean excluding “piggery, operations done by persons whether natural or juridical.”
poultry and livestock”
Here, the Congress passed the law deleting the previously
The intention was agrarian reform would be limited to declared unconstitutional phrase which included raising of
activities involving cultivation of soil, the land that would livestock, poultry or fish.
facilitate the growth of whatever is planted in the land.
For now, this is the legislative response and settled
Purely common sense and reason would lead us to conclude therefore, based on this case and the definition laid down by
that agro-farming and agricultural activities pertaining to the amendatory law of RA 7881, raising of livestock, poultry
cultivation of land are 2 dissimilar things. They do not or fish are already outside the definition of agriculture,
involve the same activity and principles. As such, the court agricultural enterprise/activity which are defined solely to
held that it is the intention to exclude kaning mga agro- be in the definition in the herein amendment.
farming activities from the cultivation of soil leading
towards growth of plants as defined under the Constitution.
26
WHY IS THE DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURAL AND However, we focus on the special definition of agricultural
AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IMPORTANT? land because it brings us to the rule of coverage.
HOLY TRINITY REALTY V. DELA CRUZ As we observe, agricultural lands have special meaning also
“The spirit of agrarian reform is not to distribute lands per under the law and it has 2 components or elements. These
se, but to enable the landless to own land for cultivation. 2 elements when discussed reveal the rules for coverage.
This is why the basic qualification laid down for the
intended beneficiary is to show the willingness, aptitiude A LAND IS CONSIDERED AS AGRICULTURAL WHETHER
and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as PRIVATE OR PUBLIC, WITHIN THE MEANING OF RA
possible. This requirement conforms with the policy 6647 WHEN THESE TO ELEMENTS CONCUR:
direction set in the 1987 Constitution to the effect that
agrarian reform laws shall be founded on the right of the 1. Land devoted to agricultural activities
landless farmers and farmworkers to own, directly or 2. Not classified as mineral, forest, residential,
collectively, the lands they till. commercial or industrial land
Such that if you give them a land that is barren and not On the first element, we said that the definition is key
susceptible to cultivation, the spirit of the agrarian law is towards the determination of an agricultural land. This legal
defeated. The objective is to distribute lands for purposes of definition is somehow abstract and theoretical. So the
cultivation. Thus, the lands subjects of agrarian reform laws question is, how do we know whether a land is agricultural?
have to be susceptible to cultivation and agricultural
activities. This leads us to the discussion on the manner of
determination. If the 2 elements are present then a land is
More importantly, the term agricultural, agricultural considered covered and thus the operation of the law in the
activity/enterprise, together with their common meaning compulsory acquisition will have to kick in which is issued
has something to do with how we determine a land to be with a notice of coverage.
covered under the law because when determining coverage,
there are criteria and rules GENERAL PROCEDURE OF COMPULSORY COVERAGE
COVERAGE:
Criteria and Rules
Necessary Links in Construing the Law
Continuation
3 NECESSARY LINKS
1. Coverage:
a. Agricultural Lands
2. Definition:
a. Lands devoted to Agricultural Activities, as
defined nthe law, and not classified as Once considered as covered under 6657, thus agricultural
otherwise and not classified as mineral forest etc, then a notice of
3. Lex Specialis Definition coverage will be issued. This is the procedure that will
a. Agriculture or agricultural activity has a normally follow. First, that land will be included in the
special definition under the law database and listing (masterlist in the DAR) if not in the list,
There are 2 components here: then it is not considered as agricultural land within the
Lands are considered as agricultural if devoted to meaning of RA 6657. If within the database and listing, then
agricultural activities. Notice that the definition of the owner will be issued a notice of coverage by DAR. This
agricultural land also makes reference to another notice will have to be served to the landowner and on top of
component/definition under the law. Thus, we then link the the service, it will also be posted and published.
provision on coverage with the definition of agricultural
land and we further link this definition of agricultural land There are remedies and proceedings when you contest it
to agriculture or agricultural activity or enterprise since but we will discuss it on dispute resolution mechanisms.
these have special meanings under the law
Why is this important? Here, the issuance of notice of
Such that within the present context and framework of law, coverage will have to be based on law but also has to be
these terms refer to cultivation of soil, planting of crops and based on fact. The database and listing will have to include
growing of fruit trees and such other activities arising out of only those lands which factually qualify to be agricultural
these farming operations, such that these definitions hold within the meaning of the law, then only those lands which
the key towards determining whether a land is agricultural are identified as such should be included in this database
or whether is within the coverage of RA 6657. and listing.
27
How is this possible? How can the DAR conclude whether
this property should be included in the database or listing? This component is viral to the definition of agricultural land
because:
MANNER OF DETERMINATION 1. This says that it must not be classified as mineral and
If land is devoted to agricultural activities forest;
How is a land determined to be agricultural? a. Mineral and forest lands are incapable of being
owned privately nor susceptible to private
REPUBLIC V. SALVADOR LOPEZ AGRI-BUSINESS ownership. It cannot be disposed of or
CORP alienated in favor of private persons.
The court, recognizing that in order to arrive at the b. RA 6657 mandates the government to utilize
conclusion of whether a land is an agricultural land needs public agricultural lands and vests private
factual basis, then the court here laid down 2 important ownership over these lands and grants private
things that DAR should do: ownership to farmer beneficiaries. In effect, it
1. On-site ocular inspection is the state which grants private ownership of
Affords the DAR, through representatives and lands covered under 6657.
officers the opportunity to collect factual c. It is important that mineral and forest lands
circumstances that will serve as basis for are excluded from its coverage because these
concluding WON a land is agricultural. cannot be disposed of or alienated by the State.
2. Actual investigation 2. This clause also identifies the kinds or classifications of
Ocular inspection is not enough thus you have to lands which are beyond the coverage of RA 6657
investigate the status of the land, the surrounding although they may be subject to private ownership.
circumstances relating to the documents, a. Agrarian Reform is for the government to
testimony of witnesses, neighboring landowners distribute lands to grant the landless with land
and etc. to cultivate. Residential, industrial and
3. Conclusion based on confluence and totality of commercial lands are not lands that would
factual circumstances serve that objective of the law, not susceptible
Inspection and investigation must have to be to agricultural activities therefore beyond the
collated since all the pieces of evidence obtained ambit of 6657.
through these recognized measures have to be
collated. The conclusion of whether this land is This component of the definition of agricultural land is
agricultural or not and therefore covered under important since it delineates the kinds of lands classified to
6657 or not should be based on the confluence be outside the ability of ownership and beyond the ambit of
and totality of factual circumstances which are RA 6657 for being not susceptible to agricultural activities.
supported by the evidence gathered from ocular
inspection and actual investigation. Lands are subject to initial classifications. However, these
Only then can the DAR make a valid factual determination may be changed by the government through
whether a land is covered or not. Important therefore for reclassification.
DAR to undertake these measures to gather evidence which
would have to be evaluated and concluded based on that Reclassification: the government changes the
evaluation. classification of one land to another
Only then can the DAR conclude that this land is devoted to Agricultural -> industrial
agricultural activities.
Thus, it is the act of the state to change the classification of
If the land is deemed agricultural, would it automatically be the land by some governmental act. This act of reclassifying
covered under RA 6657? is recognized as a valid exercise of state power.
No. If you try to recall, agricultural land is defined as a land In fact, LGUs are recognized to possess the power of
devoted to agricultural activity and it is not classified as reclassification within its territorial jurisdiction because it
mineral forest, residential, industrial land. is an exercise of its delegated police power.
CLASSIFICATION, RECLASSIFICATION, AND If it’s the Congress, it is the exercise of primary authority to
CONVERSION exercise police power.
Definitions and Differences
This act of reclassification is legal, recognized within the
“NOT CLASSIFIED AS MINERAL, FOREST, RESIDENTIAL, framework of the law and valid under the constitution.
INDUSTRIAL OR COMMERCIAL LAND”
• Not within the coverage of RA 6657 Here, we will try to discover and discuss the pertinent rules
• Lands classified as such cannot be disposed of or with regard to reclassification as held in jurisprudence.
alienated by the State (Dumo v. Republic)
28
Which of the properties of Pedro is covered by CARL, as There has to be conversion before a land is put outside the
amended? operation of RA 6657
1. Lot 1 (Reclassified as residential on 20 June 1965
by the NHA) ROS, ET. AL. V. DAR, ET AL.
2. Lot 2 (Reclassified as residential on November Reclassification Conversion
1993 by a Presidential Proclamation) Can be done by govt Can only be done by the
agencies authorized by law DAR
Pedro’s lands were formerly agricultural but were subject to reclassify
to classification into residential. An official governmental An official governmental
act specifying how act of changing the
RULES OF CLASSIFICATION agricultural lands shall be current use of a piece of
utilized for non- agricultural land into some
HEIRS OF LUNA V. AFABLE, ET. AL agricultural uses other use
Reclassification alone + Before Effectivity of 6657 = Takes a Reclassification
landholding outside of the operation of the law For example, a land is agricultural but after reclassification
it becomes commercial residential industrial. The
When we are trying to answer a question/case involving government just specifies that this land, which was
coverage and the land has been reclassified, we ask agricultural, may be used for non-agricultural activities
1. When was reclassification done? (Before or after such as residential, commercial or industrial.
effectivity of RA 6657)
2. Was the reclassification done by an authorized This can be done by government agencies (other than DAR)
person? authorized by law such as their charter, LGC, etc.
The first question serves as a cut-off and the second
question will be answered by examining the charter to show Conversion
whether the government entity has the power. Not just the specification by the government of how
agricultural lands should be utilized. It authorizes the
If the reclassification was done before the effectivity of change of the current use of a piece of agricultural land into
6657, then reclassification alone will result into taking the some other use.
land holding outside of the operation of the law.
As opposed to reclassification, it is just a specification that
Meaning, it is not anymore an agricultural land for purposes “oh this land may be utilized as residential” but that alone
of coverage. does not authorize the owner of the land to change the
actual use of the land.
CREBA V. SEC. OF AGRARIAN REFORM
“It bears stressing that the said date of effectivity of RA 6657 In order for the landowner concerned to change the current
served as the cut-off period for automatic reclassifications and actual use of the agricultural land, there must be
or rezoning of agricultural lands that no longer require any conversion in addition to reclassification.
DAR conversion clearance of authority” Conversion can only be done by the DAR.
Before RA 6657’s effectivity, reclassified lands were already Going back to discussion of the rules
put outside the operation of RA 6657. without any further After the effectivity of RA 6657, reclassification alone
requirement, just reclassification, that land is already cannot put a landholding outside the operation of law. In
outside theoperation of the law. order for it to oust the land from the law, there must be
The case is not the same if the classification is done on or conversion in addition to that.
after the effectivity of RA 6657. It does not anymore take
the landholding outside the operation of law. Conversion may only be done by the DAR.
CREBA V. SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM
Does that mean therefore that no more reclassifications are “As a result, if a land was reclassified only after the
allowed after RA 6657? effectivity of CARP, mere classification does not
automatically allow a landowner to change its use. The
Not necessarily. After the effectivity of RA 6657, there may landowner must undergo the process of conversion before
still be reclassifications but reclassficiation alone will not he/she is permitted to use the agricultural land for other
take that land outside the operation of RA 6657. There has purposes.
to be an additional governmental act that should be done in
order for that land to be outside the operation of the law. ALANGILAN REALTY V. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
“The exclusive jurisdiction to classify and identify
What is that? Conversion. landholdings for coverage under the CARP is reposed in the
Reclassification + After the effectivity of RA 6657 + DAR Secretary. The matter of CARP coverage, […] is strictly
Conversion = Landholding outside of the operation of the Part of the administrative implementation of the CARP, a
law. matter well within the competence of the DAR Secretary”
29
We said under RA 6657, reclassification alone will not effect
SECTION 10, DAR AO NO. 7-2011 automatically the owner from changing the current/actual
A pending proceeding for conversion does not bar the use.
coverage of a parcel of land.
In this case, will the LGU need conversion before it can
If at all you apply for conversion, it is an implied admission expropriate agricultural land and use it for a road and
that it is an agricultural land covered by DAR. Thus, it is only highway project?
after the approval of that application for conversion can the
land considered be outside the coverage of RA 6657. (This will be asked in the assessments)
If pending pa ang proceeding, it does not bar the coverage. EXEMPTIONS AND EXCLUSIONS
(kung ang imong land agricultural unya nag apply ka para Under RA 6657, we also identify what are excluded and
iconvert, unya wala pa nahuman ang proceedings, exempted lands.
considered covered gihapon sya under 6657)
SECTION 10, RA 6657
ANSWER TO PEDRO QUESTION: “Lands actually, directly and exclusively (remember this
Lot 2 is covered by CARL. The lot reclassified on 1993 daw) used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife,
after the efectivity of CARL is considered by CARL. Nowhere forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding
in the facts can we say that there is conversion. grounds, watersheds, mangroves, national defense, school
sites and campuses including experimental farm stations
Reclassification alone will not automatically operate the operated by public or private schools for educational
exclusion of the land from the coverage of CARL. There has purposes, seeds and seedlings research and pilot
to be conversion which is not shown in Lot 2. Though lot 2 production centers, church sites and convents appurtenant
is reclassified as residential, without the conversion, it is thereto, mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant
covered under CARL. thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal
colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates,
(For purposes of discussion) government and private research and quarantine centers
Lot 1 was reclassified before the effectivity, there is no more and all lands with 18% slope and over, except those already
need to search for conversion since it is not needed to oust developed shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.”
number 1 from the coverage of CARL.
WHICH OF THE PROPERTIES OF THE STATE IS
HOW WOULD DAR DETERMINE AND APPROVE COVERED BY CARL, AS AMENDED?
CONVERSION?
Lot 1 reclassified as school site by a Presidential
ROXAS & CO INC V. CA Proclamation on 12 June 1988 and is being used as a School
There are 2 indispensable requirements: Site
1. Investigation/Ocular Inspection
2. Conference with the Occupants of the land Lot 2 reclassified as school site by a Presidential
Proclamation on 11 June 1988 and is a vacant lot
Gathering facts of the physical status of the land, inspecting
land and documents + evidence and testimonies from actual The only difference between the 2 is lot 1 is actually used as
occupants of the land. a school site while 2 is vacant. Thus, not actually, directly
GANZALO PUYAT & SONS INC V. ALCAIDE and exclusively used.
“The importance of conducting an ocular inspection cannot So here, lot 2 may be covered by CARL provided that this
be understated, since it is one of the steps designed to land may be devoted to agricultural activities and not
comply with the requirements of administrative due actually, directly and exclusively used for the purpose for
process.” which it is classified.
In order for an administrative body to validly conclude on Note: for landholdings of the state, the rules are
the matter, this ocular inspection must be conducted. By different.
gathering factual evidence, the administrative bodies will
have something to base upon their conclusions and For reclassification of private landholdings, the rules that
recommendations. we discussed will apply.
QUESTION: For the properties of the state that are covered under CARL,
We have a local government unit wanting to expropriate Lot the following will apply.
1, which is an agricultural land in order to, utilize as a road
or highway project (meaning there is change in actual use)
30
STATEMENT OF THE RULE: exclusions and exemptions this paragraph (b) Section 10,
(Regardless of the Date of Reclassification) of RA 6657.
• State-owned agricultural lands are excluded by
reclassification [Before the declaration of unconstitutionality and the
• Through Presidential Proclamations alone amendment by 7881] There were prawn farms and
• Provided that the land is actually, directly and fishponds, which were issued with certificate of CLOA and
exclusively used for the purpose indicated were distributed by virtue of 6657.
Private landholdings under 6657: What is the effect of the subsequent of

• Identify the cut-off period. unconstitutionality of the phrase and the amendment
of 7881?
State-owned agricultural lands:
• Excluded by mere reclassification without need of Doctrine of operative fact: It states that an
conversion, provided it is done through presidential unconstitutional law is recognized to have effects; as a
proclamations and the land is actually, directly and general rule, it has to be nullified.
exclusively used for the purpose indicated, regardless
of the date of reclassification. But if the nullification will prove to be impractical or
inconsistent with the policies of the law and will prejudice
CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY V. DARAB the rights and privileges granted by virtue of that law, these
“As to the determination of when and what lands are found effects will have to be respected and recognized
to be necessary for use by the CMU, the school is in the best notwithstanding the declaration of unconstitutionality.
position to resolve and answer the question and pass upon
the problem of its needs in relation to its avowed objectives Such that, when certain prawn farms and fishponds were
for which the land was given to it by the state. Neither the distributed because of the unamended RA 6657, by virtue of
DARAB nor the CA has the right to substitute its judgment the doctrine of operative fact, it will no longer be
or discretion on this matter, unless the evidentiary facts are reverted to the landowners, especially when there was
so manifest as to show that the CMU has no real need for the already transfer and issuance of CLOA.
land”
However, those prawn farms and fish ponds that were not
DAR V. DECS distributed and tenants were not issued with a CLOA, the
“The importance of the phrase ‘actually, directly and coverage will have to be discontinued and cannot proceed
exclusively used and found to be necessary’ cannot be with the coverage of RA 6657.
understated, as what respondent DECS would want us to do
by not taking the words in their literal and technical WHAT WOULD BE THE PROTECTION OF TENANTS IN
definitions. The worlds of the law are clear and THOSE PRAWN FARMS AND FISH PONDS? WHAT ARE
unambiguous. Thus, the plain meaning rule or verbal legis THEIR RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES AS BENEFICIARIES?
in statutory construction is applicable in this case. Where
the words of the statute are clear, plain and free from SANCHEZ V. MARIN (2007)
ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied • RA 3844 AND RA 6657 (unamended) both cover prawn
without attempted interpretation.” and fish farms
• Due to coverage, vested rights have been bestowed to
SECTION 10, RA 6657, AS AMENDED BY RA 7881 tenants in fishponds and prawn farms
“b) Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for • Later exemption cannot impair the vested rights under
prawn farms and fishponds shall be exempt from the 3844
coverage of this Act: Provided, that said prawn farms and
fishponds have not been distributed and Certificate of Land Before the exemption of prawn farms and fishponds, there
Ownership Award issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries were already vested rights granted to the tenants,
under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.” especially if they are lessees under an agricultural leasehold
arrangement, under RA 3844.
In the original law, this is not found. In fact, the original
wording of Section 3(b) which includes raising of livestock, The later/subsequent exemption of prawn farms and
poultry or fish, originally prawn farms and fish ponds, fishponds cannot be retroactively applied to them.
which are considered within to be the coverage of 6657, as
discussed in the previous video, it is declared as The tenants there will remain to enjoy the privileges under
unconstitutional in the case of Luz Farms v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform Laws specifically RA 3844 (but not
DAR. anymore in 6657 with lands pertaining to undistributed
fish ponds and prawn farms).
The congress passed 7881, which deleted that portion of
raising livestock, poultry and fish, and included in the However, this ruling was effectively altered by the
ruling of the court in Dillena v. Alcaraz
31
DILLENA V. ALCARAZ (2017) Feedlot operation adopted by the petitioner is a recognized
• Existing workers or tenants in fishponds enjoy rights exception.
under other laws (perhaps labor laws), not under
agrarian laws Even though there is cultivation of soil and planting of
• Leasehold arrangements under RA 3844 cannot be said crops, the crops and the napier grass produced was for
to operate in fishponds and prawn farms feedlot operation and grazing pasture (to be eaten by the
• RA 7881, insofar as it excludes fishponds from agrarian livestock). Thus, it is not considered agricultural and will
law, also supersedes 3844 remain to be non-agricultural.
Rights under RA 3844 are no longer applicable to tenants in WHO HAS JURISDICTION TO DECLARE EXEMPTION?
prawn farms and fish ponds.
MILESTONE FARMS, INC. V. OFFICE OF THE
The passage of RA 7881 did not just alter 6657 by excluding PRESIDENT
prawn farms and fish ponds from agrarian reform laws. It “it is the DAR Secretary who is vested with such jurisdiction
also modifies and supersedes RA 3844. and authority to exempt and/or excludes a property from
CARP coverage based on the factual circumstances of each
What is the effect of the modification by 7881? case and in accordance with law and applicable
jurisprudence.”
Leasehold arrangements under RA 3844 are not anymore
present in fishponds and prawn farms. However, this is not always the case. Although he/she is the
one with jurisdiction and authority, he can delegate tasks.
Does that mean that tenants in those fish farms will lose
their rights and protection under the law? GENERAL PROCEDURE OF EXEMPTION
(DAR AO NO. 13-90)
Not necessarily. Existing tenants/workers there will have to 1. Application for Exemption to MARO (Municipal
enjoy rights not under RA 3844 but under some other laws. Agrarian Reforms Field Office)
Thus, you can invoke provisions of the Labor Code for rights 2. MARO forwards application to PARO which will
(security of tenure) or the Civil Code. assess the application WON complete. If
incomplete, PARO will revert the application to
The law specifically provides for those 2 above exclusions, MARO for further investigation and completion.
but this third exclusion is effectively excluded by 3. If complete, the PARO will refer the application
jurisprudence. to the approving offices depending on the area for
exemption:
OTHER EXCLUDED LANDS: a. Less than 5 hectares: RD of DAR
LUZ FARMS V. SECRETARY OF DAR b. Less than 50 hectares: Undersecretary of
Lands Devoted to Raising Livestock, Poultry or Swine Legal Affairs of DAR
c. 50 hectares or more: Secretary of DAR
CONDITIONS: 4. The approving authorities will either approve or
Lands must have been used for raising livestock, poultry or deny.
swine before the effectivity of CARL. 5. If approved, a certificate of exemption is issued
to the applicant. It will be evidence that the land
It is still being used at present as a land for raising of the applicant is beyond the coverage. It is a
livestock, poultry or swine, unless utilized for other certification by the DAR itself that the land is
purposes not agricultural in nature. identified to be beyond the operation of RA 6657.
HEIRS OF ARCE, SR. V. DAR
In a particular portion of land, there was cultivation of soil Note: Authority according to jurisprudence is the Secretary
and plants were put there. The crucial fact in this case that of DAR, but in some cases as per DAR AO 13-90, the
although there was cultivation and planting of crops, the Secretary can delegate some powers and matters that can
purpose is for the livestock for the animals to graze on be approved by the Regional Director, Undersecretary, as
such land. the case may be.
“The subject lands remained to be non-agricultural, After the land is considered covered under 6657, the land
despite the fact they were being used, not only as a grazing will also have to be acquired.
pasture, but as a production area where napier grass were
grown to supply food for the livestock maintained in the
subject lands and in the Novaliches property. ‘Feedlot
operation’, the method adopted by the petitioners in rearing
their livestock, was recognized in the DAR in Administrative
Order No. 01, Series of 2004 (AO No. 01-04).”
32
MODULE 4C Effect of Registration = Entitlement to Incentives, as
determined by PARC
LAND ACQUISITIONS UNDER CARL, AS AMENDED
If the landowner registers in the DAR pursuant to RA 6657,
REGISTRATION it is a voluntary act of registering himself as a landowner
and the landholding that he owns. In order to encourage
Under the law, it states that a landowner must register in landowners to voluntarily register, the government gives
accordance with the provisions of RA 6657 within 180 days incentives to these land owners as determined by the
from the effectivity of the law. Presidential Agrarian Land Reform Council (PARC)
What does Landowner mean? He may be a: The entitlement to these incentives is just for the 180 day
• Natural Person period.
• Juridical Persons (corporations or other persons
which are created by fiction of law) We can say therefore, that if a landowner does not register,
• Government Entities (because this covers not he or she is still covered under the law. Why? Because it is
only private agricultural lands but also public not registration which determines the coverage rather it is
agricultural lands; government entities in so far as the definition under the law or the provisions under RA
they own and hold agricultural lands, they are 6657.
considered as landowners for purposes of
registration and acquisition) Effect of Non-Registration =/= Non-Coverage
Who own agricultural lands or who claim to own Q. What is the effect of not registering?
agricultural lands (within 180 days from the effectivity of A. The effect would be non-entitlement to the incentives.
the law; from June 15, 1988) Non-registration will not result to the exclusion on the
coverage. As long as the land owned by the landowner is
Q. What’s the common denominator among the 3? agricultural land, then, he is still covered under the law.
A. The common denominator when they are considered as
landowners is that, these 3 persons either own agricultural Note - Registration under RA 6657 is only for the purpose
lands or they claim to own agricultural lands, in which case of allowing landowners to voluntarily register themselves
they are identified as landowners, who under the law must as landowners and their landholdings as agricultural lands
register with the DAR. which are covered by the law.
Note - Under RA 6657, registration must not only involve MODES OF ACQUISITION
the identity of the landowner, but also such other relevant
information and data concerning the agricultural land. Originally under RA 6657, there are 3 modes of acquisition
Q. It must be registered within 180 days from the effectivity – (1) voluntary land transfer; (2) voluntary offer for sale;
of the code. Is this a disabling provision of the law because and (3) compulsory land acquisition
of the short period within which the landowners may
register, does this effectively limit the acquisition of the Most rules that have been formulated are on compulsory
government; are those land owners who failed to register land acquisition because this mode of acquisition is the one
such lands within 180 days are not anymore covered? which involves the power in exercising eminent domain.
A. NO. Had this been the case, agrarian reform would be Voluntary land Transfer and Voluntary Offer for sale, they
limited to such landowners who voluntarily register are said to be voluntary and therefore, the landowners
themselves and their landholdings. If you put that power so themselves willingly parted with their property which are
much on one party in relation to agrarian reform; it’s like covered under RA 6657 in which case it’s not anymore a
rendering it nugatory the entirety of the law. coerced transfer or forced transaction, thus, it does not
technically fall under the concept of eminent domain
PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION because the latter is characterized as forced acquisition by
the government whether the landowner likes it or not.
The purpose of this is to initially encourage landowners to
give the necessary information to the government for VOLUNTARY OFFER FOR SALE
purposes of agrarian reform. It will be easier for the 1. The landowner offers portions of covered lands to DAR
government to receive information or data than going out for voluntary sale;
there to conduct investigation or ocular inspection. It is only a portion because the offer must exclude already
the intended area which would be retained by the
Registration within the 180 day period will entitle the landowner. Not the entirety but a portion which is now
landowner to incentives. outside the retention limits
2. Offer is revocable, unless accepted by the DAR
33
The landowner offers the land to the DAR; such offer must VOLUNTARY OFFER FOR SALE
be accepted by the DAR. It is an offer for sale (there is no
sale yet; there is no contract to talk about) The offer must
be accepted in order that there will be meeting of the minds; DAR
pending the acceptance by the DAR, the offer is revocable at
anytime before the acceptance.
Note – once the DAR already accepts the offer; such offer
can no longer be revoked.
landowner Qualified
Q. Why does the landowner wanted to voluntarily offer the Beneficiary
sale to the DAR; why is a landowner who is deprived of the
property, voluntarily part with the property?
VOLUNTARY LAND TRANSFER
A. In order to encourage voluntary modes of acquisition, the
law grants incentives. Determined by virtue of RA 9700
Permissible only up to 30 June 2009
3. Landowner gets incentives (e.g. additional 5% cash
payment)
DAR
In the case of Association of Small landowners, the SC said
that in this revolutionary kind of expropriation of exercise
of eminent domain, payment of just compensation may
come in forms other than cash. Because of this, landowners Qualified
will be given a variety of considerations as just Landowner
Beneficiary
compensation. Here, if you have voluntarily offer for sale,
you as a landowner, you will get an incentive.
VOLUNTARY LAND TRANSFER

The landowner directly contracts with the qualified
1. The Landowner voluntarily agrees with the Qualified beneficiary; while the DAR is just acting in a monitoring or
Beneficiaries; supervisory capacity in order to ensure that the terms of the
2. Direct Transfer from Landowner to Qualified contract are not oppressive against the qualified
Beneficiary, but DAR supervises; beneficiary.
3. Does not involve payment of Money by the State, except
when beneficiary applied for a loan with the LBP. As observed from the illustration, there is no transfer of the
land from the landowner to the DAR; rather the transfer is
This will have to involve the covered agricultural land; once directed towards the qualified beneficiary. Under Voluntary
they agree with the terms and on the contract, then there Land Transfer, the landowner has still the direct connection
will be a direct transfer of the land from the landowner to with the qualified beneficiary which does not involve a
the qualified beneficiary. The DAR should be there in order Tripartite system. So, this voluntary land transfer was
to ensure that the contract is not oppressive; that the farmer discontinued by the amendments of RA 9700. This VLT, the
is not oppressed by the terms of the contract. landowner can directly contract with the beneficiary and
can direct the terms in the contract even if there is the
Note – here, it does not involve the state paying money presence of the DAR.
because as a GR this is a Direct Transfer; therefore, it should
be the Qualified Beneficiary who would pay. In this way, the landowner will have an advantage over the
qualified beneficiary in so far as the DAR is concerned.
The Land Bank of the Philippines is mandated to finance There are instances where the qualified beneficiary under
transactions and transfers under RA 6657, then Land Bank RA 6657 will be left with a contract or agreement that is
may extend loan to qualified beneficiaries and the proceeds essentially not favorable to them. Realizing this, Congress
of the loan will have to be directly given to the landowner amended RA 6657 via RA 9700, abolishing VLT. Here in the
and the qualified beneficiaries will pay in Amortization in VLT, the contact between landowner and qualified
installment basis to the Land Bank of the Philippines beneficiary is not broken; it is still there and the land owner
can still dictate the terms of the contract.
Q. How to distinguish the two types of voluntary for of land
acquisition? Note - VLT is not anymore allowed.
34
Q. Does this means that previous VLT are nullified? ISSUANCE OF NOTICE OF COVERAGE
TWIN NOTICE REQUIREMENT
A. NO. All VLT which have been executed by virtue of RA Notice of Coverage & Notice of Acquisition
6657 before it was amended by RA 9700 are considered as
valid and enforceable. They will not be disturbed. NATURE PURPOSE
Part of Administrative Affords the landowner
AFTER RA 9700, VLT cannot anymore be validly entered Due Process in the opportunity to (1)
into between the landowner and the qualified beneficiary. Compulsory Acquisition contest coverage; and
The cut-off date is June 30, 2009. (2) exercise retention
rights within the time
AT PRESENT, there is only 1 voluntary mode of transfer limit.
which is Voluntary Offer for Sale.
The Notice of Coverage is given by the DAR to the
MODULE 4-C PART 2 landowner and it is the first notice that the DAR will send to
COMPULSORY ACQUISITION the landowner. Under the procedure for compulsory
Involuntary. Forced. Coerced acquisition, the rules requires twin notice requirement.
Under this notice, the DAR consider such land holding as
This means that this mode of acquisition involved the covered under RA 6657, and therefore you are being
exercise of eminent domain by the state. This involves the notified as a landowner that your land is covered and you
exercise of states fundamental powers against the have a choice to contest it or exercise retention rights.
properties or landholdings of its private citizens there must
be rules and procedures that must be adhered to and After the Notice of Coverage, the DAR will have to make
followed by the State in order not to commit any violation confirmatory procedures such that the land subject of the
in the Constitutionally guaranteed rights under the law. notice of coverage will be confirmed that it is within the
coverage of RA 6657. The DAR will conduct public hearing,
DAR ADIMINTRATIVE ORDER NO. 7 SERIES OF 2011 further investigation and inspection.
FIELD INVESTIGATION
SECTION 68, DAO 07-11
PURPOSE PARTIES INVOLVED

In order to confirm the data Landowners and
acquired through beneficiaries are invited
identification by recognized in the field investigation
geodetic practices (e.g. use
of “mojon” – cylindrical
marls that are placed in
IDENTIFICATION areas which signifies the
The whole process has to start somewhere; this process metes and bounds )
cannot proceed without knowing as to who should be
involved; what should be involved; and to whom the Who conducts Field Investigation?
process is being undertaken. Field investigation are conducted usually by the personnel
of DAR who are geodetic engineers or those who are trained
In the process of identification, we have to know, we have to practice geodetic engineering.
to identify the following:
The field investigation is for confirmatory purposes not
1. LAND – we identify land through the technical only of the status of the land but also of the measurements
descriptions, including the meres and bounds must be and location of the lands; the metes and bounds.
ascertained.
Here, public conference or hearing may also be called, in
2. LANDOWNER- the owner of the land must also be such case parties will have to be invited: the land owner,
identified with particularity to ascertain to whom beneficiaries, neighboring people are invited to the
payment is done. (whether the identification ay be conference where some things will have to be clarified.
voluntary (if registers the land within the 180 days NOTICE OF VALUATION AND ACQUISITION
period) or compulsory through ocular inspection, (second notice)
investigation)
This means that such land was issued with a notice of
3. BENEFICIARY – to whom the acquired lands are to be coverage and confirmatory procedures have been done.
awarded must also be ascertained. Upon perusal of the data available from the DAR, has been
35
initially valued (value attached to the property); that this Roxas & Co v. CA (G.R. NO. 127876 DEC. 17, 1999)
land covered by law subject to the notice of coverage and
costs this much will be acquired by the state for purposes of ISSUE: WON a violation or non-compliance of the twin
agrarian reform. notice requirement will have the effect of nullifying the
proceedings in the DAR.
However, there are also times that even after due diligence,
the government cannot still assert who the landowner is. In HELD: The violation or irregularity of the two notice
such case, the rules provide that the DAR may resort to requirement are just characterized as purely procedural
service by publication. irregularities. These requirements are found under the
rules of procedure in administrative cases, the non-
GR- Notice of Valuation and Acquisition should be compliance or irregularities are characterized as purely
personally served to the landowner procedural and therefore, this will not result into a
XPN- when after due diligence, the landowner cannot still declaration of nullity of the whole proceedings. If at all, this
be ascertained; thus, posting or publication of notice. irregularity in purely procedural aspects will warrant the
remand of the case from the courts to the administrative
• PERSONALLY SERVED – as a rule, the same must be agencies concerned in order for these agencies to be given
personally served to the landowner. However, when the chance to correct their mistakes.
the landowner is unknown despite substantial
investigation, DAR shall resort to service by In 2011, the ruling in the Roxas v. CA was revisited
publication.
HEIRS OF DELESTE V. LBP (G.R. NO. 169913 JUNE 8,
• POSTED – in addition to service, the notice must 2011)
likewise be posted in the designated conspicuous
places. This violation of two notice requirement is not just
procedural because the twin notice requirement are placed
• VALUATION AS OFFER – the notice must contain the in order to afford the affected landowner with due process
initial valuation by the DAR which consists of an offer. of law. Now there is already an administrative rule or
process that must be adhered. Otherwise, if this rule is not
Q. What is the importance of valuation? followed there will be a violation of the due process clause.
A. under the rules, this is considered as the initial offer. This
is the initial valuation of the DAR and you are given this According to the court, the whole proceeding is null and
notice of valuation indicating the initial offer made by the void because there is a violation of the constitutional right
DAR; the amount on which it is willing to pay the landowner to due process. Therefore, the act of that governmental
for the covered land. branch is considered null and void.
Note – this valuation is indispensable on this notice because The existing rule now, non-compliance and irregularity of
without valuation, there is no initial offer and if there is no the two notice requirement will result into a violation of the
initial offer, the landowner will have no basis for either constitutional right to due process, therefore, the whole
accepting or contesting. Therefore, the whole process in proceeding is null and void.
terms of compulsory acquisition will be irregular.
LANDOWNERs’ RESPONSE
EFFCET OF NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE TWIN SECTION 76, DAO 07-11
NOTICE REQUIREMENT
After the notice of valuation and acquisition is served to the
Non-compliance is a landowner, now, the ball is in the court of the landowner to
Purely procedural and violation of the decide his approach to the receipt of notice of valuation.
results into remand of constitutional right to From this, there will be at least 2 fundamental choices on
the case for DA to due process. the the part of the landowner either: (1) the landowner will
correct its mistakes proceedings is null reply; OR (2) the landowner will not reply by ignoring the
and void. notice of valuation.
Roxas & Co v. CA
Heirs of De;este v. LBP Note - it is important to know the disadvantage of not
replying. Because if the client will not reply, it automatically
proceeds to the next phase. The landowner will be
There are times admittedly that DAR commit mistakes considered to have waived the opportunity to reply.
where it failed to comply with the twin notice requirement;
perhaps the DAR will only issue a notice of valuation and If the landowner will reply, there will be 2 options: (1) may
acquisition without the first notice OR it may give first decline the offer – valuation is considered as the offer; OR
notice but there is no second notice. (2) may accept the offer.
36
TIME LIMIT FORWARDED TO LBP LBP V. DARAB
Landowner is given 30 days Whether landowner
within which to respond to responds or not, the A question arose since the deposit is for the account of the
the Notice of Valuation and matter is forwarded to landowner who did not reply or did not agree with the
Acquisition LBP, as the next phase initial valuation.
will involve money.
If NO reply within the time Can the deposited amount be withdrawn by the
limit, it will directly proceed landowner who did not reply or by the landowner who
to the next phase. rejected the initial valuation?
The next phase, regardless the landowner replied or not, the State: NO, not yet because the whole proceedings is not
direction will still be the same. The matter will have to be yet completed. It will be subject to adjustments.
forwarded to the LBP because the next phase will involve
the payment of the initial valuation as just compensation. HELD: Such deposited amount for the account of the
Here, the offered amount will have to be deposited or landowner may be withdrawn immediately even in the
consigned in courts because the landowner did not reply pendency of the process; even when there is question in
nor agree with the initial valuation. the initial valuation; even when it reaches the court for
judicial determination of just compensation, the
PAYMENT OR DEPOSIT deposited amount may be withdrawn immediately. It
Pre-requisite to possession may be withdrawn even fi the landowner rejects the
initial offer since there was already a deposit of the money
INITIAL VALUATION REQUIREMENT or amount corresponding to the initial valuation,
The amount to be The deposit is required therefore, the DAR now is justified to take possession of
deposited must be based on in order for land the property. In that case, the landowner is already
the initial valuation by the acquisition under RA deprived of the property.
DAR, not the valuation in 6657 to be not
the summary confiscatory and DEPOSITED AMOUNT MAY BE WITHDRAWN
administrative proceeding. consistent with the IMMEDIATELY
principles of eminent (LBP V DARAB G.R. NO. 183279 JAN. 25, 2010)
LBP V. HEIRS OF TRINIDAD domain.
• Withdrawable even when landowner questions or
Note – without the payment of the amount, the possession rejects the initial offer
will be considered as confiscatory. In order for the • Because the landowner is already deprived of the
possession to be consistent with the principles of eminent property
domain, because when the DAR takes possession of the • To hold otherwise would sustain an oppressive
property, then the landowner will be deprived already of exercise of eminent domain
the private property. Therefore, there must be as a IMMEDIATE POSSESSION
condition precedent a just compensation. (conditioned on payment)
Within the framework of RA 6657, in order for this DEPOSIT OR PAYMENT FORWARDED TO LBP
condition to be satisfied, there must be payment if you
accept or deposit it if there is no reply or it has been When landowners does not Whether landowner
rejected. respond or rejects the responds or not, the
Note – the amount involved in the payment or deposit here valuation, DAR can take matter is forwarded to
is not the amount that is determined by the adjudication possession by deposit of the LBP, as the next phase
branch of the DAR. The amount deposited must be the valuation amount. When will involve money.
Initial Valuation. landowner accepts.
Q. What is the initial Valuation? It is important that there must be payment of just
A. The initial valuation of the DAR after having confirmed compensation through deposit or through direct payment
the circumstances of the land based on the data and in case you accept in order for the DAR to be able to
information that they have on the land. The summary immediately possess the property. Afterwards, the DAR will
involving the proceedings will only come AFTER the request the Register of Deeds to cancel the existing Transfer
payment or deposit of just compensation. Certificate of Title or the OCT that covers the compulsorily
acquired land.
In relation to the money deposited or consigned in court (in Note – as a rule, when a new TCT will be issued, the old TCT
case of no reply or rejections), the money deposited should should be cancelled. The purpose of the cancellation is for
be in favor of the landowner the ROD to be able to issue new certificate of titles, now
under the name of the Republic of the Philippines who owns
the land by virtue of the compulsory acquisition.
37
CANCELLATION OF TCTs and ISSUANCE OF NEW ONES First step is by the DAR and then if the landowner is still not
(culmination of acquisition) satisfied or still does not agree with that then determination
The acquisition has already culminated; not the whole of just compensation by the courts.
process because even after the existing TCT may have been
cancelled and that new ones have been issued in favor of the First by the DAR, when the landowner replies to the notice
Republic, it is possible that there may be contest as to the valuation and acquisition and declines the offer, the Land
initial valuation but still the litigation for just compensation Bank of the Philippines will have to deposit the amount still
will proceed. but the matter will be referred to the adjudication branch of
of the DAR for administrative determination of just
In so far as acquisition is concerned, once the old TCT has compensation.
been cancelled and a new one was issued, it is already
considered to have been acquired by the state. When we say the adjudication branch of the DAR, we refer
Note – this is somehow considered as a deviation to the to the quasi-judicial bodies which will be the ones to
general rule. (e.g. in order for the contract of sale to be facilitate the summary proceedings, which will also be the
reflected in the records of the ROD and for a new TCT will ones to preliminarily determine just compensation in
be issued; the owner’s duplicate of title held by the summary proceedings.
registered owner will have to be surrendered- for it to be
cancelled; otherwise there will be a double sale) SUMMARY PROCEEDINGS
To Preliminary Determine Just Compensation
DEVIATION NEW OWNER
Considered as an When the existing TCT is NOT FINAL AS A RULE AGRARIAN DISPUTE
involuntary dealing cancelled, a new one is Determination of Just When any interested
acquisition under RA issued under the name of Compensation by the DAR party does not agree
6657 does not require the the Government. The lands is not final – unless with the administrative
surrender of the owner’s acquired then become the accepted by the parties – determination of just
duplicate owner’s copy. subject to re-distribution. and, therefore, not in compensation, an
violation of the judicial agrarian dispute arises
As a general rule, the owners duplicate must also be prerogative to fix just cognizable by the
surrendered for it to be cancelled together with the TCT. compensation regular courts.
BUT, this general rule does not apply here.
(Assoc. of Small
Note – in the case of compulsory acquisition, there is no Landowners v. SEC of DAR)
requirement that the landowner will surrender the owner’s
duplicate certificate of title. Note - in this summary proceedings the conclusion and the
REASON: this is an Involuntary Dealing. result will not be final. The determination is not final
determination of just compensation and is strictly judicial
Once the government asks the DAR or the ROD to cancel the because it's judicial prerogative within the framework of
certificate of title covering a land that is subject to Agrarian our laws.
Reform, it cannot ask to surrender the owner’s certificate of
title. Under the law, even without the surrender of the There have been laws, presidential decrees in the past
duplicate title, the existing TCTs may be cancelled and that which were declared as unconstitutional for being in
new ones may be issued in favor of the Republic. Otherwise, violation of this rule not for being an encroachment to this
if it requires the surrender, the acquisition of the judicial prerogative, but as held in Association of Small
government will be held hostage by the landowners. Land owners v. secretary of DAR the allowance of
determination of just compensation by RA6657 granting
Note – the land acquired is now owned by the government the power to determine just compensation to the DAR by
but such parcel of land covered by that TCT is for RA6657 is not unconstitutional. Not in violation of this
Redistribution. judicial prerogative to fix just compensation because the
determination by the DAR is not final unless of course
MODULE 4-C Part 3 accepted by the parties in which case there's no more need
The first part of the process in compulsory acquisition will to call for the judicial prerogative to fix just compensation.
start from identification and which will culminate in the In case the landowner disagrees with the determination of
cancellation of the existing TCTs and the issuance of new just compensation through summary proceedings, the
TCTs or transfer certificate of titles to the Republic of the landowner is not without recourse.
Philippines who now owns the properties for redistribution
later on, but even when that acquisition has been ASSOC. OF SMALL LANDOWNERS V. SEC OF DAR
culminated the process in many cases will still proceed
because there may be questions on the matter of just The determination of the adjudication branch of DAR is
compensation especially when the land owner declines the merely preliminary. What will hold and what will
initial offer which will have to be determined. govern ultimately for just compensation, will be the
38
determination of the courts when this judicial HIERARCHY NOT FOR APPEAL
prerogative to fix just compensation is invoked and so Go Directly to the Court
when there's this controversy on the matter of just
compensation. When there's this agreement with the ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
determination of just compensation, an agrarian Appeal to RARAD or DARAB in grievances against the
dispute will arise and this agrarian dispute will be administrative determination of just compensation is
properly cognizable by the identified forums among within the original jurisdiction of the Special Agrarian
tribunals which is found on dispute resolution Court. (Sec. 57 RA 6657, as amended & LBP v. SPS. Chu G.R.
Mechanisms under RA 6657. No. 192345, March 29, 2017)
In fact, the landowner can go to the court to invoke the Now if the land owner will disagree even with the
judicial prerogative to fix just compensation. In this administrative determination of just compensation, then
summary proceedings, it will be held or conducted by the this is not final for the courts still are granted with the
adjudication branch of DAR but there are delineations of judicial prerogative not deprived by RA 6657. The land
which office within this adjudication branch of DAR has the owner disagreeing with the valuation upon determining
authority and it's based on the initial valuation of the land just compensation can go to courts immediately because
in question. under RA 6657 the courts will have original jurisdiction
within the framework of the judiciary. From administrative
WHO DETERMINES? determination, which is merely preliminary, the land owner
will have to go to the court because the courts will have
RARAD PARAD DARAB original jurisdiction in terms of grievances against valuation
(regional (provincial (department of under summary proceedings regardless PARAD, RARAD or
agrarian reform agrarian agrarian reform DAR, the land owner will have to go to the special agrarian
adjudicator) reform adjudication board) court. Special Agrarian courts are Regional Trial courts
adjudicator) which are designated as such.
PHP 10M-50M >PHP 10M < PHP 50M JUST COMPENSATION

Rules and Jurisprudence
If the initial valuation is less than 10 million it should be the Qualifications for Just Compensation
provincial agrarian reform adjudication (PARAD) officer 1. Full and fair
which will be the one to determine the conduct that 2. Real and substantial
summary procedure. 3. Equivalent of the property
Q. How do we know if a specific amount is the full and fair
But to determine just compensation if it's 10 million to 50 real substantial equivalent of the property how do we
million it's not anymore the provincial not anymore the measure how do we arrive at the figures the conclusion that
PARAD but now the regional agrarian reform adjudicator or this amount these figures that they correspond to just
RARAD and if it's more than 50 million the initial valuation compensation?
it will be the DARAB or the department of agrarian reform
adjudication board. A. DAR and the courts may ascertain that by facts but these
facts alone will not result into the valuation. These facts will
Note - This hierarchy is only for the purpose of distribution not result into the figures. They must be based on the
of tasks to manage the caseloads of these offices. In no way factors under the law. These facts must be based on
should this be construed as a hierarchy for appeal. standards that are enumerated under the law.
That's not the case here because this hierarchy is only for Illustration
the purpose of delineating the functions based on the This property was a private agricultural land which is
amount. Delineating the roles of these offices based on their primarily devoted to rice and corn and then there’s lease
amounts because regardless of where you started whether tenancy and share tenancy implemented right this property
PARAD or RARAD or DARAB in the administrative therefore was covered under PD27 and so it was subject of
determination of just compensation if you still disagree the operation land transfer under PD27 but because of
with the valuation. If you agree with the valuation then DAR some factors the acquisition of this land was not complete it
will pay. But if for example the initial valuation was lower was not completed for so many years in fact even after June
than the second valuation, then DAR will pay the 15, 1988 meaning even after RA6657 (wala ghpon na
discrepancy. Although these are very rare cases. Notice of complete now in the implementation because of our
valuation is higher than the valuation by the adjudication RA6657 which is a more intense implement of agrarian
branch which is very rare reform. This land which was taken under PD27 now will
( in which case naa ifund if you accept but of course no have to be a completed process of acquisition but in the
land owner will accept a lower amount than the process of acquisition since wala pa sha na complete there's
administrative determination of just compensation so no payment yet of just compensation in fact there's no
most likely mu disagree ang landowner in such a case) determination yet of just compensation).
39
IMPORTANCE OF THESE FACTORS: ADMINISTRATIVE
Now, in that case where we have a land which was taken DETERMINATION
under PD27 and then the whole process of acquisition of the Sps. Lee, et. Al. v. LBP (G.R. No. 170422, March 7, 2008)
land was overtaken by the effectivity of our RA6657.
A question now arises, what law should now govern the 1. Mandatory
factors, what factors should we apply, should we apply 2. Valuation is invalid if not followed
the one under PD27 or should we apply the one under 3. Invalidity of valuation does not invalidate the
RA6657? proceedings
Administrative determination is the determination of the
Land Bank of the Philippines v. Dumlao,2008 - adjudication branch of the DAR preliminary in nature. Now
According to the court is that it should be the factors under when determining just compensation the adjudication
RA6657 that should govern for 3 reasons: branch of the DAR must follow the factors because the
factors are mandatory.
1. Using the factors under RA 6657, rather than under
PD 27, would result into the full, fair, and complete Q. What's the effect if the administrative adjudication or the
value administrative determination is not based on these factors?
2. Applicable only to those lands which have been
acquired under PD 27 but the process remains to A. The determination that is not based on those factors will
be completed after the effectivity of RA 6657 be considered as invalid
3. This retroactive application is justified on
equitable considerations Note - the valuation only is invalid it does not invalidate the
whole proceedings.
The factors under RA6657 being several and covers more
circumstances as compared to PD27 which only has one IMPORTANT OF THESE FACTORS: JUDICIAL
factor and one aspect one angle of evaluation. If we are to DETERMINATION
give full and fair and complete amount which will be the just 1. Adhering to the factors is, as a rule, mandatory
compensation, we should then apply the factors under 2. Deprivation is allowed, in the exercise of judicial
RA6657 instead of PD27 because applying the factors under discretion, so long as it is supported by the
RA 6657 will result into a much fuller much fairer and much reasoned explanation grounded on evidence
more complete value and which will be considered as just (Alfonso v. LBP)
compensation under the circumstances. 3. Without such explanation, the deviation is
considered as tainted with grave abuse of
Note - this rule now applies only to those lands which are discretion (LBP v. Honeycomb Farms Corp, GR No.
covered by PD27 subject under OLT under PD27 but whose 169903, Feb. 29, 2012)
acquisition was not yet complete even after the effectivity
of RA 6657. This does not apply to those lands which were Why compare?
already completed. As we know the fixing of just compensation is a judicial
prerogative and therefore if it's a judicial prerogative it
To those acquisitions already completed before RA6657 should not be intruded by the other branches of the
because (in that case completed na ang process of government. It should not be intruded by the executive, it
acquisition). There's no more need to assess again what's a should also not be intruded by the congress.
full and fair and complete just compensation but in those
cases overtaken and process of acquisition under PD27 by Illustration
the effectivity of RA6657 according to the court it should be If for example Congress through a law imposes on the courts
RA6657. Factors will be used all right in effect therefore in factors straight jacketing therefore the courts in the
those limited cases the land was acquired under pd27 but exercise of this prerogative to fix just compensation then
not complete. It was not completed and even after there may be a problem or a potential violation of a
effectivity of RA 6657 in that limited subject the rules of RA prerogative, but then according to the Court it's not really
6657 will be applied retroactively and according to the the case in RA 6657 because what happens is that when it is
court even though this is a substantive law which as a now a judicial determination, as a rule it is mandatory
general rule cannot be applied retroactively, this particular because this is a law.
provision or the factors under RA 6657 may be applied
retroactively based on equitable considerations because the BUT in order to preserve the judicial prerogative of
factors under RA 6657 affords the land owner with a fuller, determination of just compensation, courts unlike DAR
fairer, and a more complete value of just compensation are allowed to deviate. Courts are allowed to deviate from
compared to PD 27. these factors now because ultimately it is the prerogative of
the courts to fix the just compensation and because they
have this prerogative, deviation from the factors under the
law although mandatory deviation from the factors would
be allowed in the exercise of judicial discretion
40
that it's residential for him or her to get much higher just
ALFONSO V. LBP, 2016 compensation so the question in this scenario is what
should be the basis and how should we value the land.
Deviation is allowed but such deviation is allowed only Should it be valued as residential because it was
when the court finds that there are grounds to deviate reclassified already or should it be valued still as an
meaning if the deviation is supported by reasoned agricultural land?
explanation grounded on evidence found on record.
LBP V. LIVIOCO, GR NO. 170685, SEPT. 22, 2010
Note - the offshoot to this is the rule or ruling in the case of
Land Bank of the Philippines versus Honeycomb farms in In this case essentially according to the court, its value is still
2012) as an agricultural land because without an order of
conversion this land is still agricultural and therefore it is
LBP V. HONEYCOMB FARMS CORP., (G.R. NO. 169903 covered under RA6657 right now.
FEB. 29, 2012)
The potential use of a property should not be the principal
Although deviation is allowed, there must be reasons to criterion for determining just compensation for this will be
support the deviation but without such an explanation. contrary to the new well-settled doctrine that the fair market
Without such an acceptable reason and an acceptable value of an expropriated property is determined by its
explanation, what the court did is now tainted by a grave character and its price at the time of taking, not its potential
abuse of discretion. uses if at all, the potential use of the property or its
“Adaptability for conversion in the future” is a factor, not the
NOTE - If the Court deviates without such reasoned ultimate in determining just compensation.
explanation grounded in evidence found on record, then
that determination by the court of just compensation will be FORM OF JUST COMPENSATION
treated by the Supreme Court as tainted with grave abuse of
discretion and if there's grave abuse of discretion it will 1. Cash payment
amount to lack or excess of jurisdiction. The effect is that 2. LBP and other GOCC shares of Steels
the determination will be null and void. 3. LBP Bonds
4. Tax Credits
Illustration – Valued as a Residential Land? Under RA6657, just compensation will take many forms or
several forms. In fact, in the case of Associations of Small
Considering RA6657 while taking effect as of that moment Landowners v Secretary of DAR, just compensation
as of that date covered all agricultural lands but then after within the provisions of ra6657 may be paid in terms of
that even if such lands are covered, this particular land other modes other than cash. According to the court this is
which was agricultural and was reclassified to residential. a revolutionary kind of expropriation. This entails billions
As we know already after RA 6657 took effect, in fact the initial allocation would not be enough. Initial 50
reclassification alone will not be enough in order for it to be billion, which was substantial at the time for the standards
not covered by RA 6657. There must be an order of at the time was still not enough.
conversion from the DAR coupled with that reclassification.
Thus, the government should be allowed some flexibility to
Now, because there's no conversion yet in this set of facts be able to carry out this grand project of Agrarian Reform.
the land was still covered under RA 6657. The land was still According to the Court, it must have been within the
acquired under RA 6657 notwithstanding the classification intention of the framers of the Constitution to allow the
because there's no conversion yet (we have a scenario where Congress to be to be flexible in that area to know that
the land was covered and acquired by RA 6657 but is already Agrarian Reform would be able to cover huge tracks of lands
now reclassified as residential) in the Philippines and therefore in order to acquire them,
there must be so much resources to be expended and
Q. Will the land be valued as residential land for purposes of because the government only has so much cash and it has
just compensation? It matters because agricultural lands other resources it's allowed and it's recognized here for the
much are lower on value than residential or industrial or other kinds of forms of just compensation especially when
commercial land. jurisprudence is bereft of any prohibition against other
forms of just compensation.
E.g. Agricultural lands are 10 pesos per square meter valued
at 10 pesos per square meter but residential lands are GEN RULE – payment should be in cash
valued at 15 pesos. There's this five peso discrepancy per XPN – other forms may be allowed (Association of Small
square meter, then transpose that to hundreds of hectares Landowners v. LBP)
that would mean millions.
Q. What are these other forms of just compensation?
So necessarily under this set of facts if we try to argue that A. Shares of stocks of government owned and controlled
it's agricultural and it's much lower, but if someone argues corporations and the equity instruments. There are two
41
kinds of securities, equity and debt. This is equity because open for interpretation and was used for oppressive
you own something here in the shares of stocks. interpretation;
2. In order to afford the landowner the opportunity to
Also, bonds are instruments which are payable at a certain retain a specific amount or area of his or her
time with interests and it has value which will be paid by landholdings which would be sufficient not just for
the Land Bank of the Philippines when it matures, meaning himself but also for his family (which will be left for
when the specified period will come. BUT it's a death hereditary succession)
instrument since you don't own something from the Land
Bank of the Philippines, it just means that LBP owes RETENTION RIGHTS: CHARACTER
something to you or owes the value of the bonds to you. 1. Constitutionally Guaranteed but Legislatively
Determined – this means that the Constitution itself
Also, tax credits are recognized according to RA6657 recognizes that retention rights should exist. What the
among forms of just compensation which is also upheld in Constitution does not do is to specify up to what area
the case of Association of Small Landowners v Secretary of that a landowner can retain. The constitution leaves
DAR. this for determination to the Congress
MODULE 4-C PART IV
RETENTION RIGHTS 2. Balances the effects of Compulsory Acquisition – to
Rules and Jurisprudence on RA 6657, as amended mitigate the effects of compulsory acquisition
As said, acquisitions of the land holdings covered under RA 3. Waivable Right

6657 will have adverse effects towards the landowners RETENTION =/= EXEMPTION
because they will be deprived of their properties against
their will; even if there has been just compensation, still the DAEZ V. CA (G.R. NO. 133507 FEBRUARY 17, 2000)
adverse effects of this forcible taking is still present.
Retention (presupposes that the land is covered, but a
In order to mitigate these adverse effects and to grant specific area is retained by landowner)
benefits to balance the interests of the parties concerned,
the law also provides retention rights. (PD 27 has Retention Exemption (entails that the entirety of the land is
Rights as well as RA 6657 with its own framework and altogether outside of the scope of the law)
applicable rules and jurisprudence)
RETENTION RIGHTS: WHEN TO EXERCISE
SECTION 6 R.A. 6657 as amended
VOLUNTARY OFFER FOR COMPULSOSRY
[In] no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five SALE ACQUISITION
(5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each Simultaneously with the At any time before
child of the landowner, subject to the following Offer for Sale receiving the Notice of
qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of Coverage
age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly
managing the farm. OR
The maximum retention limit provided under RA 6657 is Within 60 days from
only 5 hectares. But in PD 27, it is 7 hectares. But that’s not receipt of the Notice of
all, because under the law it state that there will be an Coverage.
additional 3 hectares which may be awarded to the child of
the landowner. Note – we only have 1 kind of Voluntary land transfer:
Voluntary Offer for Sale.
The landowner may be able to retain more than 5 hectares
provided that he has a child and that the child is at least 15 In Voluntary Offer for Sale, when you offer, you offer only
years of age; and that he or she is actually tilling the land or the portion which you do not intend to retain.
directly managing the farm.
In Compulsory Acquisition, it either at anytime before
Illustration notice of coverage; even if you did not get a notice of
If these two qualifications are present in his 4 children; then coverage yet, but you think this is an Agricultural Land that
3 hectares per child are allowed to be retained by the is covered by RA 6657, then you may go to the DAR and
landowner in addition to the original 5 hectares. apply for Retention. If there is already a Notice of Coverage,
the rule states that “a landowner issued with the Notice of
The hope here is clear, in order for the following to: Coverage will have a period of 60 days from receipt thereof
1. For the vagueness of PD 27 to be addressed because the within which to exercise retention rights”
criteria for retention here is somehow vague and was
42
Note – Period is very important because failure to exercise Illustration
retention rights within the period identified will be
considered as a waiver.
RETENTION RIGHTS: WHO CAN EXERCISE?
1. Landowner whose land is covered under RA 6657

2. Landowner whose land was previously covered by PD
27 and his other lands are covered by RA 6657
Note - There are landowners who has diversed

landholdings such that when PD 27 took effect, they had rice
and corn plants; they also had agricultural lands not Here, you have a rice or corn retaining 7 hectares as a
devoted primarily to corn and lands. The effectivity of PD 27 maximum required under PD 27; You also owned a tobacco
only covers a portion of their landholdings but they also farm and since there is an agricultural activity there, it is
owned some other kinds of lands which are not covered by covered under RA 6657 having also 7 hectares.
the same law. But under RA 6657, if there is an agricultural
land not classified as mineral and etc., then it is considered Now, as a landowner who has a landholding covered under
as covered. RA 6657, you may exercise retention rights here. But the
consequence for exercising retention rights under RA 6657
In which case, this landowner whose land was previously in this area, is that you forfeit the previously retained area
covered by PD 27 is now also covered under RA 6657 in so such that the 7 hectares covered under RA 6657 and while
far are his other lands are concerned. However, this land you retained 5 hectares in the tobacco farm and the excess
owner may exercise retention rights in all cases. of 5 hectares provided here that he has no child, the excess
will also be covered under RA 6657.
Q. What is the effect of availing retention rights under RA Note – the availment of retention rights under RA 6657 is
6657 if you have previously retained under PD 27? NOT in addition to but it is in lieu of the previously covered
land; you forfeit your previously retained land under PD 27.
J. MELIZA ESTATE DEV’T CO. INC. V. SIMOY G.R. NO.
217943 JUNE 8, 2016 RETENTION RIGHTS: LAND MUST BE COMPACT
OR CONTIGUOS
The court here identified that as a general rule, if you are
a landowner who has availed of retention rights under As a requirement in retention rights, lands that are retained
PD 27 you are already disqualified from availing the through retention rights must be compact or contiguous.
additional rights under RA 6657 covering the same land.
Illustration
But in case, you have other lands which is not covered by Very fertile Not so Fertile Fertile Area
PD 27 and now covered by RA 6657, as a landowner you soil Area
may exercise retention rights under RA 6657 covering 2 hectares
those other lands. However, it is NOT in addition to the 3 hectares
original 7 hectares; it’s in lieu of the previously retained
land under PD 27. Here we have a landholding which is covered under RA
6657. Somehow, the fertility of the soil is uneven. (soil
The effect here is that if the land owner whose land was under middle box)
covered under PD 27 and who has already exercised
retention rights will only exercise the same rights under While on the first box, the soil is very fertile but the expanse
RA 6657 in other landholdings. The land previously would just be 3 hectares and after the 3 hectares it will now
retained under PD 27 will be subject to compulsory be not so fertile which is not so ideal; then, afterwards at the
acquisition and will be covered under RA 6657. very end of the landholding there is a portion of 2 hectares
where the area is considered to be fertile.
GEN RULE – availment of retention rights under PD 27 will
lead to Disqualification from RA 6657 of the Retention Analysis
Rights. In this scenario therefore, it needs to be compact or
XPN – Landowner who has other lands covered by RA 6657, contiguous. Thus, the landowner cannot do this. The option
not covered by PD 27 may exercise retention rights under of the landowner remains as to the first or second box as
RA 6657 on the other lands; Land retained previously under illustrated above. What would be redistributed is the not so
PD 27 will be covered by compulsory acquisition. fertile area.
43
RETENTION RIGHTS: MAY BE WAIVED  AWARD TO BENEFICIARIES
SECTION 6, DAR A.O. NO. 2 SERIES OF 2003  PAYMENT BY BENEFICIARIES
 CORPORATE FARMS AND SDO
1. Failure to timely manifest intention to retain – this  TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LANDS
depends if it is voluntary or compulsory (voluntary –
simultaneous with the offer for sale; compulsory – may QUALFIIED BENEFICIARIES
be anytime before the notice of coverage is received or Who are qualified beneficiaries under the law? To whom the
within 60 days from receipt of the notice of coverage) lands acquired or lands subject to the operation under RA
2. Execution of document expressly waiving the right 6657 be given, awarded?
3. Estoppel by laches, warranting a presumption that
he abandoned his right Section 22, RA 6657
 The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed
ALITA V. CA. (G.R. NO. 78517 FEB. 27, 1989) as much as possible to landless residents of the
same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless
Homestead Grantees may exercise retention rights. residents of the same municipality.
Agrarian Reform laws cannot defeat the purpose of CA At first glance, when we try to understand and interpret this
141 which was enacted for the welfare of the protection provision, it would appear that only those who own zero
of the poor. lands may become beneficiaries. That’s the initial
interpretation.
Grantees who were identified as beneficiaries under CA 141
were given homestead patents and on this basis they were HOWEVER, we shall correct that initial interpretation,
issued with OCT – they were given lands by the state not for because within the framework of RA 6657, the term
the purpose of agrarian reform. Still, it is considered as a landless is not interpreted or construed literally. Under RA
manifestation of social justice because it is intended for the 6657, Landless means not total absence of landholding it
poor who can’t afford lands for their homes. actually presupposes that a person may own land but may
A question arises because after granting them these still be considered as landless for purposes of RA 6657.
homestead patents, some lands remained to be agricultural
which is still covered under RA 6657. This is because under Section 25, RA 6657, the law states
that:
Q. In a case were a homestead grant is covered under RA  A landless beneficiary is one who owns less
6657, will the Homestead grantees be allowed to exercise than 3 hectares of agricultural land.
retention rights?
This particular provision allows a person, who although
SC – YES. Homestead grantees in so far as landowners, they owns land, to be considered as landless beneficiary
may exercise retention rights. The provision of CA 141 was provided that this person owns less than 3 hectares of
for the protection of the welfare of the poor; to give them agricultural lands. This provision also includes those totally
necessary tools in landholding to establish their homes. As who do not have land ownership or agricultural land.
a thrust in CA 141 by granting these patents, agrarian
reform which is also a social legislation cannot defeat the Note here it uses “agricultural land” it may be therefore a
purpose of CA 141 and it necessarily follows that these person may also own parcel of land but it’s not agricultural
grantees may also exercise retention rights. land, in which case he/she may be considered as landless
beneficiary.
BUT ONLY, when the following conditions exists: (Almiro v.
Heirs of Pacquing, 2014) If a person is landless within the meaning of 6657, which by
the way which can be broad in nature, does it mean that
1. They are still the owners of the original homestead land person is considered as landless within the framework of
at the time the CARL took effect RA 6657 is automatically considered as qualified
2. They continue to cultivate the homestead land beneficiary?
 No, because being landless within the framework
Note – if these 2 conditions do not exist, then even if you are of RA 6657 is just one of the qualifications under
a homestead grantee, then you are not allowed or afforded the law.
with retention rights.
GENERAL QUALIFICATIONS OF A BENEFICIARY
MODULE 4D Section 43, DAR, AO No, 2, S. 2011
LAND DISTRIBUTION UNDER CARL, AS AMENDED (RA
6657)  A farmer/tiller who owns less than three
OUTLINE: hectares of agricultural lands (if not a
 Who are QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES tiller/farmer then cannot be considered as
 ESSENTIALS OF DISTRIBUTION beneficiary)
44
 Filipino citizen (foreigners are not allowed to own same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless
lands in the PH. The essence is to vest agricultural residents of the same municipality.
lands to private persons)
 A resident of the barangay or municipality* “AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE”
 At least 15 years old at the time of identification, Same Brgy Same Mun. Other lands, at QB’s Option
screening and selection (in all these three stages, As much as possible means that priority the landless
identification, screening and selection, dapat 15 yo qualified beneficiaries in the same barangay will have to be
na siya) awarded in the same barangay. But if it’s not possible, it is
 Willing, able and equipped with the aptitude to permissible to award and distribute the lands to these
cultivate and make the land productive (basic qualified beneficiaries in the same municipality not
requirement for a beneficiary necessarily same barangay. OR if the land is not enough to
cover all qualified beneficiaries in the same municipality the
Being landless will not automatically become a beneficiary, there is this last option that a qualified beneficiaries may
can we then say now that possessing all these qualifications opt to become beneficiaries in lands other lands outside the
abovementioned, make a person already a qualified barangay, outside the municipality, so long as the land is
beneficiary? covered under RA 6657.
It’s important in this note to point out that under the rules The reason here is clear, as much as possible the law does
there are qualification as well as DISQUALIFICATIONS. not want to displace a person who are qualified
There are so many DQ listed under the ruled, for purposes beneficiaries because somehow, even if you are a qualified
of discussions and exams, I will not expect to memorize all beneficiaries but you are displaced somehow it does not feel
these DQ, we can just refer to the Admin Order for the DQ. like you are a qualified beneficiaries. You have to move your
DISQUALIFICATIONS family, home in order to avoid and minimize displacement
 Waived their right to be beneficiaries for in the award of lands.
compensation
 Misrepresentation of facts in basic The priority is to award lands to person who are there in the
qualifications same brgy who have been working and living in the same
 Landowner of covered land brgy. But if it’s not possible, the term is “as much as
 Those who have been dismissed (as lessee or possible” it is permissive, then perhaps we can
workers) for cause accommodate, transfer them to a different brgy but same
 Adjudged guilty of forcible entry or unlawful municipality in which case the displacement is minimized.
detainer over the property Only when it’s not anymore possible no to grant them or
warad them in the same municipality, can the qualified
 Those who have retired or resigned
beneficiaries now opt to become benificaries in other lands,
 Those who have sold, disposed or abandoned
outside of the brgy and mun, it has to be the qualified
the lands awarded to them by the government
beneficiaries’ option because in the end it’s the qualified
beneficiaries who will face the consequences of the
Considering the presence of disqualifications, considering
displacement.
there are also disqualifications in order to therefore to
determine whether a person is a qualified beneficiary is
In the same section, section 22, there is a list, list of groups
that:
of people who may become beneficiaries under RA 6657.
This list does not point to qualified beneficiaries, because
Possess all the qualifications + Suffers none of the DQ =
what will govern of who is qualified would be the existence
Qualified Beneficiary
of qualifications and the absence of DQ. This list is merely a
1. We must ask if the person possesses all the
list that reflects the order of priority provided that all these
qualifications. If he/she does not possess all the
group of people are qualified beneficiaries meaning they
qualification then that’s the end of the inquiry, not
possess all the qualifications and none of the DQs, then
qualified. But if the person possess all the
these persons considered beneficiaries but not necessarily
qualifications that’s not the end of the inquiry. We
they are prioritized. Under the law/rules, there has to be a
must inquire further whether;
priority:
2. Whether this person suffers from any of the
disqualifications. Such that a person is a qualified
ORDER OF PRIORITY
beneficiary, when he/she possesses all the
1. Lessees and share tenants
qualifications and suffers NONE of the
2. Regular farmworkers
disqualifications. And it’s only when a person
3. Seasonal farmworkers
can be considered as a qualified beneficiary.
4. Other farmworkers
5. Actual tillers of Public Agricultural Lands
Section 22, RA 6657, as amended
6. Collectives / cooperatives
 The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed
7. Others directly working on the land
as much as possible to landless residents if the
45
Having already pointed out who are qualified beneficiaries, DAR AO NO 07 S 2011, the landowner upon receipt of the
we are ready to discuss the essentials of distribution. notice of coverage, apparently diba when a landowner
receives a notice of coverage that’s the first notice right,
DISTRIBUTION: THE ESSENTIALS under the rules when a landowner receives a notice of
IDENTIFICATION, SCREENING AND SELECTION coverage the landowner has the obligation or duty to
How are qualified beneficiaries identified? submit a list of all the farmers all the tenants that are
present in his landholding. The rules require that this list
AWARD CEILING AND ALLOCATION must be attested to by the landowner, meaning the
What is the award ceiling and what rules govern in the landowner may take an oath on the list the land owner then
allocation of the lands? is charged to include in the list all farmers and tenants to the
best of his knowledge and good faith. Otherwise, because
AWARD AND ISSUANCE OF CLOA ethe list is under oath, the landowner is at risk of being
What are the general procedure of the issuance of CLOA? prosecuted for perjury. The landowner is discouraged in
making false entries in the list.
Distribution stars for identification, screening and
selection. Based on the data gathered on the registration and also
from the data gathered from the land owners attested list,
IDENTIFICATION under the rules, the MARO is duty bound to prepare a list.
Registration Landowner’s Attested List Preliminary This list prepared by the MARO, the MAOR will then
list produce this list prepared by MARO is considered as
Registration – for purposes of developing an independent preliminary list of all identified, potential beneficiaries.
databank of potential beneficiaries, based on voluntary
registration Potential beneficiary because when a person is included in
the preliminary lest, it does not mean that the person is
Landowner’s Attested list – submitted by the Landowner already screened and already identified, chosen or selected
under oath listing all the farmers and tennats in his land, to be a qualified beneficiary.
after receiving Notice of coverage.
After this preliminary list, there is a process of screening
Preliminary list – list prepared by MARO based on available through the organized screening committee, and after, they
data (both independent and from landowner) which is to be become qualified beneficiaries, they become selected
posted and displayed in public qualified beneficiaries.
For identification it is important to note that identification Concha, et. al. vs Rubio et. al.
entails that the DAR would know that a person exists and  It must be stressed that a tenant of a parcel of land,
that person possess all the qualifications and none of the which is later declared to be under the coverage of
DQ. As per the DAR rules, in order for the DAR t be able to CARP, is not automatically chosen; nor does he
gather data independent of any investigation, the mode of have absolute entitlement to be identified as the
registration is provided. Meaning, persons who think that farmer-beneficiary thereof.
they are qualified beneficiaries are given the option to A person who is registered to become a beneficiary under
register themselves as beneficiaries. This process of the law does not automatically become a chosen qualified
registration does not automatically make a person a beneficiary. In this case, even if a person is a tenant of that
qualified beneficiaries. parcel of land by mere fact of registration does not have
absolute entitlement to already become identified as the
A person who registers himself to become a qualified former beneficiary thereof. Because the identification and
beneficiaries, just offers data and information about himself the selection of beneficiaries will have to be done by the
for the data base of DAR and consideration of the DAR for DAR.
when the DAR determines who are qualified beneficiaries.
After the preliminary lost there will be screening and
Registration is not all. There may be times where the selection and the selected qualified beneficiaries are put in
qualified beneficiaries or a person who thinks to be a a master list.
qualified beneficiary is prevented to register, it’s either by,
perhaps not knowing the mode of registration or perhaps
being prevented even to register by a third person or a SCREENING AND SELECTION
landowner. In which case, in order not to prejudice, in Registration Landowner’s Attested List Preliminary
order to be as much as comprehensive as the DAR can list Master List
be in terms of identification of who might be potential This master list contains all the screened and selected
beneficiaries another mode provided under the rules in beneficiaries of lands that are subject to the provision of RA
gathered information and data is that the land owner 6657. Note, this master list is under oath that means the
will submit to the DAR. public officials who are task with the finalization of the
master list will attest to the correctness, attest that these
46
person have been screened and selected based on the No qualified beneficiary may own more than hectares of
criteria and procedure laid down by DAR. By virtue of this agricultural land = maximum / ceiling
requirement that the master list is under oath, PO are
discouraged to commit fraud. This provision section 23 is not a mandate that all qualified
beneficiary must own 3 hectares of agricultural land, it’s
The master list, although it is the list of all the screened and just a maximum or ceiling. What matters for purposes of
selected beneficiaries, that list is open to questions award ceiling is the resulting aggregate area of landholding
specifically inclusion and exclusion proceedings. However, of the qualified beneficiary. such that it may be in some
in order for us not to be technical about it, the general cases where a qualified beneficiary is awarded less than 3
knowledge there is that this master list may be subject of hectares of agricultural land.
dispute a person who wants another person to be excluded
in the list may file an exclusion proceedings or if a person RULES OF ALLOCATION
who thinks he be included in the list then file an inclusion Three possible scenarios
proceedings. - Land area is sufficient
- Land area is insufficient
Concha, et. al. vs Rubio et. al. - Land area is in excess
 Since the identification and selection of CARP When we say sufficient, insufficient and in excess, what’s
beneficiaries are matters involving strictly the our standard? How do we know if a land area is sufficient,
administrative implementation of the CARP, it in excess or insufficient.
behooves the courts to exercise great caution in
substituting its own determination of the issue, Remember the order of priority?
unless there is a grave abuse of discretion ORDER OF PRIORITY
committed by the administrative agency. 1. Lessees and share tenants
The SC acknowledged that the identification, the screening 2. Regular farmworkers
and selection of beneficiaries, involved the exercise of the 3. Seasonal farmworkers
discretion of the DAR. These process involves strictly 4. Other farmworkers
administrative implementation of CARL, then it is the DAR, 5. Actual tillers of Public Agricultural Lands
primary agency task to implement agrarian reform laws, 6. Collectives / cooperatives
must be given that margin of discretion in the screening, 7. Others directly working on the land
identification and selection of beneficiaries.
This order of priority will give us the clue on how to allocate
In this case, SC, must exercise great caution in substituting landholdings based on specific scenarios.
of the issue of whether a person must be included in the list
or not. Any such discretion by the DAR must be respected LAND AREA IS SUFFICIENT
by the court and the court respects the DAR’s decision by This means plainly that the land area subject for
exercising great caution in substituting its discretion with distribution is sufficient to be distributed to the lessees
its own. Unless there exists GADALEJ. shared tenants and regular farm worker (the first 2 in the
order of the priority) these 2 will be the basis for saying
AWARD CEILING AND ALLOCATION RULES whether a land area is sufficient or not. All these lessee,
share tenants and regular farmworkers will have a resulting
After knowing the processes of identification, screening and aggregate land ownership of not more than 3 hectares then
selection we are ready to discuss the allocation rules and that land is sufficient. As much as possible these groups of
award ceiling. Here we shall discuss the maximum area that qualified beneficiaries must have a resulting resulting
may be given to a qualified beneficiary, also we will discuss aggregate ownership of not more than 3 hectares. This
the rules principles involving allocation of lands when there rarely happens
are several qualified beneficiary for a specific portion of
land. What usually happens is when the land area is not sufficient
LAND AREAS IS NOT SUFFICIENT
No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3) Rules and Requirement
hectares of agricultural land. – section 23, RA 6657 - Lease holding shall be divided equally among them
- Provided that all beneficiaries shall get at least
The award ceiling here does not pertain to the ceiling that a 1,000 sqm. (minimum area)
fixed ceiling that may be awarded to a specific person. This - However, if not feasible to give at least 1,000 sqm
section means that the ceiling will have to depend on the each, DAR shall rank the qualified beneficiaries.
resulting total land holding of the qualified beneficiary. it’s how are they ranked?
not uniform. Landless does not always mean who does not RANKING CRITERIA AND PROCEDURE
own land. all beneficiaries as much as possible must own Step 1
not more than 3 hectares of agricultural land. - Ranked from the Most Aggregate time of lease /
employment to least aggregate time of
employment (tenure)
47
Step 2 equally to these qualified beneficiaries (see order or
- DAR awards, 1,000 sqm each from the top of the list priority).
down until the area left is less than 1,000 sqm
The principle to remember here is that all these qualified
Step 3 beneficiaries after the preferred beneficiaries, can only be
- The remaining area is equally divided into those considered for distribution when the land area is in excess
who were given at least 1,000 sqm for distribution.
*those not given and are displaced still qualify as Note: The distributed land must be contiguous (whether
beneficiary in other lands covered under CARP. one tract or several parcels of land)
It must not be a chopchop lands.
Illustration
4,800 sqm AWARD AND ISSUANCE OF CLOA
Here we have 5 identified preferred beneficiaries but the Now, after having discussed the essentials of distribution
area to be distributed is 4,800sqm. It’s clear that in this the rules on allocation, the award ceiling limit, we are not
scenario the DAR will have to resort into ranking because if ready to discuss the award of land as well as the issuance of
we divide 4800 into 5, each of them will clearly clearly at CLOA. (to be discussed in the next video)
least 1,000 sqm. Because it is not feasible to award all of
them with at least 1,000 sqm, then the DAR will have to MODULE 4 PART III
resort to ranking. AWARD AND ISSUANCE OF CLOA
In this case, step 1.

- The DAR will have to rank them based on the
aggregate tenure
Step 2
- We will have to award 1,000 sqm starting from the
top of the list going down to the list until the
remaining area is less than 1,000 sqm.
Such that after having distributed 1,000 sqm or the first 4
beneficiaries, we are left with in land area which is less than
1,000 sqm.
Step 3 In the award of land that is covered under RA 6657,

- The remaining area has to be divided equally
among those who have been given 1,000 sqm . in
here under section 96 of the DAR AO no. 7 – 2011, a
which case the total land holding awarded to these CLOA is issued under the name of the beneficiary. but
qualified beneficiaries would be 1,200 sqm until it is not yet released under the original released to the
the 4th. QB.
The 5th qualified beneficiary, what happens to him, no What will happen after the issuance of the CLOA?
award at all?  The CLOA will have to be registered with the
RD.
The scenario here, all these 5 belong to the same land
 The CLOA will have to be annotated tot eh COT
holding, since it is not sufficient, then this fifth qualified
beneficiary in our example, is considered to have been
in the name of the Republic.
displaced. And according to the rules those not given and
are displaced still qualify as beneficiary in other lands As we recall, after the deposit of just compensation,
covered under CARP. the DAR is entitled to immediate possession of the
property then after the DAR will ask the RD for the
LAND AREA IS IN EXCESS cancellation of the of the private land acquired, in
What happens? which case, the COT in favor of the landowner and a
- The excess land is distributed equally as a rule to new one will be issued in favor of the republic will be
the other beneficiaries. issued by the RD.
If the land area is in excess, meaning, the land was already
distributed and the lessees shared tenants, the regular farm
When a CLOA is registered with the DAR, the CLOA is
workers who are the preferred qualified beneficiaries have registered and annotated in the title in the name of the
all been awarded of lands such that there total resulting republic. it’s there in the RD where the annotation is
land ownership is already 3 hectares and there is still land done, but the registered original copy of the CLOA will
to be distributed, then the excess will have to be distributed have to be forwarded to the LBP.
48
Note: the original copies of the registered CLOA will discuss later on. The LBP has an interest over the land
not be released to the beneficiaries yet, in the original and the docs bec it’s the mortgagor of the land.
rules. It is forwarded to the LBP. What is given to the
qualified beneficiary is just the duplicate of the Unde this old rules, the contemplated goal is to
original. withhold the registered original copy in order for the
QB to be motivated to pay the annual amortizations.
Because after it is forwarded to the LBP, the LBP will And upon completion of such payment, then the orig
duplicate it/copy it and such will be forwarded to the copy registered cloa will be issued. and then that QB
Provincial agrarian office and to the QB in which case, will have the chance to ask for the issuance of COT.
ang QB will be notified with the award. That is in 2011.
Pending the receipt of the duplicate of that registered RECENTLY…

CLOA, the QB is not yet considered as to have been
installed in the land, but if the QB is already working In 2019, by virtue of DAR AO No. 5 – 2019, the DAR
there, he/she already enjoys usufructuary rights over through this administrative order, ordered the release
the property. of cloas the release also of emancipation patents
pending the completion of amortization. In fact, it also
That means the person or the QB may already make ordered the release of all na mga CLOAs and Eps that
use of the land and the fruits entitled of the land was previously held in custody by the LBP by virtue of
because he/she has already usufructuary rights over the old rules.
the property.
So that, as things stand now, the issuance of cloa will
The original registered LCOA is not yet given to the QB have to be done upon award of the land and after the
because the release of the original registered CLOA issuance it has to be registered in the RD, after
under the old rules would be conditioned upon the registration, it shall not be the original ones will not
completion of the amortization payments. have to be forwarded anymore to the LBP by virtue fo
this Admin order even if there is still pending
Meaning, pending on the amortization payments, it is payments for annual amortizations. Those orig
the LBP which will be the repository of all the registered cloas will have to be released to the farmer
registered CLOA. What is given to the QB for them to beneficiaries in order for the farmer beneficiaries to
be installed as QB as awardees of that land is just the be able to ask for TCT in their name.
duplicate. And the original copy is withheld and stored
in the LBP. CANCELLATION OF CLOA
DAR AO NO 03-2009
Such that, after payment, or completion of payment,
then the original registered cloa will now be released On the matter of cloa being issue, it may also be that
by the LBP to the beneficiary and the beneficiary will the cloa even issued will have some defects. Therefore,
now have the opportunity to ask for the issuance of the rules allow for the cancellation of cloa provided
COT in his name based on the CLOA. that it is based on the specified grounds under section
4 of administrative order no 03-2009. There are so
It is important to note that upon award, there is many grounds that I will not expect anyone to
already an issuance of CLOA but the issuance of CLOA memorize… the important principle to remember is
under the old rules does not necessarily mean release that the cancellation of cloa must be based on these
of the cloa to the QB. The issuance of cloa is done upon grounds.
award but the release of the registered cloa will be
done provided that amortization payments have been And another important, the cancellation of cloa as GR:
completed. That’s under the rules. based on the specified grounds under this rule is
under the JD of sec of DAR. (pay attention to this
The reason is apparated because without the because these principles will have to be qualified later
registered orgi copy of cloa, the QB cannot ask for the on especially on the rule on indefeasibility of the
issuance of the COT. Perhaps under the rules, the CLOA)
purpose is to make added security bec upon issuance
of the cloa there has still to be payments as we shall
49
INDEFEASIBILITY As held in the case of Padilla vs Villanueva 2018 and in
some other many many several cases.
Section 24, RA 6657

 “The rights and responsibilities of the
beneficiary shall commence from the time 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”
This provision mentions about rights commencing
from the time of the award, such that the rights to the
specific portions of the land will arise upon award.
Diba usufructuary rights if not yet installed, or if
Under the law RA 6657, the CLOA will become installed the right to till and cultivate the land.
indefeasible after 1 year from registration thereof.
that means, registration alone of the cloa does not But section 24 also mentions about responsibilities of
immediately make it indefeasible. The law gives 1 year the beneficiary commencing as well from the time of
from the date of registration in order for a cloa to the award by the dar in which case when there is an
become indefeasible. award, the beneficiary assumes not just rights but also
responsibilities or obligations concerning the land
Pending the cloa achieving indefeasibility, the DAR awarded.
may still cancel the cloa. The sec of dar may exercise
its JD to cancel the cloa based on the grounds provided RESPONSIIBILITIES
by that admin order.  Exercise diligence in the use and
cultivation of the land
However, because the law provides that the cloa will  Pay for real property taxes
become indefeasible after 1 year from registration,  Pay the amortizations
then, when the cloa achieves state of indefeasibility, Exercise diligence in the use and cultivation of the
the DAR loses its JD to cancel it. land
Indefeasibility means, in jurisprudence, a document or - that means the person awarded by the land is
a certificate or for this matter cloa becomes a expected to not just to use the land and
conclusive proof of ownership. Even if it is a cultivate the land but to use them diligently so
conclusive proof of ownership it is subject to attack as not to destroy the land, so as not to make
however, the attack against that conclusive proof of the land without value. Remember the basic
ownership may only be done directly and not requirement for a QB is that he must be
collaterally. This direct attack must be done not willing, able and has the aptitude to cultivate
anymore with the DAR but in courts. and make the land productive. In line with that
therefore a QB has that responsibility to
Such that the previous principles on cancellation exercise due diligence in the use of cultivation
of cloa means “cancellation of cloa must be based of the land.
on the specified grounds under the rules” an Pay for real property taxes
within the JD of DAR will have be qualified in this - you will learn in your taxation that those
rule on indefensibility. person who own lands will have to pay
property taxes.
That means there is a timeline for DAR to be able - In this case, even though the person has not yet
to cancel cloa. From the registration the dar is obtained a COT under the rules, that QB will
given one year to be able to cancel it. Because after already have the duty to pay real property
1 year from registration the cloa becomes taxes thereon.
indefeasible, the dar is not anymore have JD over Pay the amortizations
its cancellation, it’s already the courts. Because an - The most important responsibility is that the
indefeasible document is already a conclusive QB must pay the amortizations as prescribed
proof of ownership and as such, that doc may only under the law.
be attacked directly in courts.
50
PAYMENT BY BENEFICIARIES AMORTIZATIONS provide for a writ of installation for when the
landowner or some other person resists the
Amortizations means installment. It means that the installation of the QB. In which case, even if the CLOA
QB is not required to pay the value of the land awarded has already been registered, the 1 year amortization
to him or her upfront otherwise that would not be payments will NOT yet start in order to give the QB the
beneficial to the beneficiaries. considerations. Because he/she cannot have any
means of paying the amortization if he/she does not
The identified beneficiaries do not have the means to have access to the land. precisely why they are being
shell out huge amount of cash to purchase upfront a considered as QB it’s because they need access to the
landholding an agri land such that in order to land in order to generate funds to be able to pay for
accommodate this reality the law provides for through their living, sustain themselves and pay annual
amortizations or installments. amortizations.
Section 26, RA 6657 The rules gives more imminence to the date of actual
- “Lands awarded pursuant to this Act shall be occupancy as the reckoning point of that 1year period
paid for by the beneficiaries to the LBP in 30 in order for the amortization to start.
annual amortizations at 6% interest per
annum” FAILURE TO PAY AN AGGREGATE OF 3 ANNUAL
AMORTIZATIONS
There provision proceeds with some ruled on - Awarded land may be foreclosed by the LBP
adjustment of interest rates but we will not touch on - The foreclosed land is distributed to other QB
that. What we want to learn is that here, under the law - Defaulting beneficiary becomes permanently
QB are to pay the value of the land awarded to them disqualified.
not upfront but in installments, specifically in 30
annual amortizations with a 6% interest per annum. What if there is failure to pay annual amortization?
Note: because of the span of amortizations (30 years The scenario where there is failure of payment for just
to pay). The LBP, the financial intermediary of the 1 does not really have an effect. It may be that the
government in the agrarian reform program, has to outstanding balance will be carried to the next year or
have some form of security, because this is a loan maybe subject of a deferred payment arrangement. It
program a loan obligation that has to be repaid by the may also be subject to negotiations between the QB
QB in which case that loan program has to have some and the LBP.
accessory na mga securities in this case under the
orig rules, the securities that are provided” A legal consequence, however, will arise when
1. Mortgage; there is already failure to pay for an aggregate 3
2. Pledge of he registered cloa annual amortizations. Note the use of word
But because of the new rules in 2019, it’s only “aggregate”. It is not consecutive. I mean within the 30
mortgage nalng, the pledge of the registered cloa is not year period within which to pay the land, if there are 3
anymore applicable because the dar has already annual amortizations not paid then legal consequence
mandated that even pending the completion of will follow:
payment by the QB the cloa or the emancipation - Awarded land may be foreclosed by the LBP
patent must be released to the QB. - Remember the land that is awarded is
mortgaged to the LBP, the mortgage is a
START OF AMORTIZATION security for when there is non-payment or
Note: this annual amortizations will start 1 year default in which case mortgagor will have the
after either: date of registration of the CLOA or the right to foreclose it. Not automatically own it,
date of actual occupancy if occupancy took place that’s prohibited. it will foreclose it and the
after registration. property will undergo some form of auction.
- In this case within the framework of
It may be in some cases the cloa has already been agrarian reform, after the awarded land
registered but the beneficiary has not yet been has been foreclosed, the land will be
installed on the land for some reasons e.g. the land is subject of redistribution to other QB. The
not yet ready for occupancy or there are LBP will advise the dar for the redistribution
circumstances or people who resist for the installation to the other beneficiaries. And the party
of the beneficiary. there are some in fact the rules defaulting beneficiary becomes
51
permanently DQ for having failed to pay need to rule on the constitutionality of a section 31 RA
annual amortizations. (disqualified bec this 6657 for being moot and academic. According to the
person did not maintain the basic requirement court, there is no grave violation of the constitution
under the law) here because the consti itself allows the direct or
collective ownership of the land which brings us to the
CORPORATE FARMS AND STOCK DISTRIBUTION matter of stock distribution.
OPTION
we shall discuss the matter of individual and collective STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION
ownership of indirect and direct ownership especially (Section 31, RA 6657)
in the light of the case of hacienda Luisita.
Farmer-beneficiary agri land indiv landowner
Corporate farms:
When allowed Only land can be transferred
GR: Lands must be distributed directly to QB
(preferred mode of distribution) This section 31 is actually the provision invoked in
hacienda Luisita in executing the stock distribution
XPN: when it is not economically feasible and agreement in its 6k plus farmer beneficiaries.
sound to divide the land(based on the discretion of
the DAR), it shall be distributed indirectly. The owner of the agricultural land is a natural person
or an individual landowner, in this case, an indiv land
What are corporate farms? owner directly owns an agri land and for purposes of
- Corporate farms are mode of distribution the operation of RA 6657 the agri land will have to be
where the lands distributed are not directly subject to distribution to the farmer beneficiary. indiv
owned by each and every QB. land owner has no choice but to surrender to the
poewer of eminent domain and the agri land will have
If the far finds that the land is not economically to be suject ot distribution to farmer beneficiary.
feasible and sound to divide based on the
circumstances surrounding the land, type of crops, the Here only land can be transferred. That’s on the
location, etc. then the land will not have to be scenario involving an individual land owner.
distributed directly. It will not be divided and
distributed to directly to several persons. The However, the same thing does not hold the
alternative here which is the XPN is that the land scenario is different when the land owner is not an
will be distributed to these QB but these QB will individual but a corporation.
not own the land individually but collectively. In
which case, they become a collective ownership of
a specific portion of land and these are called
corporate farms.
What’s the basis for allowing this?

- Constitution
- Section 4, article 13
- “the state shall, by law, undertake an agrarian
reform program founded on the right of the
farmers and regular farmworkers, who are
landless, to own directly or collectively the
lands they till…
There may be direct (General rule) ownership of the Because if a corporation is the landowner, a
land or it is also sanctioned that these landless QB may corporation man gud is an artificial juridical entity
collectively (XPN) own the land. created by fiction of law. Ultimately, corporations are
composed by natural persons who are shareholders.
In fact this provision of the law as what SC cited in the Now because shareholders these are group of people
case of hacienda Luisita, in saying that, there is no man daghan mani sila, their interests in the
52
corporation are evidenced by mga documents called provision of the constitution on agrarian reform. The
shares of stocks. Their interests represented by shares spirit of agrarian reform is to transfer ownership of
of stocks. lands to QB not just shares of stocks. So section 31 was
assailed to be unconsti.
Because a corporation is another person separate
from the person of the shareholders, a corporation However, in that same case, acc to SC, the matter is
may also own properties apart from the shareholders. already moot and academic. Sc did not rule on the
constitutionality of section 31 because already moot
A corporation in the context of agrarian reform may and academic, no more real life effect.
also own agricultural lands. Stock Distribution Option Modes of Acquisition
limited For all intents and purposes, section 31 is
So, in this set up (refer screenshot), we have now superseded. SDO is no longer allowed.
shareholders who own interest in the corporation as
evidenced by the shares of stocks. And the corporation According to the court, it is now moot and academic
owns some agri lands. In this scenario there is a choice because the provision of stock distribution option
for the corporation whether to distribute lands or under section 31 has already been superseded.
distribute stocks to farmer beneficiaries.
Under section 31stock distribution option whereby a
According to the law, the corporation may voluntarily corporation voluntarily recedes or transfers shares of
seed or transfer mga shares of stocks in the stocks to QB is considered as sanctioned or valid by RA
corporation to QB and if the corporation does that the 6657.
corporation is considered to have already complied
with the requirements of RA 6657. BUT then RA 6657 was later on amended by RA 9700
which limits the modes of acquisition to just 2:
This is actually what was done in the case of hacienda voluntary offer for sale and compulsory land
Luisita. Instead of having agricultural lands although acquisition, omitting the voluntary land transfer.
there were parts subject to distribution, but the bulk Because of this fact that the voluntary land transfer
most of its land holdings were not but hacienda Luisita was already omitted from the law, according to the
did was to avail the option was provided for under court for all intents and purposes, section 31 is a
section 31 of RA 6657. The hacienda Luisita manner of voluntarily ceding properties/shares of
transferred shares of stocks instead of land to the stocks to QB. Section 31 is deemed superseded by the
farmer beneficiaries. amendment in RA 9700.
The transfer of stocks to the farmer beneficiaries was In which case therefore, within the present
through a stock distribution agreement which was law/framework, stock distribution option is no
later on invalidated or nullified by the presidential longer allowed.
agrarian reform council which then because of that
invalidation the case was brough to the courts. However the court in hacienda Luisita, as affirmed in
the subsequent cases, in so far as those QB who chose
There in the courts, in SC it was argued that the stock to become shareholders instead of landowners is
distribution agreement resorted by hacienda Luisita governed by the operative fact doctrine.
was VOID on so many grounds. SC there agreed on just
one ground for invalidity because there is this admin
order which lays down for the implementation of sec TRANSFERRABILITY OF LANDS ACQUIRED UNDER
31 ra 6657, the provision on man hours under the RA 6657
stock distribution agreement was in violation of Just like lands under pd 27 land acquired under 6657
regulations in that administrative order and therefore also have a prohibition for transferability. Under the
according to the court the stock distribution current rules there are 2types of prohibitions.
agreement was invalid but recognizing the operative
fact doctrine. TYPES OF PROHIBITIONS
1. Section 27, RA 6657 – prohibits any transfer
With regard to our discussion on section 31 of land to other persons except by hereditary
specifically, in that case it was argued that section 31 succession, to the govt, to LBP or to other QB,
was unconstitutional. For being in violation of the within the period of 10 years from awards.
53
2. DAR AP NO 06-2016 – prohibition of transfer transferred or conveyed except through hereditary
to a private person and which transfer will succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to
make the total ownership of agricultural land other QB through the DAR for a period of 10 years.”
more than 5 hectares.
Also, the transfer to other QB will not anymore be
The first prohibition is prohibition gud siya on direct to one beneficiary to another, there should be
transfer regardless on the resulting ownership. The the participation of the DAR. And so, here by adding
second is a prohibition to any person and the resulting the phrase “or other agrarian reform laws” effectively
total ownership to any private person of agri land the amendment by RA 9700 makes the 10 year period
becomes more than 5 hectares. also applicable to lands acquired under pd 27 or other
agrarian reform laws.
1st PROHIBITION
2nd PROHIBITION
[Transfer] of ownership of all agricultural lands to a
private person whose total ownership of agricultural
lands after the transactions shall exceed 5 hectares is
prohibited (except) transfers via intestate
succession, transfer of legitime to compulsory heirs,
and consolidation of ownership after period of
redemption has lapsed.
First to observe is the period. Unlike PD 27, RA 6657
provides for a 10 period of the prohibition. Sa PD 27 The 2nd prohibition does not refer to the 10 yr period
before there’s this no 10 year period, such that once but it concerned with the resulting total land
it’s acquired under PD 27 then that’s not allowed to be ownership of agricultural lands.
transferred.
[Transfer] of ownership of all agricultural lands to a
2nd we should notice here is that, this prohibition is not private person whose total ownership of agricultural
absolute. It has XPN. Except through hereditary lands after the transactions shall exceed 5 hectares is
succession, or to the govt or to the LBP or other QB. In prohibited. BUT NOT ABSOLULTE there are
which case, even if it’s within the 10 year period it is recognized XPNS.
still allowed.
This rule or prohibition will not apply to intestate
3rd we shall notice here in this Un-amended section 27 succession or hereditary succession or when there is
of RA 6657 is that the prohibition covers only lands transfer of legitime to compulsory heirs (legitime -
acquired under the law under this RA 6657. It is these are reserved portions of the estate of the
important to note this bec before the amendment, this decedent; compulsory heirs – heirs who have
prohibition is confined only to lands acquired under guaranteed share in the estate).
RA 6657 while those lands acquired under PD 27, as
no 10 year period meaning perpetually it is not to be Lastly, consolidation of ownership after redemption
transferred except through hereditary succession etc., has lapsed also considered as an exception.
BUT in the advent of the effectivity of 9700 which
amends section 27 the provision now reads…
One thing to note with regard to the presence or
existence of the prohibition is that when you are
transacting agricultural lands. The rule provide that a
transfer clearance must be procured from the DAR.
TRANSFER CLEARANCE
- Certification by the DAR that the transfer
involving agricultural land is not restricted
and the DAR does not object to the transfer
(Section 10 DAR AO 06-2016)
“lands acquired by beneficiaries under this act or

other agrarian reform laws shall not be sold,
54
It is important for lawyers to know that when  Willing, able, and equipped with the aptitude to
agricultural lands are subject of transfers of cultivate and make the land productive
transactions that will have to be subject to transfer
clearance to the DAR, because just to be safe, the Why do you think only Filipinos?
transfer clearance is the certification of the DAR that  No foreigner is allowed to own lands that’s why
transfer involving agri land is not covered by the only Filipinos are allowed.
prohibition.
You remember the discussion on registration, land owners
are d=given 180 days to register, it’s just for them to
And because the transfer of that agri land is not voluntarily in order for them to.. even if the land is not
covered by the prohibition, the DAR does not object to registered covered japun siya sa law, what determines is
the transfer and therefore is cleared to proceed. imong land, devoted as agricultural…
SYNCRHO DISCUSSION For beneficiaries, do they…

Land distribution,
Section 24. Award to Beneficiaries. —The rights and
Pre requisite intro, coverage, land acquisition. responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence from the
time the DAR makes an award of the land to him, which
We can go and discuss land distribution… award shall be completed within one hundred eighty (180)
days from the time the DAR takes actual possession of the
The lands be hanled to identified to qualified beneficiaries. land. Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a
With regard land distribution first we need to know to Certificate of Land Ownership Award, which shall contain
whom we distribute the land? under the law specific kaayo the restrictions and conditions provided for in this Act, and
kung kinsa ang pwede matagaan ug and under ra 6657. shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and
annotated on the Certificate of Title.
The first concern in identifying kung kinsa ang qualified, is …
the concept of a landless beneficiary. Who then a landless ….
beneficiary? …
 a landless beneficiary is one who owns less than
three (3) hectares of agricultural land.
under this special definition, it does not require that the

beneficiary does not own a land, it is possible in some cases
that the beneficiary owns some land but limit to less than 3
hectares of AGRICULTURAL LANDS.
We’ve identified the meaning of a landless beneficiary, what

is the importance in identifying? – to determine who are
qualified as beneficiaries.
Can we then say that if you are a landless person, can we

then say that you are automatically a qualified beneficiary?
NO, what is our basis?
What are other qualifications?

DO 7 series of 2011
General Qualifications. All ARBs must be:
1. A farmer/tiller who owns less than three (3) hectares of

agricultural land;
 A Filipino citizen;
 A resident of the barangay (or the municipality if
there are not enough qualified ARBs in the
barangay);
 At least fifteen (15) years of age at the time of
identification, screening, wd selection of farmer-
beneficiaries; and
55
MODULE 4E DELAGATION OF QUASI-JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS
MODULE 4E (PART 1) - DARAB (Department of Agrarian Reform
DISPUTE RESOLUTION UNDER 6657, AS AMENDED Adjudication Board)
QUASI-JUDICIAL POWERS - RARAD (Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicator)
SECTION 50, RA 6657, AS AMENDED - PARAD (Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator)
Vested by Law The QJP is exercised by these offices within the framework
The DAR is granted the power to adjudicate matters of of DAR.
agrarian reform
Limited in Nature AGRARIAN DISPUTE DEFINITION
Some aspects of agrarian reform may, however, fall into RA 6657 defines such by example or by identifying the kinds
other agencies’ jurisdiction, such as DA and DENR of cases that may come into the notion of AD.
Not Bound by Technical Rules The law points to 3 different groups of cases that may come
Although DAR is granted the power to adjudicate, it is not within the purview of AD:
bound by the Rules of Court in the Conduct of its
proceedings 1. Section 3 (d): controversies involving tenurial
Quasi-judicial powers are vested by RA 6657 Section 50 to arrangements over lands devoted to agriculture
a government agency which does not belong to the judicial (tenurial arrangements disputes)
branch of the government, rather to the executive branch in 2. Section 3 (d): controversies relating to
this case, the DAR. compensation of lands acquired under RA 6657
Notwithstanding it belonging to the executive, it is given (just compensation disputes)
some sort of power that resembles the power granted to 3. Section 57: criminal offenses relating to matters
courts (not really judicial power because the one exercising provided under CARL
it is not a judge and does not belong to the judiciary). Thus,
deriving the name quasi-judicial. TENURIAL ARRANGEMENT DISPUTES
It is the power to adjudicate rights and obligations, resolve We refer to controversies relating to the tenure of a farmer,
controversies and disputes, and interpret and apply the law. beneficiary of an agricultural lessee, share tenant and such
The one exercising this is an officer in the executive branch. other farmers considered as beneficiaries under 6657. If a
Therefore, the power vested in him is quasi-judicial. controversy or dispute would fall under this group of
Although the law uses the term “DAR”, specific offices can controversies, that controversy will be governed by this
exercise these powers. procedure.
The grant of quasi-judicial powers does not turn the DAR
into alternate courts which are under the judicial branch GENERAL OVERVIEW OF PROCEDURE
of the government. They are not given general jurisdiction
like the RTC. The grant is limited in nature. Thus, the
exercise should be within the bounds provided for by law.
In excess of such bounds, the officers exercising such
powers do not have jurisdiction at all.
While Agrarian Reform and Agriculture are related because
of overlapping subjects, in matters relating specifically to
agriculture and its conduct, rules and regulations of
agricultural activities, DAR does not have anymore
jurisdiction. Here, it is the Department of Agriculture that
has jurisdiction.
Under DAR jurisdiction: allowance for conversion,
reclassification and conversion (may in some aspects fall
under the DENR)
In some aspects, which may fall under the DENR or
Department of Agriculture, the quasi-judicial powers
subject here will no longer apply. These bounds will serve
as the limitation of the grant of powers and as such, would
have to be respected by the offices exercising this power.
Otherwise, in excess of jurisdiction, the action of the office
will become null and void by reason thereof.
Since they are quasi-judicial bodies, (administrative bodies
that exercise powers enabling the office to adjudicate rights 1. Starts with the Barangay Agrarian Reform
and obligations and interpret the law), these offices are Committee
generally not bound by the rules of court.
In fact, these administrative bodies are governed by their GENERAL RULE - Condition Precedent: (Section 1, Rule
own rules, which are specifically applicable to cases that are III, 2009 DARAB Rules)
cognizable in its quasi-judicial bodies.
56
Prior Mediation and Certification by the Barangay The case will not be accepted by the PARAD without such
Agrarian Reform Committee certification. In order to address those kinds of scenarios
The law presupposes that this may be amicably settled even and in order for the cause of action to be not held hostage
before going into a full-blown case. With that possibility, by the failure or refusal of the BARC to issue the
there is a requirement that before a tenurial arrangement certification, then the PARC can issue the certification itself
controversy will reach the quasi-judicial bodies under RA in favor of the person who has a cause of action.
6657, there must be a prior mediation and certification by Therefore, the person who has undergone the mandatory
the BARC. It is also the BARC who will certify the prior conciliation and mediation does not go to PARC for
mediation and certification. purposes of appeal. It is just a mechanism to address the
Without prior mediation and conciliation, it will be failure of BARC to issue the certification.
dismissible for having failed to comply the condition 2. General Rule: PARAD has exclusive and original
precedent in Section 1 Rule III 2009 DARAB Rules. jurisdiction over Agrarian Disputes
EXCEPTIONS Jurisdiction is with express boundaries.
Section 1, Rule III, 2009 DARAB Rules Exception: However, the Secretary has the power to
1. One of the parties is a corporation directly endorse the case to DARAB such that it does not
2. Direct Referral by the Secretary of the DAR to the have to go to PARAD.
DARAB EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED
3. Non-existence of or failure to convene by the BARC PARAD does not have jurisdiction over the following:
• (Also includes disputes involving just compensation (Even though they may arise from an Agrarian Dispute)
[since it does not need prior mediation]) 1. Adjudication of Ownership
For purposes of discussion I omitted just compensation but 2. Adjudication of Right of Way
it really is in the codal. I only included the first 3 (since this 3. Retention or Exemption Issues
discussion pertains to tenurial arrangement controversy). 4. Reclassification and Conversion
Although the first 3 are tenurial relation controversy, these 5. Identification and Selection of Beneficiaries
don’t require prior mediation. These are also found in the
Katarungang Pambasa Law (law requiring mediation in the Adjudication of ownership: cognizable by regular courts.
Barangay level). Therefore, outside the jurisdiction of the PARAD.
As to the first one, for example Hacienda Luisita and there Adjudication of right of way: regular courts
is a dispute to some of its farmer stockholders, in that sense, Retention and Exemption issues, reclassification and
it may be considered as a tenurial arrangement conversion, identification and selection of
controversy. But since one of the parties is a corporation, beneficiaries: not within the framework of quasi-judicial
then it is not anymore required to resort to prior mediation powers of the DAR since these are matters of
and conciliation with the Barangay. implementation in which case the jurisdiction is vested in
As to the second one, a prior mediation is not required the implementation agency of the DAR.
because it will not undergo the full process. When it is These matters, even though they arise from a tenurial
directly referred by the secretary of the DAR to the DARAB, arrangement controversy, but because these are expressly
which makes it already cognizable by DARAB, there is no excluded from the jurisdiction of the PARAD, the latter does
more need to resort to prior mediation and conciliation not have jurisdiction over the aforementioned.
before the BARC. EXCLUSIVE AND ORIGINAL JURISDICTION EFFECTS
As to the third one, the non-existence of the BARC is Original: Filed in the First Instance
possible in cases of remote barangays or the committee is Cases involving tenurial arrangement
non-existent. Thus, this absence of this requirement should controversies as a rule must be filed first in the
not impede this action to be filed in the proper quasi- PARAD
judicial bodies in RA 6657. Exclusive: No other court or tribunal shall take cognizance
Under this exception, if the BARC failed to convene, the of Agrarian dispute
party having cause of action is not anymore required to (Because the general rule is that the secretary has
undergo mandatory conciliation and mediation because in the power to bypass or immediately endorse the
so doing, the cause of action of a farmworker or agricultural case to the DARAB)
lessee will be held hostage of failure to convene.
Primary Proof of Conciliation: BARC Certification
Prior mediation and conciliation is best certified by this
certification, which implies that the parties have failed to
amicably settle the case and that such would be forwarded
to the quasi-judicial bodies of DAR. However, there are
cases where there are prior mediations and conciliation but
BARC fails to issue the certification within the period of 30
days.
When conciliation was done, but no certification is issued
within 30 days, PARC can issue certification.
57
(see illustration and discussion next page)
In ejectment cases, MTC has the jurisdiction. But the person

or defendant in the ejectment case said that “I am being
ejected but I am an agricultural lessee”.
Now, it involves a matter of a tenure of the agricultural
lessee. As we have established awhile ago, tenurial
controversies involve the agricultural land, in which case
the defendant involves an agrarian dispute as an defense.
Of course, it will not move forward as an ejectment case
because it is raised an agrarian dispute.
If the RTC referred the matter to the DAR, the person
In this case, the MTC has the duty to refer the matter to the
wanting to appeal the matter of determination will have to
DAR for determination of the existence of agrarian dispute.
go to the CA.
After the DAR receives the referral, the DAR will have to
3. RARAD JURISDICTION
evaluate/determine the existence of agrarian dispute.
If the DAR determines that it does not exist, the case will • Not appellate. Merely administrative
have to go back to MTC and will proceed as a normal • Limited original jurisdiction
ejectment case.
If it is determined that there is an agrarian dispute, the Higher than PARAD for purposes of administrative matters
matter will have to be taken cognizance by the PARAD. It but not for appeal.
will be forwarded to PARAD since it is a case involving JURISDICTION IS LIMITED ON THESE MATTERS
agrarian dispute. Insofar as that agrarian dispute is RARAD may hear and decide cases:
concerned, PARAD has original and exclusive • When PARAD cannot hear the cause due to
jurisdiction. disqualification, inhibition or absence
However, under the rules, the determination of the DAR as • The case involves matters of such complexity and
to the existence of agrarian dispute is appealable, sensitivity that the decision would constitute an
depending on who or what court or office referred the case important precedent affecting regional interest.
to the DAR. • Conduct of hearing on applications for the issuance of
Writ of Preliminary Injunction or TRO, as assigned by
DARAB
o BUT ultimately it is the DARAB who will issue TRO.
Jurisdiction or RARAD is merely to conduct the
hearing and recommend.
The regional adjudicator also has administrative functions

over the PARAD such as audit of cases, monitoring of
caseload, movement of cases. But in no way does the
RARAD exercise appellate powers over PARAD.
Because the office which has appellate powers over PARAD

and RARAD is the DARAB or the Department of Agrarian
Reform Adjudication Board.
4. DARAB JURISDICTION
If the MTC referred the matter to the DAR (as in the case in • Appellate Jurisdiction over Decisions of PARAD OR
our illustration), the appeal will have to be in the RTC. RARAD
• DARAB’s decision is appealable to the Court of Appeals.
58
Rule 43 is provided for appeals for decisions by quasi- PART 2
judicial bodies. DISPUTES INVOLVING JUST COMPENSATION
Whatever the decision of the CA will be further appealable Rules and Procedure
to the SC via Rule 45.
(See continuation next page)
POWER TO ISSUE WRIT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

IN AGRARIAN DISPUTES
Different to tenurial since here, it does not require prior

mediation or conciliation.
When a land owner rejects the initial valuation by the DAR,
the proceedings will proceed to administrative
determination to just compensation which will be done
either by the PARAB, RARAB or DARAB.
The DARAB has the power to enjoin both the PARAD and We have said that the existence of the PARAB, RARAB and
RARAD and can issue a writ of injunction against both. DARAB is not a hierarchy for purposes of appeal. The
The red lines from the SC signify that under the law, there is hierarchy here is delineated by the amount of initial
a prohibition on the courts to issue PI or TRO in agrarian valuation that they are allowed to administratively
disputes. determine.
Normally, CA & RTC have jurisdiction to issue PI or TRO When the amount is like this for PARAD, and like this for
even against government offices. RARAD and DARAB, they will have the jurisdiction to
But because the law, RA 6657 imposes a prohibition determine just compensation administratively.
(signified by yellow vertical line separating DAR offices and The fact that the law gives these administrative bodies the
offices of the judiciary), then the CA & RTC (take note, CA & power to determine just compensation does not make RA
RTC only) will have no power to enjoin PARAD, RARAD 6657 unconstitutional.
AND DARAB. RA 6657, although it grants these agencies the power to
However, the jurisdiction of the SC is provided for by the determine just compensation, the grant is not exclusive to
Constitution. in which case, a law (such as 6657) prohibiting administrative agencies.
the issuance of a TRO will not apply as against the SC. Consequently, it does not deprive the courts of their judicial
The SC is the only recognized exception to this prohibition. prerogative to determine just compensation.
The SC can overcome the prohibition and may validly ASSOCIATION OF SMALL LANDOWNERS V. SEC OF DAR
issue a writ of PI against the DARAB, PARAD or RARAD. The fact that these agencies are given that power to
To summarize: determine just compensation does not mean that the
• The power to enjoin PARAD & RARAD should at first judicial prerogative of the courts are impaired.
instance belong to the DARAB. In fact, the determination of these administrative agencies
• There is a prohibition against the CA & RTC to issue a is just preliminary in nature and is not binding to the court.
writ of PI or TRO against DARAB, RARAD or PARAD Insofar as these administrative agencies are concerned, the
(GR) factors under 6657 must at all times be followed.
• With the exception of the SC who has the power to Therefore, they being creations of the law, must adhere to
enjoin the DARAB, PARAD & RARAD. the factors laid down by the law.
For these administrative agencies, they are given the QJP to
(See continuation next page) preliminarily determine just compensation.
After the preliminary determination by administrative

bodies, proceeding will now move to the courts.
Note: it does not go to the courts in an appellate manner.
It will be courts specifically the RTC sitting as a special
agrarian court or SAC.
SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURTS
Jurisdiction
• Original, not appellate and exclusive jurisdiction
• May be filed even outside the 15-day Period under the
DARAB Rules
The case that is filed with the RTC is not an appeal. It is filed
in the First Instance.
59
Even though there is a prior determination by the PARAD, More so, because under Section 60, the law prescribes that
RARAD or DARAB as the case may be, the case filed with the an appeal from the RTC, sitting as an SAC must be by virtue
RTC as an SAC is an original case. or must be via “Petition for Review”
Being not an appeal, it is not governed by the reglementary Note: Section 60 does not state the rule number.
period provided under DARAB rules. SC said, certainly this does not mean Rule 42 because such
Original actions that want to question the preliminary rule pertains to appeals from decisions of the RTC
determination of administrative agencies, according to the promulgated exercised in the appellate decision.
rules of court, have no reglementary period except for Here, RTC sitting as an SAC is an original case, not an appeal.
prescription of course. However, even if it is an original case, because the law states
Because it’s original, the decision of the court in this case, that it should be via petition for review, it is not an ordinary
the decision of the court is also promulgated in its original appeal because section 60 says “petition for review”, then it
jurisdiction because the case is original. must mean Rule 43.
Note: even if the decision of the RTC sitting as an SAC, is
promulgated by virtue of original jurisdiction, we do not go SC said, anyway, there is no rule that disallows this
to CA via ordinary mode of appeal. procedure.
When it comes to appeals from the RTC, there are 2
modes: Since there is no such barrier or legal hindrance, the appeal
1. Ordinary appeal from the decision of an RTC sitting as an SAC should be
2. Petition for Review brought to the court of appeals via Rule 43.
(See Criminal Actions next page)
Ordinary Appeal Under Rule 41: if the decision of the RTC
is promulgated in the exercise of the RTC’s original
jurisdiction. Meaning it decided on a case that was filed
before it in the First Instance.
Petition for Review Under Rule 42

If the decision appealed was promulgated by virtue of the
RTC’s appellate jurisdiction. In which case it was decided on
appeal from the MTC.
Since we have an RTC which is sitting as an SAC,

deciding on a case that was originally filed before it,
which mode of appeal do we adopt in going to the court
of appeals?
The answer is: NEITHER.
Insofar as RTCs, sitting as SACs as concerned, in appeals
from their decision, there is a THIRD KIND OF APPEAL:
Appeal via Rule 43
Why do we need to distinguish?
These three have different procedural requirements.
Further, the procedural requirements for these three
appeals would be mandatory.
Why do we resort to Rule 43 when it is a mode of appeal
from decisions of quasi-judicial bodies if an RTC is not
quasi-judicial but actually judicial?
APPEAL TO CA VIA RULE 43
LAND BANK V. DE LEON
• SAC is not enumerated under Rule 43
• Enumeration under Rule 43 is not exclusive
• Section 60 prescribes appeal from SAC is through
“Petition for Review”
• So far, there is no rule disallowing this procedure
An appeal from a decision of an RTC sitting as an SAC will

have to be to the CA via petition for Review under Rule 43.
SAC is not one of those offices or tribunals enumerated
under Rule 43.
The enumeration under Rule 43 is not meant for exclusivity
so that even if a court is not enumerated under Rule 43, it
does not automatically mean that Rule 43 cannot apply.
60
CRIMINAL ACTIONS UNDER RA 6657 Dispute to be resolved first before the criminal case will be
Rules and Procedure filed.
(DOJ Circular No. 40-2010)
Prosecutors are under the structure of DOJ thus they Note: the determination of the PARO, (just like the
promulgated this. determination of the DAR in a tenurial arrangement
controversy), is appealable.
It starts with the filing of a criminal complaint before the
prosecutor. For purposes of this procedure, as the rules show, since it is
the prosecutor who refers the matter to the DAR, then the
Preliminary investigations are required in some cases determination of the DAR or the PARO in this case will be
depending on the penalty attached to the case. appealable to the RTC.
Because the criminal case requires preliminary OR if the PARO certifies that the case is proper for trial
investigations, do not file it directly to the courts. You file it despite the existence of agrarian dispute. In which case, the
to the prosecutor’s office who will afford the respondent preliminary investigation will proceed.
due process.
In that preliminary investigatin, the purpose is to find the
It will move forward by issuing a subpoena to the existence of probable cause. because if after the PI, the
respondent indicating the case and containing the investigator concludes that there is no probable cause of
complaint. The respondent will be given the chance within filing a criminal case in court, it will be dismissed.
a fixed period of time to submit a counter-affidavit where
he/she shall present the defense. But, if the prosecutor concludes that there is probable cause
and the matter involves agrarian dispute, then we file the
It is possible that the respondent will raise as a defense an case not with the regular courts, but with the RTC, sitting
agrarian dispute. In which case, the prosecutor has the duty as SAC.
to refer the matter to the PARO (Provincial Agrarian Reform
Office) for determination whether or not it is proper for RTC, sitting as SAC will have jurisdiction over criminal
trial. actions under RA 6657. In which case, the criminal
complaint will have to be filed in the RTC acting as SAC.
Meanwhile, the case or preliminary investigation will be From there, it will be tried according to the normal
held in abeyance (it will be paused). procedure for criminal cases.
The PARO only has 15 days to determine the propriety for
trial.
When the PARO certifies that the case is not proper for trial,
meaning the case should not be tried pending the final
determination of the Agrarian Dispute, the PARO will certify
that and the case will be dismissed in order for the Agrarian
61

Agrarian Reform Law Class

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agrarian Reform Law Class

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Agrarian Reform Law Class

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Black Font – PPT slides Common good - broad term and it involves with the time.

NEW “BOSS” AGRARIAN REFORM:

HOW IS AGRARIAN REFORM A VALID EXERCISE OF Discussion ni torni: 9-8-20

What does the tripartite set up do?

The govt which deals the land owner in terms of coverage…

Agricultural reform as agricultural policy

 Smaller lands better than absentee ownership

Other clarifications on the nature of agrarian reform

 Continuing positive act in terms of acquisition,

 It is both an exercise if eminent domain and police

 When covered agrarian reform is mandatory

In the exercise of PP, should it be noxious, this agrarian

In the case of association of small landowners, in the whole

According to the court, this is not a pure exercise of ED, in

ELEMENTS WHAT HAPPENED TO TENANCY ARRANGEMENTS?

This is because the constitution of an agricultural leasehold TERM / DURATION

CREATION POSSESSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LESSEE SHALL

STATUTE OF FRAUDS: What are the grounds for termination of leasehold

Note: when we are talking about conversion, within the

prior to the effectivity of CARL, there are separate sets of

TERMINATION DISPOSSESSION PRE-EMPTION vs REDEMPTION

RELEVANT RIGHTS IN AN AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD PRE-EMPTION

Section 11 – Lessee’s Right of Pre-emption

LEGAL STATUS OF RA 3844

LEASEHOLD CAN ONLY EXIST NOW IN THE FOLLOWING

 leased areas which are retained by land owner

Are the subject Lands excluded by virtue of the

The reclassification was reclassified by govt agencies with

Note – According to the court, the lands were excluded from

THE LAW STATES WHO CAN EXERCISE THE RIGHT OF RETENTION?

DISCUSSION (SYNCHRO MODULE 3) Digan vs Malines

What’s the significance of this date?

This is when the PD 27 took effect, there is a cutoff, by

There are important documents

What are these 2 important documents?

These 2 docs are different. In the distinction we’ve

What happened in the case that created the necessity of the

Sc had to distinguish the 2 docs because there are 2

Sc said, dominggo has ownership of the land because he was

Coverage is module 4 – B for purposes of graded oral

Under PD 27 it only applies ot private agri lands. Under RA Next Feature

SCHEMA OF AMENDMENTS Significance of the discussion: in our StatCon, we were

We construe the law literally. But somehow, in some cases,

RULE-MAKING HOW ARE THESE TERMS DEFINED UNDER THE LAW?

Private landholdings under 6657: What is the effect of the subsequent of

VOLUNTARY LAND TRANSFER

PURPOSE PARTIES INVOLVED

PHP 10M-50M >PHP 10M < PHP 50M JUST COMPENSATION

As said, acquisitions of the land holdings covered under RA 3. Waivable Right

RETENTION RIGHTS: WHO CAN EXERCISE?

1. Landowner whose land is covered under RA 6657

Note - There are landowners who has diversed

In this case, step 1.

Step 3 In the award of land that is covered under RA 6657,

Pending the receipt of the duplicate of that registered RECENTLY…

Section 24, RA 6657

What’s the basis for allowing this?

“lands acquired by beneficiaries under this act or

SYNCRHO DISCUSSION For beneficiaries, do they…