June 23, 1995
DAR OPINION NO. 25-95
MR. A.L. PANGCOG
General Counsel
National Power Corporation
Cor. Quezon Avenue & Agham Road
Diliman, Quezon City
P.O. Box 10183
Dear Mr. Pangcog:
This has reference to your letter of 17 May 1995 requesting for DAR opinion regarding the financial assistance due the tenants/workers of parcels of land under expropriation proceedings located at Meteona, Tayabas, Quezon who are affected by the Tayabas Substation Project of NPC.
You state that some of the tenants affected demand payment of disturbance compensation under Section 36 of RA 3844, as amended and implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 18, S. of 1989. The NPC on the other hand has proposed payment of financial assistance pursuant to EO 1035. You further state that said NPC position is supported by DOJ Opinion No. 8, S. of 1995.
We are in accord with the NPC position, supported by DOJ Opinion No. 8, S. of 1995, that E.O. 1035 dated 11 June 1978 and not Section 36 of R.A. 3844, as amended is the applicable law on the compensation due tenants/workers on lands used for infrastructure and other development projects of the government.
In a letter dated 8 February 1994 addressed to DPWH Undersecretary Edmundo V. Mir, we had occasion to convey the DAR stand on the same subject matter. In said letter, we explained that the disturbance compensation provided in Section 36. of R.A. 3844 pertains to the compensation given to affected agricultural lessees in cases of legal conversion, that is, in cases where the use of the land for purposes other than agricultural is approved by DAR upon the application of the landowner. Otherwise stated, the disturbance compensation provided in Section 36(1) of R.A. 3844 covers cases of legal conversion undertaken at the instance of the landowner. This is anchored on the Decision in the case entitled "Pagtalunan versus Tamayo" (G.R. No. 54281, March 19, 1990), where the Supreme Court ruled: "Sec. 36(1) of Rep. Act No. 3844, as amended by Rep. Act No. 6389, cannot be invoked to hold the State liable for disturbance compensation (See Campos v. CA, G.R. No. 51904, October 1, 1980) where this Court by resolution denied for lack of merit therein petitioner's claim that, as agricultural lessee or tenant, he was entitled to disturbance compensation against the State. It refers to situations where the peaceful enjoyment and possession by the agricultural tenants or lessees of the land is disturbed or interrupted by the owner/lessor thereof. Paragraphs 1 to 7 of the said section enumerate the instances when the lessees may be evicted by the owner/lessor, and paragraph 1 thereof provides that lessees shall be entitled to disturbance compensation from the owner/lessor, if the land will be converted by the latter into a residential, commercial or industrial land. Thus, Section 36 (1) of Rep. Act No. 3844, as amended, deals with the liability of an owner/lessor, to his agricultural tenant/lessee and cannot be invoked to make the State liable to petitioner herein for disturbance compensation."
On the other hand, E.O. 1035 clearly provides in Section 1 thereof that the same covers "all acquisitions of private real properties or rights-of-way (ROW) thereon needed for infrastructure projects and other development projects of the government which are undertaken by the ministry, agency, office or instrumentality of the government including government-owned or controlled corporations and state colleges and universities". Section 18 of the same Executive Order provides for the basis for determining the amount of financial assistance to be given to tenants/farmers of agricultural lands.
It is therefore submitted that E.O. 1035 is the applicable law on the compensation to the displaced tenants/workers of the parcels of land under expropriation proceedings located at Meteona, Tayabas, Quezon who are affected by the Tayabas Substation Projects of NPC.
We trust we have clarified matters with you.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) HECTOR D. SOLIMAN
Assistant Secretary Legal Affairs Office
Copy furnished:
OSEC
Doc. No. 95050555