September 3, 1997

DAR OPINION NO. 100-97

Ms. Paz R. Montemayor

1353 Leon Guinto St.

Ermita, Manila

Dear Ms. Montemayor:

This has reference to your letter inquiring whether a tenant is entitled to an additional homelot for free if an agricultural land is sold to him directly without passing thru the Land Bank, and does said homelot have to be adjacent to the agricultural land?

You state that the tenant has built his house not on the adjacent pasture land, but on the residential land which is along the highway classified as commercial; that his son has also built his house on said land; and that his youngest son has also built a duplex for himself and his son, who is already a grandson of the tenant.

Please be clarified at the outset that Item No. I of DAR Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1991 provides, quote: "Pursuant to Sections 22 (3) and 26 (a) of Republic Act No. 1199. Section 24 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended. Section 16 of R.A. No. 6389, Sections 30 and 40 (4) of R.A. No. 6657, and the provisions of LOI 705 and other related laws, the homelot, as an integral part of the farm and as an indispensable factor in farm operations, may be acquired and distributed to the agrarian reform beneficiary (ARB) in accordance with the land transfer process of CARP". Further, item No. II-A of the same Administrative Order provides: "A homelot refers to a parcel of agricultural land used by the ARB as the site of his permanent dwelling including the area utilized for raising vegetables, poultry, pigs and other animals and engaging in minor industries. The area of the homelot may not exceed 1,000 square meters". From the aforequoted provisions, it is clear that a homelot is "an integral part of the farm" and is "a parcel of an agricultural land". On the assumption that the subject land is along the highway and it is classified as commercial (as you have alleged), the same is no longer within the contemplation of a homelot as defined above. Furthermore, the sale of your agricultural property to the said tenant extinguished the tenancy relationship, thus his privilege of having a homelot shall likewise cease to exist since he is now considered a landowner by virtue of the direct sale.

In view of the foregoing, the land in issue where the tenant, his sons and grandson had allegedly erected their residential homes could not be classified as a homelot whereby they are entitled thereto for free. Accordingly, the same should be purchased by them for a free pursuant to existing laws, rules and regulations. This opinion is merely advisory, however, without prejudice to whatever decision that may be rendered in any case on the same matter by the proper forum.

Thank you for communicating with us and we hope to have enlightened you on the matter.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) ARTEMIO A. ADASA, JR.

Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning