December 28, 1995

DAR OPINION NO. 90-95

Mr. George L. Jocson
President
Philippine Cocoa Estates Corporation
Upper Catitipan, Diversion Road
Davao City

Dear Mr. Jocson:

          This refers to your request for opinion as to who is entitled to receive payment of lease rental for the standing crops unharvested at the time the DAR takes possession of the land, the Kumassie Plantation, Inc. (KPI), the former lessor of the property, or the Southern Davao Multi-purpose Cooperative (SDMPC), the awardee of the property pursuant to CARP.

          You state that Kumassie Plantation, Inc. was the lessor of the property leased to the Philippine Cocoa Estates Corporation for 25 years prior to the enactment of RA 6657; that said property was awarded to SDMPC through a CLOA issued on 20 December 1994, thereby making it the new lessor; that it is the opinion of the Cooperative that starting 1 January 1995 or right after the issuance of the CLOA, lease rentals should be given to them; that KPI, however, believes that it is still entitled to the lease rentals for about 1 1/2 months from said date or up to 15 February 1995, citing a provision of law that the last harvest of the standing crop shall be owned by the orignal landowner; and that the Cooperative, on the other hand, contends that said provision only applies if and when the operator of the land is at the same time the original landowner.

          It is submitted that the Kumassie Plantation, Inc. (KPI) is entitled to receive the share due to it under its lease contract with the PCEC up to and including that share pertaining to the standing crops unharvested at the time DAR acquired the property. This must be so because although Section 28 of R.A. No. 6657 only speaks of the landowner retaining his share of the standing crops unharvested at the time the DAR takes possession of the land, it is believed that the general intent is to allow said standing crops unharvested to be disposed of in accordance with the agreement in force at the time the DAR acquires the property. The provision does not confine itself to that situation where the landowner is at the same time the operator of the land, but comprehends situations like the instant case where at the time of CARP coverage, another person was legally acting in place of the landowner in relation to the landholding. Moreover, the share of the landowner (or any other person acting in the landowner's stead vis-a-vis the property), in the standing crops could not pertain to the CARP beneficiaries, since under Section 24 of R.A. 6657, the rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary commence from the time the DAR makes an award of the land to him. It therefore stands to reason that KPI, as former lessor, is entitled to the lease rental corresponding to the crops unharvested at the time the property was acquired.

          We hope to have clarified the matter for all parties concerned.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) HECTOR D. SOLIMAN
Assistant Secretary Legal Affairs Office