February 9, 1999

DAR OPINION NO. 07-99

MR. JOSE C . ZABAT, JR.

Sto. Cristo, Gapan

Nueva Ecija

Dear Mr. Zabat:

This has reference to your letter dated 02 December 1998 wherein you would like to be advised as to the possible effect to your "kasama" of your plans to sell or dispose of your 1.3 has. of land which you inherited from your father.

You state that the 1.3 hectares of land you inherited from your father will be divided among you (5 children); that you have plans to dispose of the said ricefield since you need the proceeds thereof; that during your recent talks with your "kasama", his close relatives explained that in case you would sell the ricefield, half of that portion of 1.3 has. will be set aside for your "kasama" and/or whatever amount will be received from the sale, half of it would go to your "kasama"; and that the relatives of your "kasama" told you would be the one to shoulder all expenses that will be incurred, such as titling of the half (½) portion of the 1.3 has in the name of your "kasama" and other possible expenses.

As regards your query on the limitations of CARP coverage, please be informed that Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as "The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988", specifically Section 6 thereof provides in part: "Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain... but` in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. . . ." Clear from the foregoing provision is that the 1.3 hectare landholding which you inherited from your father falls within the retention limit set forth in the above-cited section. The same provision of law further provides that: "In case the tenant (your "kasama" in this particular case) chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this Act." Otherwise stated, since your "kasama" remained in the retained area of your father, he is therefore a Leaseholder and not a beneficiary under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). However, notwithstanding his being a leaseholder, he is still entitled to the rights and benefits provided for under agrarian laws, rules and regulations.

Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code), specifically Sections 9 and 10 thereof, provides the following:

"Sec. 9.         Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Death or Incapacity of Parties.

xxx                      xxx                      xxx

In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor, the leasehold shall bind his legal heirs.

Sec. 10.        Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Expiration of Period, etc. — The agricultural leasehold relation under this Code shall not be extinguished by mere expiration of the term or period in a leasehold contract nor by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding. In case the agricultural lessor sells, alienates or transfers the legal possession of the landholding, the purchaser or transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor."

With the abovecited safeguards guaranteed by law, any sale, alienation or transfer by the landowner of his property would not terminate the lessor-lessee relationship between the new owner and the tenant-lessee. The new owner or lessor shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the former agricultural lessor.

Corollary thereto, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6389 which amended Sections 11 and 12 of R.A. No. 3844 mandates that should the agricultural lessors (the heirs in this case) decide to sell the landholding, the agricultural lessee ("kasama") shall have the preferential right to buy the same under reasonable terms and conditions. However, should the landholding be sold to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration within one hundred eighty (180) days from notice in writing which shall be served by the vendee on all lessees affected.

From all of the foregoing, it is clear that the claims and contentions of the relatives of your "kasama" are devoid of merit and have no legal basis. It is likewise equally clear, however, that your "kasama" has inviolable rights and privileges as guaranteed by law among which are the aforementioned, and his right to security of tenure.

Thank your for communicating with us and we hope to have clarified the matters with you.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) DANILO T. LARA

Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning