May 5, 1999
DAR OPINION NO. 35-99
MEMORANDUM
FOR : CONRADO S. NAVARRO
Undersecretary
Field Operations and Support Services Office
SUBJECT : Palayan City Administered Properties in Atate, Palayan City
This refers to your request for clarification relative to the Palayan City administered properties in Atate, Palayan City which are being occupied by some farmer-settlers. Specifically, your query is whether or not Parcels "1", "3" and "4" of the resettlement area in Atate, Palayan City can be placed under CARP (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program) coverage notwithstanding the purpose for which they were proclaimed. You likewise inquire on what alternative tenurial arrangement can be done in order to protect the farmer-settler's rights if and when subject parcels of land cannot be acquired; and what kind of intervention can this Department provide to the farmer-settlers.
Your request for clarification, as we see it, is prompted by the request of the farmers for coverage under Republic Act No. 6657 of the portions which they are occupying, specifically, Parcels "1", " 3" and "4" of the resettlement area.
The facts, as gleaned from your memorandum are as follows: 1) that the farmer-settlers claim that they have been in the area even prior to the issuance of the proclamation; that their long and peaceful occupation was disturbed by the bulldozing activities in the area allegedly upon order of the City Mayor of Palayan; and that they reported that the City Government is offering them a relocation site but they refuse to be relocated and are allegedly now being forced to vacate their respective areas; 2) that Presidential Proclamation No. 861 reserves Parcels "1", "3" and "4" for purposes of the urban, commercial and industrial development programs of the City Government of Palayan (CGP); that said proclamation is an offshoot of the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) entered into by then Secretary Benjamin T. Leong as DAR representative with then Mayor Pacifico Fajardo as City Government representative in 1990; that the MOA effected the Transfer of administration from DAR to Palayan City of seven hundred nineteen (719) hectares which area is referred to as Parcels "1", "3" and "4"; 3) that per allegation of the farmers, portions of these parcels have already been titled under the name of the CGP and dummies of the City Mayor; and 4) that Proclamation 861 provides a provision that the reservation is subject to private rights, if there be any, but the City Government allegedly failed to consider this provision.
An examination of Presidential Proclamation No. 861 would readily disclose that it covers parcels of land of the public domain. It reserves these parcels of land for the purpose of the urban, commercial and industrial development programs of Palayan City subject, however, to private rights, if there be any. Moreover, it bears stressing the WHEREAS Clauses, particularly the second WHEREAS Clause of PP No. 861 (attached) herein quoted as follows:
"WHEREAS, Proclamation No. 983, dated March 9, 1972, revoked the Bongabon Stock Farm reservation and converted the same reservation for the purpose of the resettlement of displaced residents of Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija, designating such land reservation as Parcel "E";
The Supreme Court has ruled in a long line of cases that the Public Land Act requires an applicant to prove: (a) that the land is alienable public land and (b) that his open, continuous, exclusive and notorious possession and occupation of the same must either be since time immemorial or for the period prescribed in the Public Land Act. When the conditions set by law are complied with, the possessor of the land, by operation of law, acquires a right to a government grant, without a necessity of a certificate of title being issued, and the land ceases to be a part of the public domain. It was likewise ruled by the High Court that alienable public lands held by a possessor, personally, or thru his predecessors in interest, openly, continuously and exclusively for the prescribed statutory period (i.e., 30 years under the Public Land Act, as amended) are converted to private property by mere lapse or completion of said period; ipso jure (Director of Land Management vs. Court of Appeals, G. R. No. 94525, January 27, 1992).
The Civil Code further provides, quote:
"Article 1134. Ownership and other real rights over immovable property are acquired by ordinary prescription through possession of ten years.
xxx xxx xxx
Article 1137. Ownership and other real rights over immovables also prescribe through uninterrupted adverse possession thereof for thirty years, without need of title or of good faith."
From all the aforegoing and considering that claimant-farmers are presumably possessors in good faith for more than ten (10) years now as could be inferred in the second WHEREAS Clause as herein aforequoted (i.e., rightfully resettled as displaced residents pursuant to previous Presidential Proclamation No. 983 dated 09 March 1972), it is submitted that they have already acquired private vested rights by operation of law, thus, they are accordingly entitled to the lands long occupied by them.
Moreover, even assuming that they are not possessors in good faith but should it be proven that they have uninterrupted adverse possession of the subject lands for at least thirty (30) years (Article 1137, Civil Code), they are still lawfully entitled as owners of the same.
It is believed that Presidential Decree No. 1073 approved on 25 January 1977 (requiring that possession of lands of the public domain must be from June 12, 1945 or earlier), which amends R.A. No. 1942 approved on 22 June 1957 (which provided for a simple thirty (30) year prescriptive period of occupation by an applicant for judicial confirmation of imperfect title), may find no application in the instant case.
When Proclamation No. 983 was issued on 09 March 1972 legally resettling the subject residents of Pantabangan, Nueva Ecija within the parcel "E" area, Presidential Decree No. 1073 was not yet in effect at that time. Rather it is R.A. No. 1942 which was still in force then. Well-entrenched is the rule that a law should not have a retroactive effect especially so if it will prejudice the existing rights of a person prior to its enactment or issuance. It is therefore believed that a more liberal interpretation of the law under the circumstances in favor of the farmer-settlers would better serve the ends of justice and will more effectively realize the ideals of social justice and the concept of land-to-the-tiller as enshrined in our Constitution.
Finally, even further assuming that the farmer-claimants are not deemed owners with acquired private rights as discussed above (i.e., ten (10) or thirty (30) years prescriptive possession), nevertheless, since it is the mandate of R.A. No. 6657, to cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands including lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture, we submit that pursuant to Executive Order No. 407, Series of 1990 as amended by E.O. No. 448, Series of 1991, those portions of subject parcels of land which are suitable for agriculture can still be covered under CARP if they are no longer actually, directly or exclusively used or necessary for the purposes for which they have been reserved as determined by DAR in coordination with the agency concerned (City Government of Palayan — CGP).
In view of all the aforegoing, it is therefore recommended that an ocular inspection/investigation be conducted within the area, and judicious determination as regards the private possessory or ownership rights of the farmer-claimants shall be made pursuant to the aforecited or aforequoted laws and jurisprudence. Should they be found to be possessors with acquired private rights, the lands in issue should accordingly be awarded to them as rightful private owners thereof. On the other hand, should they be found as not deemed owners of the lands in issue, this Department should coordinate with the CGP as regards the possibility of CARP coverage of said lands pursuant to the pertinent provisions of E.O. 407, as amended by E.O. 448 and other pertinent DAR guidelines.
Thank you for referring the matter to us and please be guided accordingly.
(SGD.) DANILO T. LARA
Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning