October 28, 1999
DAR OPINION NO. 63-99
ATTY . DANILO S. VELASQUEZ
Chief, Legal Division
Provincial Agrarian Reform Office
Naval, Biliran
Dear Atty. Velasquez:
This has reference to your request for legal opinion on the following queries, to wit:
1. Whether or not a pauper litigant farmer/tenant is exempt from bond requirement in injunction cases filed before the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB)?
2. Whether or not palay post-harvest facilities such as solar driers, among others, are exempt from conversion application requirements?
With regard to the first query, the New DARAB Rules of Procedure dated 30 May 1994, specifically Section 2, Rule V thereof expressly provides, quote:
"Section 2. Pauper Litigant. — A party who is an agricultural lessee, share tenant, actual tiller, amortizing owner-cultivator, farmworker, a member of any farmer's organization, association or a farmer's cooperative, as alleged and applied for in a sworn complaint or motion, shall be entitled to the rights and privileges of a pauper litigant under these Rules without further proof thereof. He shall continue to enjoy such status as a pauper litigant in all the levels of adjudication until the case is terminated." (emphasis supplied)
It is very clear under said law that a pauper litigant farmer/tenant is exempt from payment of any legal fee as an incident of a pending case before the DARAB. Accordingly, a pauper litigant under the abovementioned rule is exempt from bond requirement in injunction cases arising from a tenancy relationship issue to be decided by the DARAB. Although, under Section 1, Rule X (Preliminary Injunction) of the New DARAB Rules which states among others that "should the Board or the Adjudicator believe that it is necessary to post a bond, it shall fix the amount of the bond to be executed by the party applying for the injunction. . . ", we believe that such requirement should not as a matter of general policy apply anymore considering that the Board or Adjudicator has the discretion whether or not to require the posting of a bond in injunction cases filed by a pauper litigant farmer/tenant. It is more in keeping with the spirit and intent of the law for the Board or Adjudicator in such instance to no longer require the litigant farmer/tenant to post a bond.
On the second query, we wish to reiterate DAR Opinion No. 54, Series of 1997 which earlier had already clarified the issue on whether or not the building or establishment of post-harvest facilities such as rice/corn mills, warehouses and solar driers would constitute an illegal conversion. Under the said opinion, this Department had pertinently opined as follows:
"Building said rice/corn mill, warehouse and solar drier is an act of conversion because it would change the use of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural, albeit the same would be beneficial to the farmers. Prior DAR approval must be sought when a portion of agricultural land is intended to be used as a rice/corn mill, warehouse and solar drier to ensure that the same will not result in a circumvention of CARL and as a safeguard against indiscriminate land use conversion."
The abovequoted opinion requiring conversion clearance is, however, a general rule which may admit of possible exceptions for purposes or by reason of imperative practical exigencies where said facilities shall serve as necessary components of agricultural activity within the area. Thus, prior DAR approval of a conversion application with all the requirements thereof is no longer necessary should the following conditions and qualifications are present after the DAR had duly conducted the proper study, ocular inspection and investigation in the area, to wit:
1. that the area applied for conversion into rice/corn mill, warehouse or solar drier is virtually insignificant relative to the total area affected;
2. that the conversion will not unduly tend to endanger food security or self sufficiency;
3. that the subject area is not an irrigated or irrigable land already covered by an irrigation project with firm funding commitment;
4. that the conversion will not be prejudicial to the tenants or agrarian reform beneficiaries, if any, in the area; and
5. that if the applicant is a leaseholder, consent of the landowner is necessary (Section 36 (3), R.A. No. 3844, as amended).
Under the above conditions and qualifications and upon judicious review, a certification to that effect to be issued by the DAR Regional Director on the basis of the findings and recommendations of the PARO and MARO may suffice, without necessarily requiring a formal application for conversion and the concomitant issuance of a conversion clearance pursuant to existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations.
We hope to have clarified the issues with you.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) DANILO T. LARA
Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning
Copy furnished:
Narciso B. Nieto
OIC Director
DAR-Region VIII
Sto. Niño Extension, Tacloban
The Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
DAR-Provincial Office
Naval, Biliran