November 10, 1999

DAR OPINION NO. 72-99

PARO Prisco B. Macariola, Jr.

Department of Agrarian Reform

Provincial Office

Tanghas, Tolosa

Leyte

Dear PARO Macariola:

This has reference to your letter concerning the land acquisition problems to your province which you think need the intervention of DAR Central Office in order to address the same.

You state that the DAR Provincial Office of Leyte has quite a number of landholdings under Compulsory Acquisition (CA) and Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) which, although they already have Memorandum of Valuation (MOV) from the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), cannot be processed as yet to final conclusion due to the problem appertaining to the sending of Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition (NLVA) to concerned landowners, the protests from CARP coverage, and the applications for retention and exclusion/exemptions; that while DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1996 clearly sets the procedure (specifically steps 17, 18 and 19 of the operating procedure) regarding the sending of NLVA to the landowner and the landowner reply to NLVA, whether accepted or rejected, it is silent on cases where the NLVA, after having been sent to the concerned owner by registered mail is returned to sender (RTS) unacted upon other because the landowner concerned cannot be located or simply refuses to accept, it is a ploy to delay acquisition of his properties; that the absence of policy procedure on this matter has practically crippled your efforts to speed up the distribution of these landholding to qualified and deserving farmer beneficiaries; and that a cursory reading of A.O. No. 2 series of 1996 and in-depth analysis of the problem has led you to solicit our legal opinion on the following alternative courses of action you consider appropriate and tenable, to wit:

1.         Whether the publication of the unacted NLVAs (RTS) in a newspaper of general circulation satisfies the requirement of due process;

2.         Whether step 18 of the operating procedure of A.O. No. 2, Series of 1996 (Posting of NLVA in the bulletin board of the Provincial Capitol, City/Municipality Hall and Barangay Halls where the property is located) satisfies also the requirements of due process;

3.         In both instances, whether it is legally tenable to construe the landowner's inaction as rejection of the valuation after giving them time to signify their acceptance or rejection within the time frame set by publication or posting and for which such period had already elapsed; and

4.         Shall we proceed with the documentation of OLT, VOS, and CA with pending protests against CARP coverage, application for retention and related matters without the need of awaiting its resolution.

Relative to your Nos. 1 and 2 alternative courses of action, on the validity of service, please be guided by the provision of Section 10, Rule 13 of the Rules of Court which, insofar as pertinent, provides:

"Rule 13 (Sec. 10)     Completeness of Service — Personal service is complete upon delivery. Service by ordinary mail is complete upon the expiration of ten (10) days after mailing, unless the court otherwise provides. Service by registered mail is complete upon actual receipt by the addressee, or after five (5) days from the date he received the first notice of the post master, whichever date is earlier." (emphasis supplied)

As regards your third course of action, the inaction of the landowner should be deemed a rejection of the offered valuation as contemplated under Section 16 (d) of Republic Act No. 6657.

Anent your fourth course of action, documentation of CARP-covered properties with protests or pending application for retention exemption, exclusion or conversion should be discouraged pending resolution thereof. DAR Opinion No. 9, Series of 1999 provides, quote:

". . . it is deemed wise and prudent to resolve the first the pending petitions for exemption filed. . . before proceeding to the coverage of the landholding in issue to avoid possible absurdity where the property subject of the request might later on be declared as exempt from CARP coverage. This policy procedure aims to prevent the government from probable wastage of time, effort and resources incident to the coverage. Hence, the coverage process should momentarily be deferred to give way to the resolution of the pending application for exemption/exclusion."

However, proper and urgent representations should be made with the office/agency concerned to expedite action thereon.

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

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) FEDERICO A. POBLETE

Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning