DIGESTS OF DAR LEGAL OPINIONS BY SUBJECT (1994-2010)
By
Legislative Research and Statistics Division
Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance
Department of Agrarian Reform
A
ABANDONMENT; AS A GROUND FOR EJECTMENT
What constitutes abandonment?
- If he sells his right as tenant and allows another person to cultivate the farm, the same would constitute abandonment of the landholding without the knowledge of the agricultural lessor which could be a ground for his ejectment. However, if the agricultural lessor eventually recognized the person to whom possession and cultivation of the farmlot was transferred, it is possible that his stay thereon has ripened into tenancy.
DAR OPINION NO. 20, s. 1994
March 15, 1994
ABANDONMENT; TEMPORARY ABANDONMENT NOT A GROUND FOR EJECTMENT
- Temporary abandonment can not be a ground for the ejectment of a tenant when there is a person who can cultivate the landholding personally and temporarily, not necessarily a son from among his immediate family or legal heirs. Sections 7 and 8 of Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code) provides as to when a tenancy relationship ceases. Thus, said provisions of law provide that the agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished, and that it is extinguished by abandonment of the landholding without the knowledge of the agricultural lessor.
- As far as abandonment of farmholding is concerned, such abandonment must not only be temporary, there must be a showing that the tenant has no intention of returning.
DAR OPINION NO. 29, s. 2008
November 14, 2008
ACCREDITATION OF NGO; NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT BEFORE SUCH CAN ASSIST DAR IN ITS PROGRAM; EXCEPTION; APPLICATION FOR FUNDING WITH DAR
Is the accreditation of NGO a condition precedent before said NGO can assist DAR in its program?
- No accreditation is required before an NGO can assist the DAR in its programs as embodied under DAR Administrative Order No. 11, s. 1989, otherwise known as the "Rules and Regulations Governing the Accreditation of Non-Government Organizations (NGOs) participating in DAR Programs." Said guideline was issued to guarantee the participation and involvement of non-government organization in agrarian and agricultural development pursuant to Sec. 16 of Art. XIII of the Constitution which provides that the right of the people and their organizations to effective and reasonable and economic decision-making shall be respected. Accreditation is necessary only in instances where an NGO will apply for funding with the DAR.
DAR OPINION NO. 45, s. 1997
April 24, 1997
ACQUISITION AND REDISTRIBUTION; AGRICULTURAL LANDS OUTSIDE THE LANDOWNER'S RETAINED AREA
Can we distribute to qualified beneficiaries agricultural lands falling outside the 5-hectare retention of landowners?
- CARL mandates the acquisition and redistribution to qualified beneficiaries of all agricultural lands falling outside 5-hectare retention of landowners. Moreover, the last paragraph of Section 6 of CARL provides that upon its effectivity, any sale, disposition, lease, management contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation thereof shall be null and void.
DAR OPINION NO. 76, s. 1995
November 27, 1995
ACQUISITION AND REDISTRIBUTION; FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED
What are the factors to be considered in the schedule of acquisition and redistribution of all agricultural lands in accordance with the order of priority as set by law?
- The schedule of acquisition and redistribution of all agricultural lands in accordance with the order of priority as set by law should take its course taking into consideration the following: the need to distribute lands to the tillers at the earliest practicable time; the need to enhance agricultural productivity; and the availability of funds and resources to implement and support the program.
DAR OPINION NO. 75, s. 1996
September 4, 1996
ACQUISITION; AGRICULTURAL LANDS BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT (LGU), LIMITATIONS
Can a local government unit expropriate agricultural land without prior authority from DAR?
- The Supreme Court held in the case of Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 173, that local government units can expropriate agricultural lands without prior authority from the Department of Agrarian Reform as the determination of the public use of the property subject for expropriation is considered an expression of legislative policy. The Supreme Court further held that neither the Local Government Code nor the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law requires a local government unit to secure approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform as a condition precedent to institute the necessary expropriation proceedings. The ruling laid down by the Supreme Court is generally applicable when an agricultural land is expropriated by or donated to a local government unit.
DAR OPINION NO. 81, s. 1999
December 23, 1999
ACQUISITION; AGRICULTURAL LANDS SUBJECT OF MORTGAGE OR FORECLOSURE
- Section 5 of DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 2000 (Revised Rules and Regulations on the Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Subject of Mortgage or Foreclosure) provides that the mortgagee shall be considered a lien-holder if on the date the land transfer claim was received by the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR): the mortgage debt is not yet due and demandable; or the mortgage debt is already due and demandable but the mortgagee has not foreclosed on the property, or the mortgage has already been foreclosed but the period to exercise the right of redemption, in cases provided by law, has not yet expired; or the foreclosure sale has not yet been confirmed by the court in cases where there is only equity of redemption.
Section 72 (b) of R.A. No. 6657 further provides:
"(b) Mortgages and other claims registered with the Register of Deeds shall be assumed by the government up to an amount equivalent to the landowner's compensation value as provided in this Act."
Section 8.b.1 of DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 2000 likewise states:
"b) As lienholder, the bank, financial institutions, or other concerned person shall be entitled, among others, to:
1) Receive payment for the obligation of the mortgagor from the land transfer proceeds up to an amount equivalent to the landowner's compensation value."
DAR OPINION NO. 13, s. 2005
March 22, 2005
ACQUISITION; AGRICULTURAL LANDS UNDER R.A. No. 6657 AND P.D. No. 27
What are the guidelines applicable in the acquisition of agricultural lands under R.A. No. 6657 and P.D. No. 27?
- In the acquisition of agricultural lands both under R.A. No. 6657 and P.D. No. 27, the provisions of DAR A.O. No. 02, Series of 1996, as amended by A.O. No. 1, Series of 1998 (Revised Rules and Procedures Governing the Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition pursuant to R.A. No. 6657) and Executive Order No. 228 (Declaring Full Land Ownership to Qualified Farmer Beneficiaries covered by P.D. No. 27; Determining the Value of Remaining Unvalued Rice and Corn Lands Subject of P.D. No. 27; and Providing for the Manner of Payment by the Farmer Beneficiary and Mode of Compensation to the Landowner) apply.
DAR OPINION NO. 83, s. 1999
December 23, 1999
ACQUISITION; A.O. NO. 02, SERIES OF 2005 GENERALLY HAS PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION
- "V. Transitory provisions
This Administrative Order shall apply even to claims pending at any level but only in so far as the subsequent or remaining procedures/activities are concerned.
However, CFs involving landholdings with an aggregate area of five (5) hectares and below per landowner or those covered by patents under the "Handog Titulo" program of the DENR shall no longer be processed except those already officially received by the LBP.
VI. EFFECTIVITY
This Order shall take effect ten (10) days after its publication in two (2) newspapers of general circulation pursuant to Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657. . . ."
A reading of the abovequoted provisions would readily disclose that generally, it prescribes a prospective application. However, insofar as subsequent or remaining procedures concerning pending claims and CFs involving landholding below 5 hectares per landowner or those covered by patents under the "Handog Titulo" program which are already officially received by the LBP, the A.O. may be applied retroactively.
DAR OPINION NO. 12, s. 2007
February 13, 2007
ACQUISITION; APPLICABLE TO BOTH SMALL AND BIG LANDOWNERS
- Pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), the DAR is mandated to acquire agricultural lands in excess of the retention limit of five (5) hectares. This mandate is imperative and it applies to both small and big landowners regardless of their status or position in the society. In other words, the acquisition is not dependent on the willingness of the landowners whose primary objective is patently to unduly delay and derail the implementation of R.A. No. 6657. Agrarian Reform is land reform and it means the transfer of control and ownership of agricultural land to the actual tillers.
DAR OPINION NO. 12, s. 2006
February 2, 2006
ACQUISITION; APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION OR CONVERSION, EFFECT THEREOF; DUTY OF DAR IN CASE OF FILING OF SAID APPLICATIONS
What is the effect of an application for exemption/conversion on the issuance of cash deposit certificate?
- In cases where there are pending applications for exemption or conversion or protests on coverage, the issuance of Certificate of Cash Deposit shall be held in abeyance until such time that said applications or protests are resolved with finality. However, in so far as the applications for exemption and conversion and protests involving CARP coverage which are pending with the DAR, it behooves and it is incumbent upon us that the resolution thereof should be directed and rendered the soonest in order that the implementation of the Program shall not be unduly delayed or derailed.
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 1999
February 9, 1999
ACQUISITION; CITIZENSHIP OF A PERSON WHO MAY ACQUIRE PRIVATE LANDS
May a natural born citizen of the Philippines who is now an alien acquire private lands?
- A natural born citizen of the Philippines, though now an alien, may acquire private lands in the Philippines, subject, however, to limitations provided by law.
DAR OPINION NO. 70, s. 1996
August 14, 1996
ACQUISITION; CORPORATION OF FILIPINO OWNERSHIP MAY ACQUIRE LANDS
Can a corporation of Filipino ownership acquire lands by purchase in the Philippines?
- A corporation of Filipino ownership can acquire said lands by purchase in the Philippines without transgressing any constitutional provision relative to acquisition of private agricultural lands. Specifically, this is one of the privileges enshrined in the 1987 Constitution which can be enjoyed solely by Filipino Citizens, corporations or associations. By Filipino ownership, it does not mean that the corporation must be one of hundred percent (100%) Filipino capitalization; it is enough that at least sixty percent (60%) of the capital is owned by Filipino Citizens.
DAR OPINION NO. 34, s. 1997
April 3, 1997
ACQUISITION; DISTINGUISHED FROM DISTRIBUTION; TWO SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS
How is acquisition distinguished from distribution?
- Section 18 of R.A. No. 6657 provides, quote: "Valuation and Mode of Compensation. — The LBP shall compensate the landowner in such amount as may be agreed upon by the landowner and the DAR and the LBP in accordance with the criteria provided for in Sections 16 and 17 and other pertinent provisions thereof, or as may be finally determined by the court as the just compensation for the land". On the other hand, Section 26 of the same law provides: "Lands awarded pursuant to this Act shall be paid for by the beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual amortizations at six percent (6%) interest per annum."
- From the aforequoted provisions of law and learning from the lessons in the previous agrarian reform programs, the CARP now separates the process of acquisition from distribution. These are now two separate transactions. The former is a transaction between the government and the landowner, while the latter is a transaction between the government and the agrarian reform beneficiaries. The landowner may still be contesting the land valuation but title to the land may already be transferred first to the Republic of the Philippines then to the beneficiaries.
DAR OPINION NO. 102, s. 1997
September 3, 1997
ACQUISITION; DOCUMENTATION PROCESS MUST PROCEED WITHOUT INTERRUPTION DESPITE NON-PAYMENT OF TAX DUE
May acquisition proceed pending non payment of tax due?
- It is the DAR's primary mandate to acquire and distribute lands to as many tenants and farmworkers as possible, hence, to stop or suspend the processing of land distribution folders by reason of mere non-payment of taxes would unduly delay or derail the implementation of the Program and frustrate the very purpose for which the law was enacted and envisioned. The CARP coverage documentation process must therefore proceed without interruption and should never be put at the mercy of other persons' inability or delinquency in the payment of their legally demandable tax obligations. Accordingly, proper representation with the Office of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) or local government unit concerned should be made informing them, along with the landowner, that the land subject of non-payment of tax shall nonetheless be covered under CARP (inspite of the absence of a tax clearance) and that should the taxes still remain unpaid, the DAR through the LBP shall be constrained to automatically deduct the unpaid taxes from the compensation to which the landowner may be entitled and the same shall out rightly be paid to the taxing authority concerned.
DAR OPINION NO. 116, s. 1998
December 2, 1998
ACQUISITION; EFFECT OF AN APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION/ CONVERSION ON THE ISSUANCE OF CASH DEPOSIT CERTIFICATE
What is the effect of an application for exemption/conversion on the issuance of cash deposit certificate?
- "Section 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands — . . .
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
- The aforequoted provision of law presupposes that there is no issue raised on the coverage, exemption and/or conversion of the subject landholding, thus, a Certificate of Cash Deposit could be issued and the land may be immediately subjected to CARP coverage. Conversely, in case there is a pending protest on coverage or an exemption/conversion application filed by the landowner, it necessarily follows that the issuance of the Cash Deposit Certification should be held in abeyance, hence, the landholding in issue could not be immediately subjected to CARP coverage.
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 1999
February 9, 1999
ACQUISITION; EXEMPT NON-AGRICULTURAL LANDS, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION OF CARL ON RETENTION
May a person who already owns an agricultural land of five (5) hectares or more acquire non-agricultural lands exempt from CARP coverage?
- The prohibition under CARL relative to retention limit in excess of five (5) hectares applies only if the subject landholding is agricultural, the reason being that only agricultural lands are subject to CARP coverage. A land which is undeveloped and untenanted and with slope of 18% or over is deemed already out of the purview of agricultural lands over which the DAR has no more jurisdiction.
- However, while the subject landholding is undeveloped and untenanted with 18% slope or over, the DAR as an agency tasked to implement the agrarian reform program of the government should still make a declaration that the subject landholding is indeed exempt from CARP coverage through an order of exemption to be issued by the Regional Director.
- Consequently, any person whether natural or juridical, can acquire exempt landholdings which are not classified as agricultural in nature by any of the recognized modes of acquiring ownership because the acquisition thereof does not circumvent the provision of CARL on retention.
DAR OPINION NO. 105, s. 1996
December 13, 1996
ACQUISITION; FORECLOSED AGRICULTURAL LAND
- In the instant case, the bank (DBP) may, however, dispose the subject property to a third party without applying for the issuance of a Certificate of Exclusion/Exemption since under DAR Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1996 (Guidelines Clarifying Sections 3 and 6 of R.A. 7881 Relative to Applications For Commercial Farm Deferment and the Turn-Over to DAR of Foreclosed Assets of Government Financial Institutions, Respectively), pertinent provision of which states:
2. Section 6 of R.A. 7881 provides the following:
"Section 6. There shall be incorporated after Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6657 a new section to read as follows:
Section 73-A. Exception. — The provisions of Section 73, paragraph (e) to the contrary notwithstanding, the sales and/or transfer of agricultural land in cases where such sale, transfer or conveyance is made necessary as a result of a bank's foreclosure of the mortgaged land is hereby permitted."
- The net effect of the aforequoted provision is to allow government financial institutions to dispose to third parties their properties which were foreclosed on or after the effectivity of R.A. No. 7881, i.e., March 12, 1995, under the General Banking Act. However, since said properties (e.g., the landholding in issue) fall under CARP coverage, the same shall still be acquired by the government through the DAR for distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries as mandated under R.A. No. 6657.
DAR OPINION NO. 33, s. 2006
November 10, 2006
ACQUISITION; FORECLOSED AGRICULTURAL LAND
- Concerning your second query in relation to the third query, farmer beneficiaries has a better right over the subject property, quoting the last paragraph of the said DOJ Opinion:
". . . As the mortgage had ceased to exist upon the transfer of title to the tenant by virtue of the promulgation of P.D. No. 27 on October 21, 1972, there can be no mortgage to foreclose and therefore no subject for the foreclosure proceedings. Whatever equitable interest the mortgagee has in the landowners' right to receive payment is protected under Section 80, above-quoted, directing the Land Bank to settle existing liens and encumbrances affecting the property."
- It is explicit therefore that LBC Bank cannot exercise the right of retention over said agricultural properties since the mortgage had ceased to exist upon the transfer of title to the tenant by virtue of the promulgation of P.D. No. 27 on October 21, 1972. It necessarily follows that the bank can no longer offer to voluntary offer for sale the entire property.
DAR OPINION NO. 30, s. 2006
October 20, 2006
ACQUISITION; FORECLOSED AGRICULTURAL LAND
- Since the subject foreclosed property is agricultural, the same shall still be subjected to acquisition and redistribution to qualified beneficiaries pursuant to the provisions of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Simply stated, although the transfer in the name of Planters Products of said property may be allowed or permitted under the law, the foreclosed agricultural property is not excluded from CARP coverage pursuant to Section 16 and 71 of Republic Act No. 6657 and DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1997 (Rules and Procedures Governing the Acquisition of Private Agricultural Lands Subject of Mortgage or Foreclosure of Mortgage).
DAR OPINION NO. 28, s. 2006
October 17, 2006
ACQUISITION; FORECLOSED AGRICULTURAL LAND
- Pertinent to foreclosed agricultural land are the following provisions of law, guidelines and DAR Opinion:
- SECTION 71, R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law)
"Section 71. Bank Mortgages. — Banks and other financial institutions allowed by law to hold mortgage rights or security interests in agricultural lands to secure loans and other obligations of borrowers, may acquire title to these mortgaged properties, regardless of area, subject to existing laws on compulsory transfer of foreclosed assets and acquisition as prescribed under Section 16 of this Act." (underscoring and emphasis supplied)
- SECTION 1, DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2000 (Revised Rules and Regulations of Agricultural Lands Subject of Mortgage or Foreclosure)
"Section 1. Rationale. — Section 25 of Republic Act No. 337, otherwise known as "The General Banking Act", provides that acquired assets and mortgaged properties foreclosed by banks shall be disposed of within a period of five (5) years after foreclosure." (emphasis supplied)
- Penultimate Paragraph of DAR Memorandum Circular No 05, Series of 1996 (Guidelines Clarifying Sections 3 and 6 of R.A. No. 7881 Relative to Applications for Commercial Farms Deferment and the Turn-over to DAR of Foreclosed Assets of Government Financial Institutions, Respectively)
"As regards private banks, Section 71 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that said foreclosed assets are subject to existing laws on their compulsory transfer (that is, under the General Banking Act) and acquisition under Section 16 of said Act. . . . ." (emphasis supplied)
- 4th Paragraph of DAR Opinion No. 95, Series of 1996
". . . Banks cannot exercise the right of retention over their foreclosed agricultural properties. Section 71 of R.A. No. 6657 mandates that foreclosed assets of private banks are subject to existing laws on compulsory transfer (that is under the General Banking Act) and acquisition under Section 16 of said Act (see attached M.C. No. 5, Series of 1995)." (emphasis supplied)
DAR OPINION NO. 02, s. 2005
February 8, 2005
ACQUISITION; FORECLOSED AGRICULTURAL LAND
- To preclude circuitous and complex reversion proceedings, and pursuant to the aforequoted/aforecited more recent special provisions of R.A. No. 6657 (CARL) and R.A. No. 337 (The General Banking Act) vis-à-vis a general provision of the Public Land Act (Section 118 thereof), the subject properties foreclosed by private banks, consolidated in their favor and offered for CARP coverage may be placed under the Program since in the final analysis said properties will end up/revert to the State, through the DAR, for distribution to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries.
DAR OPINION NO. 12, s. 2003
August 28, 2003
ACQUISITION; FORECLOSED AGRICULTURAL LAND
- Corollarily, although Section 6 of R.A. No. 7881 allows the transfer by banks of such foreclosed assets to third parties, they shall nonetheless be eventually acquired by the government through the DAR, under Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657, for distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries.
DAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 2002
June 7, 2002
ACQUISITION; FORECLOSED AGRICULTURAL LAND
- Although private banks my sell to third parties their foreclosed assets, the same are still subject to acquisition under Section 16 of R.A. No. 6557 (CARL), if warranted.
DAR OPINION NO. 12, s. 2001
August 21, 2001
ACQUISITION; FORECLOSED ASSETS AND MORTGAGED PROPERTIES
Could acquired assets and mortgaged properties foreclosed by a bank be disposed of?
- Section 25 of Republic Act No. 337 (General Banking Act) provides that acquired assets and mortgaged properties foreclosed by the mortgagee bank shall be disposed of within a period of five (5) years after foreclosure. Section 71 of R.A. No. 6657 further provides that "Banks and other financial institutions allowed by law to hold mortgage rights or security interests in agricultural lands to secure loans and other obligations of borrowers, may acquire title to these mortgaged properties, regardless of area, subject to existing laws on compulsory transfer of foreclosed assets and acquisition as prescribed under Section 16 of this Act." Moreover, Section 6 of R.A. No. 7881 as clarified by Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1996 "allows government financial institutions to dispose to third parties their properties which were foreclosed on or after the effectivity of R.A. No. 7881, i.e., March 12, 1995. However, since said properties fall under CARP coverage, the same shall still be acquired by the government through this Department for distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries as mandated by R.A. No. 6657." (underscoring supplied)
DAR OPINION NO. 25, s. 1999
March 22, 1999
ACQUISITION; FORECLOSED ASSETS; FORECLOSING BANK AS THE LANDOWNER
When shall a foreclosing bank be treated as the landowner?
- DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1997 treats a foreclosing bank (i.e., Creditor) for purposes of covering a property under CARP as the landowner: 1) when the title to the property is in the name of the Creditor; or 2) when the affidavit of consolidation of ownership or affidavit of non-redemption of the property has been annotated on the title.
DAR OPINION NO. 25, s. 1999
March 22, 1999
ACQUISITION; IN THE NAME OF MINOR CHILDREN, CONDITIONS
Can parents acquire agricultural land in the name of minor children?
- Parents can acquire agricultural land in the name of their minor children, provided that: 1) the land to be acquired is a retained area; 2) the title shall be issued in the name of their children, and 3) each child would not own more than the five-hectare landownership ceiling, including the property acquired.
DAR OPINION NO. 35, s. 1996
May 28, 1996
ACQUISITION; LAND COVERED BY HOMESTEAD PATENTS AND/OR CLOAs MAY BE TRANSFERRED THROUGH VLT
- Section 20 of R.A. No. 6657 recognizes VLT as a mode of acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. While it may be true that under the said scheme, the transfer is made directly to the beneficiaries by virtue of an agreement between the landowner and farmer-beneficiaries, the fact remains that said transfer is made pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), and the agreement is still subject to DAR approval pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 08, Series of 2003. Therefore, land covered by Homestead Patents and/or CLOAs that are qualified for acquisition under CARP may be transferred by landowners through the VLT mode of acquisition.
DAR OPINION NO. 28, s. 2007
October 15, 2007
ACQUISITION; LAND UNDER P.D. 27; CONDITIONS; EXCEPTION; PUBLIC LANDS MAY BE COVERED UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS
What are the conditions in the acquisition of agricultural lands for distribution to qualified tenant farmers under P.D. No. 27?
- Acquisition of agricultural lands for distribution to qualified tenant-farmers under Presidential Decree No. 27 is subject to the following conditions, to wit:
a. that the property is a private agricultural land;
b. that it is primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of share-crop or lease tenancy, whether classified as landed estate or not; and
c. that it is tenanted.
- Specifically, the beneficent provisions of the aforementioned law find no application to landholdings whose ownership is still public in character. Otherwise stated, public lands cannot be acquired and distributed to qualified Operation Land Transfer (OLT) farmer-beneficiaries nor can it be the subject of Emancipation Patents for the same are outside the purview of P.D. No. 27. However, the foregoing is not without exception.
- 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). As likewise ruled by the Supreme Court in the case of Rural Bank of Compostela vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 122801, April 8, 1997, the possessor is deemed to have acquired by operation of law, a right to a government grant, without the necessity of a certificate of title being issued, and the land ceases to be part of the public domain and beyond the authority of the Director of Lands. Thus, even assuming that the subject property is a public land for failure of the Layug family to prove their claim of ownership, the same can still be possibly acquired and distributed to qualified tenant beneficiaries pursuant to P.D. No. 27 to give effect to the mandate of this social justice legislation.
DAR OPINION NO. 19, s. 1999
March 4, 1999
ACQUISITION; PROPERTY COVERED BY CARP CAN NO LONGER BE THE SUBJECT OF RECLASSIFICATION BY LGU
May a property already subjected to compulsory acquisition pursuant to CARP be the subject of reclassification by Local Government Units?
- A property already subjected to compulsory acquisition pursuant to CARP, the same being indisputably coverable under the provisions of R.A. No. 6657, can no longer be the subject of reclassification by Local Government Units. To do so or to allow it would disturb vested rights, have tremendous unsettling effects in the current state of things, would serve as a bad precedent, will give rise to violent conflict and social tension, and would in the end eventually and effectively derail the successful implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
DAR OPINION NO. 47, s. 1997
April 24, 1997
ACQUISITION; MODES OF ACQUISITION
- Under R.A. No. 6657, there are two modes of acquisition of private agricultural lands, compulsory and voluntary. Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) is a highly favored mode of acquisition by the government. As landowner, you may validly offer for CARP coverage your agricultural land through the VOS Scheme and the same may be processed under existing guidelines.
DAR OPINION NO. 32, s. 2007
November 16, 2007
ACQUISITION; ORDER OF PRIORITIES UNDER SECTION 7 OF R.A. NO. 6657
Is the Order of priorities provided under Section 7 of R.A. 6657 mandatory?
- The Order of Priorities set forth under Section 7 of R.A. No. 6657 is merely directory in character. The difference between a mandatory and a directory provision is often determined on grounds of expediency. And where a provision, as herein, embodies a rule of procedure rather than one of substance, the provision as to time will be regarded as directory only notwithstanding the mandatory nature of the language used (Marcelino vs. Cruz, Jr., 121 SCRA 51).
- It is true that Section 7 uses the word "shall", which is generally interpreted to be mandatory in character (Guiao vs. Figueroa, 94 Phil. 1022). However, it is also well-recognized that the ordinary acceptation of "shall" and "may" as being obligatory and permissive, respectively, is not an absolute and inflexible criterion (Vda. de Mesa vs. Mencias, 18 SCRA 533). Provisions as to time will generally be construed as directory if there are no negative words restraining the doing of the act afterwards (Phil. Ass'n. of Free Labor Unions vs. Sec. of Labor, 27 SCRA 40). We find none instant.
- The ten-year period (i.e., 3 Phases) of CARP implementation is only a time frame given to the DAR for the acquisition and distribution of public and private agricultural lands covered by R.A. No. 6657. It is a schedule to guide the DAR in setting its priorities, but it is not by any means a limitation of authority in the absence of more categorical language providing to that effect. On the contrary, said schedule may even be disregarded by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) upon recommendation by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) by declaring certain provinces or regions as priority land reform areas. In such cases, the acquisition and distribution of private agricultural lands therein may be implemented ahead of the schedule set forth under Section 7 thereof.
DAR OPINION NO. 05, s. 2000
January 11, 2000
ACQUISITION; PRIVATE LANDS; CERTIFICATION OF DEPOSIT ALREADY ISSUED
Can the Register of Deeds register the generated CLOAs based on the Certificate of Deposit issued by the LBP?
- Section 16 (e) of R.A. No. 6657 provides that "upon the deposit with the LBP of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries." Pursuant to said provision of law, it is very clear that the Register of Deeds (ROD) is not restrained from registering the generated CLOAs based on the Certificate of Deposit in order that the DAR may thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.
DAR OPINION NO. 59, s. 1999
October 27, 1999
ACQUISITION; PROPERTY COVERED BY CARP CAN NO LONGER BE THE SUBJECT OF RECLASSIFICATION BY LGU
May a property already subjected to compulsory acquisition pursuant to CARP be the subject of reclassification by Local Government Units?
- A property already subjected to compulsory acquisition pursuant to CARP, the same being indisputably coverable under the provisions of R.A. No. 6657, can no longer be the subject of reclassification by Local Government Units. To do so or to allow it would disturb vested rights, have tremendous unsettling effects in the current state of things, would serve as a bad precedent, will give rise to violent conflict and social tension, and would in the end eventually and effectively derail the successful implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
DAR OPINION NO. 47, s. 1997
April 24, 1997
ACQUISITION; REFUSAL OF A TENANT TO BE A BENEFICIARY, NOT A VALID GROUND TO REJECT THE VOS
May the refusal of the tenant to be a beneficiary considered a valid ground to reject the VOS?
- The refusal of the tenant to be a beneficiary is not a valid ground for a property under VOS (which is coverable under the CARP) to be rejected and much more to delay or stop the processing of the claim for payment of the landowner. It is the standing policy of this Department in consonance with Section 19 of RA 6657 to encourage VOS as a mode of acquisition, for it ensures the cooperation of landowner.
DAR OPINION NO. 98, s. 1997
September 2, 1997
ACQUISITION; REJECTION OF VALUATION
Should the landowner's inaction be construed as rejection of the offered valuation?
- 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.
DAR OPINION NO. 72, s. 1999
November 10, 1999
ACQUISITION; RESERVED LAND, DISTRIBUTION THEREOF
Does Executive Order No. 448 cover lands which have been reserved in favor of a private non-profit corporation?
- E.O. No. 448, which transferred to the Department of Agrarian Reform for distribution lands reserved by Presidential Proclamations for specific public uses, is not applicable to the present case. The Executive Order only covers those which have been reserved for the government, its agencies and instrumentalities including government corporations. The terms of the law is clear and by no stretch of imagination can it extend to cover BSP which is a private non-profit corporation.
DAR OPINION NO. 121, s. 1998
December 22, 1998
ACQUISITION; TEN (10) YEAR IMPLEMENTATION OF CARP, ONLY A TIME-FRAME
Is the 10-year period of CARP implementation mandatory?
- The ten (10) year period of implementation is only a time frame given to DAR for the acquisition and distribution of public and private agricultural lands covered by R.A. No. 6657. It is a schedule to guide the DAR in setting its priorities, but it is not by any means a limitation of authority in the absence of more categorical language providing to that effect. Moreover, Republic Act No. 8532 provides in Section 1 thereof the following, to quote:
"Sec. 1. Sec. 63 of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, is hereby amended to read as follows:
Sec. 63. Funding source. — The amount needed to implement this Act until the year 2008 shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund."
- It is clear therefore that CARP does not end after ten (10) years from the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 but extends even up to the year 2008.
DAR OPINION NO. 33, s. 1998
March 10, 1998
ACQUISITION; VALIDITY AND LIMITATIONS OF ACQUISITION UNDER THE PUBLIC LAND ACT
When is the validity and limitation of acquisition under the Public Land Act determined?
- The Supreme Court in Director of Lands vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 146 SCRA 509, has ruled that the validity of acquisition is determined as of the time the land was acquired. Under the 1935 Constitution, the limit on the area of public land which may be acquired by private individuals was 144 hectares. The 1973 Constitution, however, set the limit at 24 hectares. This in effect amends Section 122 of the Public Land Act which reduced the allowance area from 144 to 24 hectares (Guiang v. Kintanar, 106 SCRA 49). The 1987 Constitution has further reduced this to 12 hectares. Therefore, the validity of the acquisition of the subject farms depends on the period the land was acquired.
DAR OPINION NO. 26, s. 1999
March 22, 1999
ADMINISTRATIVE ISSUANCES; PRESUMED VALID AND EFFECTIVE
- In the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), administrative issuances which include directives, rules, regulations, orders and/or instructions issued by the Department that establish new policies or implementing existing laws are presumed valid and effective in order not to frustrate the very purpose of CARP and for a speedy implementation of the program. Besides, DAR Administrative Order No. 14, Series of 1988 was issued in reference with the pertinent provisions of the New Civil Code of the Philippines. Hence, DAR Administrative Order No. 14, Series of 1988 which was issued by former DAR Secretary Philip Ella Juico, is presumed to be valid and effective issuance of DAR. It prescribes certain rules, requirements and procedures relative to the implementation of the Program of the Department.
DAR OPINION NO. 13, s. 2006
February 22, 2006
AGRARIAN DISPUTE; DEFINITION
What is agrarian dispute?
- "Agrarian Dispute" as defined in Section 3(d) of R.A. 6657 refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements over lands devoted to agriculture.
DAR OPINION NO. 84, s. 1995
December 11, 1995
AGRARIAN REFORM FUND; PCGG RECOVERIES
How can PCGG recovered properties be applied?
- All PCGG recoveries (except belonging to the Sugar Restitution Fund) shall be applied to the account of the Agrarian Reform Fund until completion of the fifty billion pesos, after which the 60%-40% proportion shall be applied.
DAR OPINION NO. 73, s. 1994
September 15, 1994
- All PCGG recoveries shall be applied to the account of the Agrarian Reform Fund until completion of the total initial amount of P50 billion, after which 60% of said recoveries shall be automatically appropriated to the special account of the Agrarian Reform Fund and 40% to the General Fund. The only exception to the said provisions is that found in Republic Act 7202 (The Sugar Restitution Law) which mandates that any amount recovered by the government determined to have been stolen or illegally acquired from the sugar industry shall be used to compensate all sugar producers from crop year 1974-1975 up to and including crop year 1984-1985 on a pro-rata basis.
DAR OPINION NO. 21, s. 1995
May 25, 1995
AGRARIAN REFORM FUND; PCGG RECOVERIES TO BE APPLIED TO ITS ACCOUNT
Should PCGG recoveries be applied to the account of the Agrarian Reform Fund?
- R.A. 7661 mandates the satisfaction and completion of the total initial amount of fifty billion pesos within the ten-year period of implementation of the Comprehensive Reform Program. This means that all PCGG recoveries (except those belonging to the Sugar Restitution Fund) shall be applied to the account of the Agrarian Reform Fund until completion of the fifty billion pesos, after which the 60%-40% proportion shall be applied.
DAR OPINION NO. 73, s. 1994
September 15, 1994
AGRICULTURAL LABOR CONTRACTOR; DEFINITION
What is the definition of an agricultural labor contractor?
- Agricultural labor contractor is one who personally cultivates the land but hires helpers to do only the transplanting and harvesting. Transplanting and harvesting are not among those required by law to be personally performed by the tenant-farmer. In such a case the law expressly allows the employment of helpers (Co vs. Intermediate Appellate Court, 162 SCRA 392).
DAR OPINION NO. 62, s. 1999
October 28, 1999
AGRICULTURAL LAND; DEFINITION
What is agricultural land in the context of agrarian reform?
- An "agricultural land", in the context of agrarian reform as found in Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657, Section 1 of R.A. No. 7881 and DAR A.O. No. 01, Series of 1999 (Revised Rules and Regulations on the Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses), is limited to such lands devoted to or suitable for the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of trees, including the harvesting of such farm products and other farm activities and practices performed in conjunction with such farming operations by persons, whether natural or juridical, and classified by law neither as mineral land, forest or timber, or national park, nor residential, commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural uses before 15 June 1988 (i.e., effectivity of R.A. No. 6657).
DAR OPINION NO. 53, s. 1999
October 6, 1999
AGRICULTURAL LAND; MEANING
- R.A. No. 7881, Section 3 defines Agricultural Lands:
(b) Agriculture, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity means the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruits trees, including the harvesting of such farm products, and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by persons whether natural or juridical."
- It can be gleaned from the abovecited provision that ricefields and cocolands are included in the term agricultural land since the activities involved therein are deemed as agricultural activities.
DAR OPINION NO. 08, s. 2008
April 14, 2008
AGRICULTURAL LANDS; CHANGE IN ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL USE NOT ILLEGAL CONVERSION
Will the change to another agricultural use constitute illegal conversion?
- Since there is no change in the use of the land, that is, the land remains to be agricultural, planting of orchids, G-melina and mahogany does not constitute illegal conversion even if such change in the land use is without order of conversion from DAR. It is the policy of the State to protect prime agricultural lands for food production activities and to give highest priority to the completion of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
DAR OPINION NO. 80, s. 1999
December 23, 1999
AGRICULTURAL LANDS; RIGHT TO OWN (AND EXERCISE THE PRIVILEGES APPURTENANT THERETO) EXCLUSIVE TO FILIPINO CITIZENS
Is the right to own agricultural lands exclusive to Filipino citizens?
- It could be inferred from the provisions of Section 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 185 dated 16 March 1982 and the Constitution that only Filipinos who have lost their Philippine citizenship may only be a transferee or retain a maximum area of one thousand square meters, in the case of urban land, or one hectare in the case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence. This is in consonance with Section 1, Article XIII of the Philippine Constitution which provides that the State shall regulate the acquisition, ownership, use and disposition of property and its increments in line with the State's social justice ideals to equitably diffuse wealth and to reduce social, economic and political inequalities.
- Otherwise stated, the right to own agricultural lands and exercise the privileges appurtenant thereto are reserved only to Filipino citizens.
DAR OPINION NO. 45, s. 2000
December 12, 2000
AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD RELATION; NOT EXTINGUISHED BY SALE OR TRANSFER; LESSEE'S RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION AND RIGHT OF REDEMPTION
Is leasehold extinguished by the transfer of legal ownership of the property?
- Leasehold is not extinguished with the transfer of legal ownership of the land from one landowner to another. Section 10 of R.A. 3844, as amended, provides that the purchaser or transferee shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor. Likewise, Sections 11 and 12 thereof provide that in case the agricultural lessor decides to sell the landholding, the agricultural lessee shall have the preferential right to buy the same, and, in case the landholding is 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.
DAR OPINION NO. 10, s. 2000
April 24, 2000
AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD RELATIONSHIP; EXTINGUISHMENT
When is agricultural leasehold relationship extinguished?
- Isinasaad ng Section 8 (1) ng R.A. No. 3844, as amended, ang mga sumusunod:
"Section 8. — Extinguishment of Agricultural Leasehold Relationship. — The agricultural leasehold relation established under this Code shall be extinguished by:
1) Abandonment of the landholding without the knowledge of the agricultural lessor;
- Ang pagbebenta ng mga magsasaka ng kanilang karapatang magsaka sa ibang tao nang hindi alam ng nagpapabuwis sa pagsasaka ay maaari pong ituring na pag-iwan or abandonment na kung saan ang pagsasamahang buwisan sa pagsasaka ay maaaring magwakas. Subalit ayon sa Section 7 ng R.A. No. 3844, as amended, ang pagsasamahang buwisan sa pagsasaka, minsang maitatag, ay maggagawad sa namumuwisan sa pagsasaka ng karapatang magpatuloy sa paggawa sa hinahawakang lupa ..... at hindi siya maaaring mapaalis doon matangi kung ipinahihintulot ng Hukuman sa mga kadahilanang dito'y itinatadhana.
DAR OPINION NO. 35, s. 2000
November 8, 2000
AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD RELATIONSHIP; SECURITY OF TENURE
- Sang-ayon sa Seksyon 7 ng Batas Republika Blg. 3844 (Kodigo ng Repormang Pansakahan) na ang pagsasamang pambuwisan sa pagsasaka minsang maitatag ay maggagawad sa namumuwisan sa pagsasaka ng karapatang magpatuloy sa paggawa sa hinahawakang lupa at hindi siya maaaring mapaalis doon matangi kung ipahintulot ng Hukuman. Ibig pong sabihin, ang inyong leasehold contract ay mananatiling umiiral maliban kung ito ay pawalang bisa ng Hukuman o Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB). Kaugnay dito, sang-ayon sa kasalukuyan umiiral na alituntunin ng DAR (DAR A.O. No. 2, Series of 2006) na may kinalaman sa pagtatag ng "leasehold contract" ang Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) ay may karapatang mamagitan at sumang-ayon sa pagtatag ng leasehold contract.
DAR OPINION NO. 03, s. 2009
February 2, 2009
AGRICULTURAL LESSEE; EJECTMENT
What are the grounds for ejectment against an agricultural lessee?
- He/she failed to substantially comply with the terms and conditions of the leasehold contract or with laws governing leasehold relations, unless the failure is caused by fortuitous event or force majeure;
- He/she planted crops or used the land for a purpose other than what had been previously agreed upon. DAR Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1993 (Rules and Procedures Governing Agricultural Leasehold and the Determination of Lease Rental for Tenanted Lands), however, now allows the lessee to intercrop or plant secondary crops after the rental has been fixed, provided he/she shoulders the expenses;
- He/she failed to adopt proven farm practices necessary to conserve the land, improve its fertility, and increase its productivity (with due consideration of his/her financial capacity and the credit facilities available to him/her);
- His/her fault or negligence resulted in the substantial damage, destruction, or unreasonable deterioration of the land or any permanent improvement thereon;
- He/she does not pay the lease rental when it falls due except when such non-payment is due to crop failure to the extent of 75 percent as a result of a fortuitous event; or
- He/she employed a sublessee (Section 36, R.A. No. 3844, as amended).
- Considering, however, that an agricultural lessee is entitled to security of tenure, he/she cannot be rejected unless authorized by the court (now, DAR Adjudication Board) for the abovementioned causes, in a judgment that is final and executory after due hearing (Sections 7 and 36, R.A. No. 3844, as amended).
May an erring tenant be ejected for non-compliance with the terms of the leasehold contract? Where is the proper venue?
- Where a tenant has allegedly failed to substantially comply with the terms and conditions of the leasehold contract or with laws governing leasehold relation, the landowner may file an ejectment case before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board where the property is located.
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 2002
February 21, 2002
AGRICULTURAL LESSOR; RIGHT TO PROPOSE A CHANGE IN THE USE OF THE LANDHOLDING TO OTHER AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES
May an agricultural lessor propose a change in the use of the landholding to other agricultural purposes?
- "Sec. 29. Rights of the Agricultural Lessor — it shall be the right of the agricultural lessor:
xxx xxx xxx
"(2) To propose a change in the use of the landholding to other agricultural purposes, or in the kind of crops to be planted: Provided, that in case of disagreement as to the proposed change, the same shall be settled by the Court according to the best interest of the parties concerned: provided, further, that in no case shall an agricultural lessee be ejected as a consequence of the conversion of the land to some other agricultural purpose or because of a change in the crop to be planted."
DAR OPINION NO. 56, s. 1994
August 15, 1994
AGRICULTURAL YEAR; DEFINED
How is "agricultural year" defined under R.A. No. 3844?
- "Agricultural year" has been defined in Section 166 (4) of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, as the period of time required for raising a particular agricultural product, including the preparation of the land, sowing, planting and harvesting of crops and, whenever applicable, threshing of said crops: Provided, however, That in case of crops yielding more than one harvest from one planting, "agricultural year" shall be the period from the preparation of the land to the first harvest and thereafter from harvest to harvest. In both cases, the period may be shorter or longer than a calendar year.
DAR OPINION NO. 41, s. 2000
November 15, 2000
ALIENABLE LAND; RECLASSIFICATION OF LAND
Is a positive act of the government needed to declassify a forest land into alienable land?
- Republic Act No. 397 and Presidential Proclamation 286 declassified the lands described therein into alienable lands. The cases of Republic v. Animas (56 SCRA 499) and Heirs of Amunategui v. Director of Lands (126 SCRA 69) held that a positive act of the government is needed to declassify land which is forest and convert it into alienable land.
DAR OPINION NO. 121, s. 1998
December 22, 1998
ALLOCATION; CERTIFICATE
What is a Certificate of Allocation?
- A Certificate of Allocation (CA) is only a proof that a holder thereof is a potential beneficiary/awardee of the landholding described therein. The holder merely acquires possessory rights over the said landholding, which means that he is occupying the property only in a possessory capacity and not in the concept of an owner. Ownership of which still remains with the State unless the same has been finally awarded to him by virtue of a duly issued corresponding patent or CLOA, as the case may be.
DAR OPINION NO. 58, s. 1998
May 06, 1998
ALLOCATION; GROUND FOR ITS CANCELLATION
Will the transfer of right by the allocatee without the written consent and approval of the DAR Regional Director concerned constitute a ground for the cancellation of the allocation?
- Under DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1989, the transfer of rights by the allocatee without the written consent and approval of the DAR Regional Director concerned constitutes a ground for the cancellation of the allocation.
DAR OPINION NO. 89, s. 1994
November 14, 1994
AMENDMENT OR REVISION; PROCESS
- Article XVII of the 1987 Constitution provides for the process for amendment or revision to wit:
"Section 1. Any amendment to, or revision of, this constitution may be proposed by:
1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its members; or
2) A Constitutional Convention
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 3. The Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of all its members, call a constitutional convention, or by a majority of all its members, submit to the electorate the question of calling such a convention."
DAR OPINION NO. 02, s. 2006
January 11, 2006
AMORTIZATION; LBP AS CUSTODIAN OF AGRARIAN REFORM FUNDS
Is the Land Bank of the Philippines legally bound to accept amortization payments from farmer-beneficiaries for the lands awarded to them?
- Section 64 of R.A. No. 6657 categorically provides that "the Land Bank of the Philippines shall be the financial intermediary for the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), and shall insure that the social justice objectives of the CARP shall enjoy a preference among its priorities." It is therefore incumbent upon the Land Bank, being the legally mandated custodian of agrarian reform funds, to accept payment from farmer-beneficiaries of their amortizations until their landholdings have been fully paid. This assigned duty holds true notwithstanding that it is opposed to the previous valuation since the title of the subject landholdings has already been transferred to the Republic of the Philippines.
- Moreover, sound public policy dictates that qualified farmer-beneficiaries should not be unduly stymied and accorded a run around treatment with no place to go as their sincerity to pay is manifest. Otherwise, this will constitute an unwarranted derailment in the successful implementation of the Program. Any question as to the alleged insufficiency of the valuation should be decided by competent authority upon proper petition by the Land Bank in accordance with existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations but, for the meantime, acceptance of the FBs' payment should be a matter of ministerial duty on the part of LBP in view of its aforequoted legally mandated task. Likewise, documentation, generation and issuance of CLOAs may continue pending proper determination on the merits of the issue of valuation.
DAR OPINION NO. 93, s. 1998
September 4, 1998
AMORTIZATION; NOT AFFECTED BY THE FINAL VALUATION
- The amount of amortization to be paid by the ARBs should not be affected in case the landowner is granted by the courts higher valuation than that pegged by the DAR and the LBP during the valuation process. The only effect of this change is to increase government assistance or subsidy pursuant to the intent and spirit of the affordability/government subsidy clause embodied in Section 26 of R.A. No. 6657 and DAR A.O. No. 2, Series of 1998 (Revised Implementing Guidelines and Procedures Governing Payment of Land Amortization by ARB’s for Lands Covered Under E.O. No. 229 and R.A. No. 6657). Otherwise, should the ARBs be made to shoulder the increase in valuation, the social justice goal of the Program to democratize wealth and reduce socio-economic inequalities as mandated by the 1987 Constitution (Article XIII, Section 1) will be negated.
DAR OPINION NO. 04, s. 2009
March 11, 2009
AMORTIZATION; PAYMENTS
Should the payment made by FBs on or after 21 October 1972 be treated as land amortization?
- If the entire portion of the land have been declared part of the land reform area and subjected to Operation Land Transfer, the payments made on or after 21 October 1972 by the farmer-beneficiaries constituted advanced amortization payments on the cost of the land that they were required to pay under Presidential Decree No. 27, hence, such payments are to be treated as land amortizations.
DAR OPINION NO. 66, s. 1998
June 01, 1998
ANCESTRAL LANDS; DETERMINATION OF BENEFICIARIES; TO WHOM VESTED
Does the DAR have the authority to determine the beneficiaries of ancestral lands?
- Section 9 of R.A. No. 6657, provides that the ancestral lands of each indigenous cultural community shall include, but not limited to lands in the actual continuous, and open possession and occupation of the community and its members, provided that the Torrens System shall be respected. With said right already vested with the indigenous cultural community, the DAR & DENR executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated December 10, 1993 to put into effect Section 9 of R.A. No. 6657. By this instance A.O. No. 4, Series of 1996, otherwise known as the Rules and Regulations Governing the Issuance of CARP Beneficiaries Certificates (CBCs) to Indigenous Cultural Communities and Peoples, was enacted pursuant to Section 9 of R.A. No. 6657 which provides in its policy statement that in recognition of their right to their ancestral land, the DAR shall issue CARP Beneficiary Certificates to members of the indigenous cultural communities engaged in agricultural activities, in coordination with the issuance to them of Certificate of Ancestral Domain Claim (CADC) or Certificate of Ancestral Land Claim (CALC) by the DENR.
DAR OPINION NO. 145, s. 1996
December 23, 1996
ANCESTRAL LANDS; RIGHT OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES
Does DAR recognizes the right of indigenous cultural communities?
- R.A. 6657 recognizes the right of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands for the protection of their economic, social and cultural well-being.
DAR OPINION NO. 104, s. 1996
December 13, 1996
ANNOTATION; DOES NOT CONSTITUTE ENCUMBRANCE ON THE AWARD
Does the listing or "annotation" of the names of the ARBs at the back of the CLOA constitute an encumbrance on the property?
- Listing or "annotating" the names of the ARBs at the back of the CLOA does not constitute an encumbrance on the property. It only shows that the listed names are the collective owners of the land technically described in the title. Encumbrance is a burden or lien against the property that lessens its value.
DAR OPINION NO. 38, s. 1999
July 14, 1999
APPEAL; BEFORE THE DARAB; REMEDY OF THE PARTY AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE PARAD OR RARAD
What is the remedy of the party aggrieved by the decision of the PARAD or RARAD?
- Should the party feel aggrieved by the decision of the PARAD or RARAD, the remedy under the New DARAB Rules of Procedure is not to request for legal opinion from the DAR Central Office but for the party who feels aggrieved by the decision to file an appeal before the DAR Adjudication Board at the Central Office.
DAR OPINION NO. 42, s. 1994
July 8, 1994
APPEAL; DECISIONS OF RDS APPEALABLE TO THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Is the Decision of the RD Appealable?
- In consonance with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, decisions of the Regional Director shall be appealable to the Office of the Secretary. The Provincial Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD) has no jurisdiction over it. The Supreme Court in the case of Tijam vs. Sibonghanoy, 23 SCRA 29, held" "It is a settled rule that any decision rendered without jurisdiction is a total nullity and may be struck down any time, even on appeal before the Supreme Court.
- Any decision rendered by the Regional Director of which he has jurisdiction shall be valid and once it has become final and executory, the same should necessarily be executed as a matter of course.
DAR OPINION NO. 49, s. 1998
April 15, 1998
APPEAL; PERFECTION OF THE APPEAL; LOWER COURT LOSES JURISDICTION
Does the lower court loses jurisdiction upon perfection of the appeal?
- Section 9, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court provides that once an appeal has been perfected, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case. In the case of Ricardo Lirio vs. the Court of Appeals (G.R. No. 90462, 29 May 1992), the Supreme Court held: "Upon perfection of the appeal, jurisdiction transfers to the appellate court and the lower court, in this case the Court of Appeals, cannot proceed in any manner so as to affect the jurisdiction acquired by the appellate court or to defeat the right of the appellant to prosecute his appeal.
DAR OPINION NO. 37, s. 1996
May 28, 1996
APPEAL; REINSTATEMENT OF THE TENANT, PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE APPEAL
Can the tenant be reinstated pending resolution of the appeal?
- A determination must first be made as to the date when the landowner received a copy of the Decision, after which it must be ascertained whether an appeal has been made within the 15-day period from said receipt. If no such appeal has been filed, the tenant or his representative may file a motion for the issuance of a writ of execution ordering the enforcement of the decision pursuant to Section 1 Rule XII of the New DARAB Rules. However, if the appeal has been perfected the tenant cannot be reinstated pending resolution of said appeal because status quo shall be maintained, which means that the condition or situation prevailing before the controversy shall be observed.
DAR OPINION NO. 69, s. 1995
November 6, 1995
APPEAL; TAKEN TO OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
Can the President in the exercise of his control over the acts of the DAR Secretary affirm, modify, reverse or substitute his judgment to that of the latter?
- The acts of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform as alter ego of the President are presumptively the acts of the Chief Executive himself unless disapproved or reprobated by the President (doctrine of qualified political agency). Such being the case, the President (or by his authority) in the exercise of his control over the acts of the DAR Secretary can affirm, modify, reverse or even substitute his judgment to that of the latter.
DAR OPINION NO. 17, s. 1999
February 25, 1999
APPEARANCE IN COURT; AUTHORITY OF LEGAL OFFICERS TO APPEAR BEFORE THE DARAB/MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN RELATION TO AGRARIAN DISPUTES
- Rule 138, Section 34 of the Rules of Court which provides, quote:
"SEC. 34. By whom litigation conducted. — In the court of a justice of the peace a party may conduct his litigation in person, with the aid of an agent or friend appointed by him for that purpose, or with the aid of an attorney. In any other court, a party may conduct his litigation personally or by aid of an attorney, and his appearance must be either personal or by a duly authorized member of the bar."
- Likewise, the DARAB 2003 Rules of Procedures, Rule VIII, Section 1 thereof provides, quote:
"Section 1. Appearance. — A lawyer appearing for a party is presumed to be properly authorized for that purpose. A non-lawyer may appear before the Board or any of its Adjudicators, if:
xxx xxx xxx
1.4 He is a DAR employee duly authorized by the appropriate Head of Office in accordance with the internal regulations of the Department of Agrarian Reform. For this purpose, the DAR employee must have the prescribed authorization form before he may be allowed to appear before the board or any of its Adjudicators."
- Applying the foregoing, a DAR Legal Officer who is not a full-fledged lawyer, can appear before the DARAB or any of its Adjudicators, or in a Municipal Trial Court to represent tenants and/or farmer-beneficiaries in relation to agrarian disputes. Hence, what the law strictly prohibits is the appearance of a person who is not a member of the Philippine Bar and not qualified to practice law before any other court, i.e., the Regional Trial Court, Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.
DAR OPINION NO. 04, s. 2007
January 31, 2007
ARF; COLLECTIONS AND INCOMES DERIVED FROM CARP FUNDED PROJECT INCLUDED IN ARF
- Under the rules on Statutory Construction, the significance of the general repealing clause under Section 32 of R.A. No. 9700 is that, its presence as a later statute clearly indicates the legislative intent to repeal all prior inconsistent laws on the subject matter, whether or not the prior law is a special law, i.e. RA 3601. Moreover, considering that Section 21 RA 9700 explicitly mandates all income and collections of whatever form and nature arising from agrarian reform operations, projects and programs of the DAR and other CIAs, therefore, the NIA as a CIA is mandated to effect and implement said provision of RA 9700. Henceforth, collections and income derived from CARP funded irrigation project should be included in the ARF.
DAR OPINION NO. 04, s. 2007
January 31, 2007
ARF; COLLECTIONS AND INCOMES DERIVED FROM CARP FUNDED PROJECT INCLUDED IN ARF
- Under the rules on Statutory Construction, the significance of the general repealing clause under Section 32 of R.A. No. 9700 is that, its presence as a later statute clearly indicates the legislative intent to repeal all prior inconsistent laws on the subject matter, whether or not the prior law is a special law, i.e. RA 3601. Moreover, considering that Section 21 RA 9700 explicitly mandates all income and collections of whatever form and nature arising from agrarian reform operations, projects and programs of the DAR and other CIAs, therefore, the NIA as a CIA is mandated to effect and implement said provision of RA 9700. Henceforth, collections and income derived from CARP funded irrigation project should be included in the ARF.
DAR OPINION NO. 06, s. 2010
January 14, 2010
AUTHORITY OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR; CEASE AND DESIST ORDER MAY BE ISSUED BY THE RD IN A SITUATION OF EXTREME URGENCY
- The Regional Director may issue a Cease and Desist Order as provided for in Section 17 of DAR Administrative Order No. 06, Series of 2000 [Rules and Procedures for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases]. This contemplates of a situation of extreme urgency to resolve a particular conflict. The AO does not entail that the matter be certified first as a flashpoint one before a CDO or status quo order be issued. It is only important that grave or irreparable damage will spring if the order will not be issued. It is worthy to note the word "motu propio" used in this particular provision, this only means that the Regional Director or the DAR Official with jurisdiction is authorized to immediately issue a CDO or status quo order because the resulting damage is apparent.
DAR OPINION NO. 16, s. 2007
March 21, 2007
AUTOMATIC REDISTRIBUTION CLAUSE; WHEN APPLICABLE
When is the automatic redistribution clause applicable?
- The automatic redistribution clause in Sec. 11 would only be logical if the area is still highly suitable for agriculture. If otherwise, then the best use would already be non-agricultural, and therefore conversion would be proper.
DAR OPINION NO. 28, s. 1994
April 26, 1994
AUTOMATIC REVERSION CLAUSE; WHEN APPLICABLE
When is the automatic reversion clause applicable?
- A scrutiny of Sec. 5 of PL 3608 reveals that the automatic reversion referred to can only take place when two conditions are present: 1) the property covered by the grant has been deeded, conveyed and transferred in accordance with said law, which means that title over the property has been issued; and 2) ten years have elapsed from the date the property was transferred without its being developed, cultivated, leased or otherwise disposed of.
- Since no title over the property has as yet been issued, there is not reversion to speak of which will open the land for resettlement and disposition in accordance with the Public Land Act.
DAR OPINION NO. 6, s. 1994
February 4, 1994
AWARD CEILING
How many hectares of land can an awardee get? Is there an exception to the rule?
- In no case shall the award ceiling for beneficiaries be more than three (3) hectares. Exception may be allowed only if the excess is negligible and it would be technically and administratively impractical to allocate the same to another. In the case at hand, however, the excess of 2,064 square meters may no longer be negligible because such area may still be practically allocated or awarded to the alleged FB's son or daughter, if qualified following the policy guideline provided for in Item II.1 of Ministry Administrative Order No. 03, Series of 1985 (Policy Guidelines to Govern the Disposition of Farmlots Containing Areas in Excess of That Prescribed for Economic Family-Size Farms) which may find relative application in the instant case:
"II. Disposition of Excess Area
The excess area shall be reallocated in accordance with the following order of preference:
1. Immediate member of the FB's family capable of personally cultivating the land.
DAR OPINION NO. 22, s. 2003
November 14, 2003
AWARD CEILING; CLOA AS EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP
What is the award ceiling of a beneficiary and what is the evidence of ownership thereof?
- The agricultural land covered by CARP shall be distributed directly to the qualified beneficiaries. Pursuant to Sections 22 and 23 of R.A. No. 6657, a qualified beneficiary is entitled to receive an area not to exceed three (3) hectares. Ownership of the land by the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) which shall thereafter be registered with the Register of Deeds. The beneficiary shall then be allowed to take possession of the land and use it for production.
DAR OPINION NO. 122, s. 1998
December 24, 1998
AWARD CEILING; NOT MORE THAN THREE (3) HECTARES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND
May a farmer-beneficiary be awarded an area in excess of the 3-hectare award ceiling?
- Section 23 of CARL laid down the rule that no qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land. A farmer-beneficiary may, however, be awarded an area in excess of the 3-hectare award ceiling only if the excess is negligible (such as .0975 and .0099 hectare) and it would be technically and administratively impractical to allocate the same to another.
DAR OPINION NO. 27, s. 1995
June 26, 1995
Would the 3-hectare award ceiling for beneficiaries under Section 25 of R.A. No. 6657 be strictly and fully complied with?
- The 3-hectare award ceiling for beneficiaries under Section 25 of R.A. No. 6657 is only a maximum limit set by law and need not necessarily be strictly and be fully complied with.
DAR OPINION NO. 42, s. 1997
April 14, 1997
What is the award ceiling under P.D. 27 and under R.A. 6657?
- If the property is covered pursuant to P.D. 27 (i.e., property is a tenanted private agricultural land and primarily devoted to rice/corn), the award ceiling of 3/5 hectares shall be observed. If the property is subject of redistribution under CARL, then the award ceiling of 3 hectares shall govern.
DAR OPINION NO. 2, s. 1994
January 11, 1994
AWARD CEILING; NOT MORE THAN THREE (3) HECTARES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND; EXCEPTION
- In no case shall the award ceiling for beneficiaries be more than three (3) hectares. Exception may be allowed only if the excess is negligible and it would be technically and administratively impractical to allocate the same to another. In the case at hand, however, the excess of 2,064 square meters may no longer be negligible because such area may still be practically allocated or awarded to the alleged FB's son or daughter, if qualified following the policy guideline provided for in Item II.1 of Ministry Administrative Order No. 03, Series of 1985 (Policy Guidelines to Govern the Disposition of Farmlots Containing Areas in Excess of That Prescribed for Economic Family-Size Farms) which may find relative application in the instant case:
"II. Disposition of Excess Area
The excess area shall be reallocated in accordance with the following order of preference:
1. Immediate member of the FB's family capable of personally cultivating the land.
DAR OPINION NO. 22, s. 2003
November 14, 2003
AWARD CEILING; TOLERABLE LIMIT; APPLICABLE TO BOTH P.D. NO. 27 AND R.A.NO. 6657
- We opine that the "tolerable limit" provided for under DAR A.O. No. 3, Series of 1985 of lands covered by P.D. No. 27 would also apply to lands awarded to FBs under R.A. No. 6657. While there is no specific provision in R.A. No. 6657 or its implementing rules and regulations regarding the tolerable limit, it could be inferred from the said A.O. that its applicability should likewise extend to lands awarded under R.A No. 6657. This is in line with the objective of CARP to promote the establishment of owner-cultivatorship of economic-size farms which is the very essence of MAR A.O. No. 3, Series of 1985.
DAR OPINION NO. 05, s. 2006
January 20, 2006
AWARD CEILING; UNDER P.D. NO. 27 AND R.A. NO. 6657
- Although Section 23 of CARL laid down the rule that no qualified beneficiary may own more than the three (3) hectares of agricultural land, a farmer beneficiary may, however, be awarded an area in excess of the 3-hectare award ceiling only if the excess is negligible and it would be technically and administratively impractical to allocate the same to another farmer-beneficiary.
- As regards the request of COA for a DAR explanation regarding the award to FB in excess of 3 hectares and 5 hectares for R.A. No. 6657 and PD 27 respectively, the DAR submits that the award ceiling provided under R.A. No. 6657 and PD 27 for every farmer-beneficiary shall still be strictly maintained except only for the "tolerable limit" or "negligible" instance as stated above.
DAR OPINION NO. 05, s. 2006
January 20, 2006
AWARD CEILING; UNDER R.A. NO. 6657
What is the award ceiling of a beneficiary?
- Section 25 of Republic Act No. 6657 provides that beneficiaries shall be awarded an area not exceeding three (3) hectares, which may cover a contiguous tract of land or several parcels of land cumulated up to the prescribed award limits.
DAR OPINION NO. 40, s. 1999
July 23, 1999
AWARD TO CHILDREN
- A child who already owns three (3) hectares of agricultural lands may still be entitled to an award from his parent/s landholdings but only up to two (2) more hectares. Section 2.3 of Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 2006 is very clear when it provides that a qualified child who owns less than five (5) hectares of agricultural lands is still entitled to an award of his/her parent’s landholdings provided his/her total area, including the area to be awarded, shall not exceed the five (5) hectares ownership ceiling.
DAR OPINION NO. 06, s. 2009
March 24, 2009
AWARD TO LANDLESS WAR VETERANS
- Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1997 provides that beneficiaries under these guidelines shall receive the necessary support services from the DAR and other CARP implementing agencies.
DAR OPINION NO. 05, s. 2009
March 24, 2009
AWARD; 10-YEAR PROHIBITION AND CONDITIONS
What are the conditions required before an awarded land can be transferred?
- The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), Section 27 thereof, explicitly prohibits the transfer of an awarded land or a portion thereof within ten (10) years from award except through hereditary succession or to the government or to the Land Bank of the Philippines or to other qualified beneficiaries. The provisions of Executive Order No. 228, dated 17 July 1987 and DAR Administrative Order No. 08, series of 1995, when taken together, provide that ownership of lands acquired by a farmer-beneficiary may be transferred after full payment of the amortizations, provided the following shall be observed:
a) that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
b) that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landownership ceiling provided by law; and
c) that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall be imposed.
DAR OPINION NO. 23, s. 2000
September 29, 2000
AWARD; PREFERRED AWARDEE UNDER R.A. NO. 6657; INTERPRETATION
Is the award to children of the landowner part of retention on a preferred award?
- The official DAR interpretation on the award to children pursuant to CARL is found in DAR Memorandum Circular No. 4, series of 1994. The award to the children of the landowner although provided in Section 6 of CARL on Retention Limits, is not part of retention but a preferred award in favor of said children.
- For the child to qualify as a preferred awardee, he must possess both qualifications that is he must have been 15 years old and actively tilling the land or directly managing the farm as of the effectivity of CARL on 15 June 1988.
DAR OPINION NO. 33, s. 1995
July 21, 1995
AWARD; PREFERRED AWARDEE; QUALIFICATION THEREOF
What are the qualifications of a preferred awardee?
- DAR Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 1994 (Clarificatory Guidelines Concerning the Award to Children under Sections 6 and 22 of R.A. No. 6657) provides that to qualify as preferred awardees of the lands of their parents, the children must at least be 15 years of age and actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm as of June 15, 1988. The same Circular explains that directly managing the farms refers to the cultivation of the land through personal supervision under the system of labor administration. Clearly, for children to be preferred awardees, CARL requires either personal cultivation or direct management of the farm.
DAR OPINION NO. 52, s. 1995
September 26, 1995
AWARD; PREFERRED AWARDEE; QUALIFICATIONS
What are the qualifications of a preferred awardee?
- To qualify for said award, the child must meet the following qualifications:
1. That he was at least fifteen years of age as of the effectivity of CARL on June 15, 1988; and
2. That he was actually tilling the land on directly managing the farm as of June 15, 1988.
DAR OPINION NO. 20, s. 1996
May 27, 1996
DAR OPINION NO. 30, s. 1996
May 28, 1996
AWARD; PROHIBITION FOR ITS TRANSFER; EXCEPTION
May lands awarded to agrarian beneficiaries be sold, transferred or conveyed?
- Section 27 of CARL which prohibits the sale, transfer or conveyance of lands awarded to agrarian beneficiaries within ten years makes an exception as regards transfer to government institutions, such as the PNB. The PNB stands in the same position as the Land Bank of the Philippines, with respect to the duty that once the mortgaged lot is foreclosed, the same should be transferred to a qualified beneficiary within the ten year prohibitory period. Therefore, there is no legal impediment in the event the PNB forecloses on the awarded lot, provided the mortgage deed contains a provision that in the event of foreclosure, the lot shall be transferred to a qualified agrarian reform beneficiary.
DAR OPINION NO. 62, s. 1995
October 16, 1995
AWARD; TEN-YEAR RESTRICTION PERIOD
Can an awarded land illegally sold to private persons be the subject of mortgage to a private bank for loan purposes?
- Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 provides, quote:
"SECTION 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. — Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years.
xxx xxx xxx."
- Clearly, the subject property was transferred in favor of parties other than those explicitly enumerated under Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657. Since the subject property was transferred to private persons, presumably not qualified beneficiaries, the sale between the CLOA beneficiaries and said private persons is therefore covered by the ten-year restriction period. Concomitantly, it must likewise be noted that the sale, aside from the fact that it is a clear violation of Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 in relation with DAR Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1995, is also violative of the provisions of Section 73 (a) of the same law as regards the legally allowable maximum landownership ceiling of five (5) hectares only. The total area of subject landholdings being 46.0317 hectares, all in all, is way beyond the 5-hectare landownership ceiling. Thus, we find such transfer as void ab initio.
- The transfer being invalid and void, the land could not, therefore, now be the subject of mortgage much less could this Department certify that the same may be mortgaged to a private bank for loan purposes.
DAR OPINION NO. 77, s. 1999
December 14, 1999
AWARD; TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LANDS
When may transfer of awarded land be allowed?
- Section 24, R.A. No. 6657
"SECTION 24. Award to Beneficiaries. — The rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence from the time the DAR makes an award of the land to him . . . . Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award, which shall contain the restrictions and conditions provided for in this Act, and shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title." (emphasis supplied)
- Section 27, R.A. No. 6657
"SECTION 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. — Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years." (emphasis supplied)
- Given the aforequoted provisions of law, it could be inferred that if the agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) who were first issued a collective CLOA are the same persons later issued with individual CLOAs, then the reckoning date of the 10-year prohibitory period should be the issuance of the collective CLOA which is the time when the rights and responsibilities of the ARBs commenced.
DAR OPINION NO. 01, s. 2004
January 13, 2004
AWARD; TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LANDS
Can CLOAs issued to FBs be the subject of VOS back to the government?
- Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 allows the transfer of awarded lands to the government even within the 10-year prohibitory period. It follows that said lands may likewise be transferred to the government after the 10-year prohibitory period for eventual distribution to other qualified beneficiaries. However, strictly speaking, such transfer should not be termed as VOS as contemplated under Section 19 of R.A. No. 6657 and related laws and guidelines on VOS.
- Section II.A.5 of DAR Administrative Order No. 01, series of 1989, pursuant to Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657, further provides:
"The following transactions are valid:
xxx xxx xxx
5. Those executed after ten (10) years from the issuance and registration of the Emancipation Patent or Certificate of Land Ownership Award."
- It should be noted, however, that an awardee who shall dispose of his/her landholding shall no longer be qualified to become a beneficiary under CARP (Item II.9, DAR Administrative Order No. 8, series of 1995).
DAR OPINION NO. 21, s. 2000
September 27, 2000
AWARD; TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LANDS COVERED BY EMANCIPATION PATENTS
Are lands covered by EPs transferable?
- Transferability of lands covered by Emancipation Patents, DAR Administrative Order No. 8, series of 1995 expressly provides that title to lands acquired pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 or the Land Reform Program of the Government shall not be transferable except by hereditary succession or to the government. However, Section 6 of Executive Order No. 228 provides that ownership of lands acquired by farmer-beneficiaries under P.D. No. 27 may be transferred after full-payment of amortization. Corollarily, the transfer of awarded lands under P.D. No. 27, as amended by E.O. No. 228 and R.A. No. 6657 may be allowed, provided the following shall be observed:
a) that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
b) that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landowner ceiling provided by law; and
c) that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall be imposed.
DAR OPINION NO. 16, s. 2000
July 24, 2000
May land awarded to agrarian reform beneficiaries under PD 27 be sold or disposed?
- As a general rule, lands awarded to agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) under P.D. No. 27 may not be sold or disposed of except when the transfer is through hereditary succession or to the government. The reason is obviously to encourage the ARBs to cultivate the land and make it as productive as possible pursuant to the mandate of the Constitution and agrarian laws to redistribute lands to the landless. However, ownership of lands awarded under Presidential Decree No. 27, as amended by Executive Order No. 228, may be transferred after full payment of amortization by the beneficiary (Section 6, E.O. No. 228) provided that the following shall be observed:
1. that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
2. that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landowner ceiling provided by law;
3. that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall be imposed; and
4. the awardee was identified as tenant as of 21 October 1972 (Item II. 4, DAR Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1995, considering that the sale was made only within three (3) years from award).
DAR OPINION NO. 76, s. 1999
December 14, 1999
What are the conditions required before transfer of awarded lands are validly effected?
- Presidential Decree No. 27 prohibits the transfer of lands acquired through the Operation Land Transfer Program except thru hereditary succession or to the government, Section 6 of Executive Order No. 228 which amended P.D. No. 27 provides in part that: "ownership of lands acquired by farmer-beneficiaries may be transferred after full payment of amortizations". Pursuant to said amendment, DAR issued Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1995 of which Item II.3 thereof provides for the following:
"II.3 Transfer of awarded lands under P.D. No. 27 as amended by E. O. No. 228 and R.A. No. 6657 may be allowed provided the following shall be observed:
a) that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
b) that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landowner ceiling provided by law; and
c) that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall be imposed."
- From the foregoing, it is clear that lands acquired by virtue of P.D. No. 27, evidenced by an Emancipation Patent, may be transferred provided that beneficiaries thereof have fully paid the amortizations and have complied with the conditions set forth in DAR A.O. No. 8, Series of 1995.
DAR OPINION NO. 22, s. 1999
March 22, 1999
When may transfer of awarded land be allowed?
- DAR Administrative Order No. 8, series of 1995 expressly provides that the title to the lands acquired pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 or the Land Reform Program of the Government shall not be transferable except by hereditary succession or to the government. However, Section 6 of Executive Order No. 228 provides that ownership of lands acquired by farmer-beneficiaries under P.D. No. 27 may be transferred after full-payment of amortization. Corollarily, the transfer of awarded lands under P.D. No. 27 as amended by E.O. No. 228 and R.A. No. 6657 may be allowed, provided that following shall be observed:
d) that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
e) that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landowner ceiling provided by law; and
f) that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall be imposed.
DAR OPINION NO. 24, s. 1998
February 13, 1998
AWARD; TRANSFERRABILITY OF AWARDED LANDS; ITS IMPLICATION
- The ruling in the case entitled Estate of Panlilio versus Dizon (G.R. 148777) with regard to transferability of awarded lands is based on the Department’s implementation of pertinent laws and guidelines which are P.D. No. 27, R.A. No. 6657, E.O. No. 228 and DAR A.O. No. 08, S. 1995. The implication would be the same as we opined in DAR Opinion N0. 03, Series of 2006, quote:
". . . , any change in the nature of awarded lands’ use shall not be allowed except with the approval of the DAR under its rules on conversion or exemption. Further, Item II.1 of DAR Administrative Order No. 08, Series of 1995 clearly provides that lands awarded to agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) pursuant to either P.D. No. 27 or R.A. No. 6657 may be transferred and registered by the Register of Deeds only after the issuance of a DAR Clearance. The issuance of a DAR Clearance is therefore an essential requisite before a valid transfer could be effected, otherwise, the sale or transfer is void."
DAR OPINION NO. 02, s. 2009
February 2, 2009
AWARDED LAND; TEN-YEAR PROHIBITORY PERIOD
- It is only from the date of registration of EPs and CLOAs by the ROD by which the 10 year prohibitory period should commence to run since it is only then that the ownership of the awarded land has been legally and actually transferred in the name of the farmer-beneficiary.
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 2010
January 27, 2010
AWARDED LANDS; CAN BE THE SUBJECT OF MORTGAGE OR ENCUMBRANCE
- Awarded lands may be mortgaged even within the 10-year prohibitory period on certain conditions since ownership is not parted with. DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1989 (Rules and Procedures Governing Land Transaction) allows land already awarded/allocated to beneficiaries to be a subject of mortgage or encumbrance to guarantee any loan obligation secured to develop or improve the same. Henceforth, if the EP is made as a security for loan and consequently foreclosed by the mortgagee, the aforesaid conditions must first be complied with before ownership over the awarded land is parted with.
DAR OPINION NO. 29, s. 2008
November 14, 2008
AWARDED LANDS; CONDITIONS FOR TRANSFER
May Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries transfer the land awarded to them?
- The following are the pertinent provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1995 (Rules and Procedures Governing the Transferability of Lands Awarded to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27, as amended by Executive Order No. 228 and Republic Act No. 6657), to wit:
1. Item I, 1st paragraph
"I. PREFATORY STATEMENT
Presidential Decree No. 27 provides that title to lands acquired pursuant thereto or the Land Reform Program of the Government shall not be transferable except by hereditary succession or to the Government. However, Section 6 of Executive Order No. 228 provides that ownership of lands acquired by farmer-beneficiaries may be transferred after full payment of amortizations." (emphasis supplied)
2. Item II (Nos. 1, 2 and 7)
"II. POLICY STATEMENT
1. Lands awarded to ARBs pursuant to either P.D. No. 27 or R.A. No. 6657 may be transferred and registered by the Register of Deeds only after the issuance of a DAR Clearance. (emphasis supplied)
2. It shall be understood that although the transfer or awarded land is allowed, the productivity of the subject land be maintained and any change in the nature of its use shall not be allowed except with the approval of the DAR under its rules on conversion or exemption.
3. Transfer of awarded lands under P.D. No. 27, as amended by E.O. No. 228 and R.A. No. 6657 may be allowed, provided the following shall be observed:
a) that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
b) that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landowner ceiling provided by law; and
c) that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall be imposed.
xxx xxx xxx
7. Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) shall be issued by the Land Registration Authority (LRA) for lands transferred by an awardee to a transferee. (P.D. No. 27, as amended by E.O. No. 228)" (emphasis supplied)
Given the above provisions of the aforementioned guideline, it is clear that since the land is not yet fully paid, it could not as yet be transferred.
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 2004
March 16, 2004
AWARDED LANDS; CONDITIONS FOR TRANSFER
When may transfer of awarded lands be allowed?
- Transfer of awarded lands under Presidential Decree No. 27, as amended by Executive Order No. 228 and Republic Act No. 6657 may be allowed provided the following shall be observed:
a) that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
b) that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landowner ceiling provided by law; and
c) that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall be imposed.
- This means that the total landholdings that shall be owned by the buyer or transferee, inclusive of the land to be acquired, shall not exceed five (5) hectares, which is the land ownership ceiling.
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 2001
July 31, 2001
AWARDED LANDS; PROHIBITION ON SALE AND TRANSFER
May ARBs sell the land awarded to them?
- ARBs, within the 10-year prohibitory period as provided in Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 (or even beyond said period if the awarded lands are not yet fully paid), are under obligation to cultivate the landholdings awarded to them and not to lease or have them tenanted by other people who are not members of their immediate household.
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 2003
July 09, 2003
AWARDED LANDS; PROHIBITION ON SALE AND TRANSFER UNDER R.A. NO. 6657
- ARBs, within the 10-year prohibitory period as provided in Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 (or even beyond said period if the awarded lands are not yet fully paid), are under obligation to cultivate the landholdings awarded to them and not to lease or have them tenanted by other people who are not members of their immediate household.
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 2003
July 9, 2003
AWARDED LANDS; PROHIBITION ON SALE AND TRANSFER UNDER R.A. NO. 6657
Can awarded lands be the subject of sale or transfer?
- Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 prohibits the sale, transfer or conveyance of lands covered by R.A. No. 6657 for a period of ten (10) years, except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries.
DAR OPINION NO. 04, s. 2000
January 13, 2000
AWARDED LANDS; RULES ON THE TRANSFERABILITY OF LANDS AWARDED TO ARB's
- The following are the pertinent provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1995 (Rules and Procedures Governing the Transferability of Lands Awarded to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27, as amended by Executive Order No. 228 and Republic Act No. 6657), to wit:
1. Item I, 1st paragraph
"I. PREFATORY STATEMENT
Presidential Decree No. 27 provides that title to lands acquired pursuant thereto or the Land Reform Program of the Government shall not be transferable except by hereditary succession or to the Government. However, Section 6 of Executive Order No. 228 provides that ownership of lands acquired by farmer-beneficiaries may be transferred after full payment of amortizations." (emphasis supplied)
2. Item II (Nos. 1, 2 and 7)
"II. POLICY STATEMENT
1. Lands awarded to ARBs pursuant to either P.D. No. 27 or R.A. No. 6657 may be transferred and registered by the Register of Deeds only after the issuance of a DAR Clearance. (emphasis supplied)
2. It shall be understood that although the transfer or awarded land is allowed, the productivity of the subject land be maintained and any change in the nature of its use shall not be allowed except with the approval of the DAR under its rules on conversion or exemption.
3. Transfer of awarded lands under P.D. No. 27, as amended by E.O. No. 228 and R.A. No. 6657 may be allowed, provided the following shall be observed:
a) that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
b) that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landowner ceiling provided by law; and
c) that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall be imposed.
xxx xxx xxx
7. Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) shall be issued by the Land Registration Authority (LRA) for lands transferred by an awardee to a transferee. (P.D. No. 27, as amended by E.O. No. 228)" (emphasis supplied)
- Given the above provisions of the aforementioned guideline, it is clear that since the land is not yet fully paid, it could not as yet be transferred.
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 2004
March 16, 2004
AWARDED LANDS; RULES ON THE TRANSFERABILITY OF LANDS AWARDED TO ARB's
- Transfer of awarded lands under Presidential Decree No. 27, as amended by Executive Order No. 228 and Republic Act No. 6657 may be allowed provided the following shall be observed:
a) that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
b) that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landowner ceiling provided by law; and
c) that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall be imposed.
- This means that the total landholdings that shall be owned by the buyer or transferee, inclusive of the land to be acquired, shall not exceed five (5) hectares, which is the land ownership ceiling.
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 2001
July 31, 2001
AWARDED LANDS; TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LAND
- Transfers/dispositions of awarded lands under the given situation may be allowed as long as it falls under one of the exceptions to the non-transferability of awarded lands under Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 and provided further that the transfer to other beneficiary is subject to the condition that the latter shall himself cultivate the land himself. Thus, the contemplated transfer may legally be undertaken.
DAR Opinion No. 30, s. 2005
December 8, 2005
AWARDED LANDS; TRANSFERABILITY OF LANDS WITHIN LANDED ESTATES AND RESSETLEMENT PROJECTS COVERED WITH CLOA
- A mere certification stating that the 10-year prohibitory period of disposition has already elapsed will not suffice as a requirement in the transfer/sale and registration of awarded lands. DAR Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1995 is very specific in providing for the procedures and requirements in the transfer and registration of awarded lands, thus, said certification could not serve as a substitute in lieu of the DAR Clearance/Order to be issued by the Regional Director (RD) as contemplated under the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1995.
- It should be stressed further that in order that awarded lands may be transferred and registered, the 10-year prohibitory period should have already elapsed and said awarded lands have been fully paid. Both conditions must concur.
- Moreover, while the law allows the transfer of awarded lands on conditions stated above, said transfer is still subject to compliance with the provisions of DAR A.O. No. 8, Series of 1995, which provide:
a) that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
b) that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landowner ceiling provided by law; and
c) that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall be imposed.
DAR OPINION NO. 31, s. 2005
December 21, 2005
AWARDED LANDS; TRANSFERABILITY OF LANDS WITHIN RESETTLEMENT AREAS COVERED WITH CLOAs
- It is evident that awardees/allocatees of lands in the resettlement areas under the administration of the DAR are issued CLOAs which contain all the conditions and restrictions provided therein. Henceforth, in the disposition of said lands by the allocatees, the procedures and requirements provided under DAR A.O. No. 8, Series of 1995. [Rules and Procedures Governing the Transferability of Lands Awarded to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 as amended by Executive Order No. 228 and Republic Act No. 6657], shall be observed.
DAR OPINION NO. 19, s. 2007
May 2, 2007
AWARDED LANDS; WHEN MAY MORTGAGE OF AWARDED LANDS BE ALLOWED
- Mortgage of awarded lands even within the 10-year prohibitory period may be allowed on certain conditions even without a DAR clearance since ownership is not parted with.
- Items II.C.4 and V.3 of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989 (Rules and Procedures Governing Land Transaction) further provide:
"II. Rules on Validity of Land Transactions
xxx xxx xxx
C. The following are not prohibited transactions and may be registered by the Register of Deeds without prior clearance from DAR:
xxx xxx xxx
4. Deed of real estate mortgage executed by the original landowner or beneficiary."
V. Lands Subject to Mortgage or Encumbrance
The following lands may be subject matter of mortgage, lien or encumbrance to guarantee any loan obligation secured to develop or improve the same:
xxx xxx xxx
3. Land already awarded/allocated to beneficiaries."
DAR OPINION NO. 31, s. 2005
December 21, 2005
B
BENEFICIARIES
May field supervisors qualify as beneficiaries of commercial farms?
- Farmworkers who had been previously identified as qualified beneficiaries but were promoted to managerial or supervisory positions prior to land transfer may still qualify as awardees if they give up their managerial or supervisory positions. On the other hand, farmworkers who had been previously identified as qualified beneficiaries but were promoted to managerial or supervisory positions after land transfer may still qualify as awardees even without giving up their positions.
DAR OPINION NO. 23, s. 2001
November 6, 2001
BENEFICIARIES; QUALIFICATIONS
- It is a basic principle under CARP Law specifically under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, that any person who has a willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate the land and make them as productive as possible is qualified as CARP beneficiary. Only qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries as determined by DAR pursuant to said provision are eligible to be distributees of agricultural land.
DAR OPINION NO. 16, s. 2010
April 6, 2010
BENEFICIARIES; AWARDED LAND, CANCELLATION/FORFEITURE
Is subsequent employment with the DAR a ground for forfeiture of one's right as a beneficiary?
- Subsequent employment with the DAR after the issuance of the Collective CLOA is not per se a ground for the forfeiture of one's right as a beneficiary. However, a beneficiary's interest or right over the property awarded may be cancelled or forfeited on grounds provided for by law and other pertinent rules and regulations such as neglect or abandonment of the awarded land continuously for a period of two (2) calendar years as determined by the Secretary or his authorized representative (Item IV-B, DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1994).
DAR OPINION NO. 67, s. 1998
June 8, 1998
BENEFICIARIES; BASIC QUALIFICATION
What is the basic qualification of a beneficiary?
- It must be remembered that one of the basic qualifications to be considered for a potential beneficiary is the willingness to cultivate a land. Refusal to be identified and/or registered as a potential beneficiary and failure to question inclusion of seasonal and other farmworkers is contrary to the "willingness" qualification. Also, it is correct to state that the above-mentioned acts or omissions are considered waiver of the right to be recognized as a beneficiary. However, in cases were the regular farmworkers are under duress, which resulted in their refusal to be recognized as a beneficiary or failure to question of seasonal and other farmworkers, these are matters, which are evidentiary in nature and may be threshed out administratively. Furthermore, the implementors must take all necessary action to ensure that proper notice are sent to the regular farmworkers. After such notice, proof of receipt and the date on which they were received must be kept as part of the file. In order to avoid further complications, perhaps the notices should state clearly the consequence of inaction on the part of a potential farmer-beneficiary.
DAR OPINION NO. 21, s. 2001
October 1, 2001
BENEFICIARIES; BASIC QUALIFICATIONS; MEANING
What are the basic qualifications of a CARP Beneficiary?
- R.A. No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL) requires that a beneficiary be landless (owns less than 3 hectares of agricultural land) and possesses the basic qualification of willingness, aptitude and ability to make the land as productive as possible.
- A person need not be a tenant to qualify as a CARP beneficiary, however, he must be a farmworker.
DAR OPINION NO. 44, s. 1996
June 21, 1996
DAR OPINION NO. 61, s. 1994
August 23, 1994
What is meant by qualified beneficiary?
- By qualified beneficiary is meant one who is landless (owns less than 3 hectares of agricultural lands) and has the willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible, as determined by the DAR.
DAR OPINION NO. 83, s. 1994
October 10, 1994
BENEFICIARIES; BLOOD RELATION IS NOT THE SOLE CRITERION TO SUCCEED AS TRANSFEREE-ALLOCATTEE IN CASE OF DEATH OF FARMER BENEFICIARY
- Blood relation may not be considered as the sole criteria to become a transferee-reallocattee in case of death of a farmer-beneficiary. As primary compulsory heirs of the farmer-beneficiary, the children/descendants have precedence over and shall exclude other compulsory heirs. However, in their default, the widow or widower, who is not a blood relative of a deceased farmer-beneficiary, is under the law qualified to assume as sole owner cultivator.
DAR OPINION NO. 31, s. 2007
November 12, 2007
BENEFICIARIES; CERTIFICATE OF POSTING COMPLIANCE; REQUIRED FOR SELECTION OF QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES
- In view of this and considering that the basis from which LAD-ID, SCRN & DSTRN Form No. 03 was adopted has been deemed amended, revised and rendered irrelevant in the light of the provisions of DLR AO 2, S. of 2005, a Certification of Posting Compliance by the MARO may suffice as an alternative requirement in cases the BARC Chairman, Brgy./Municipal, Authorized Official of the Community refuse to issue the same Certification in the posting of the list of actual/prospective beneficiaries. This presupposes that the MARO has in his/her possession proof that the BARC received the copy of the document to be posted and the date it was received.
DAR OPINION NO. 22, s. 2005
August 15, 2005
BENEFICIARIES; CHILDREN OF P.D. 27 BENEFICIARIES ALLOWED TO BECOME CARP FBs
Are the children of beneficiaries under PD 27 qualified to be CARP beneficiaries in the untenanted portion of the landholding owned by the same landowner?
- Section 22 of RA 6657 provides that lands covered by CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality. The same section further provides that a basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. For as long as said qualifications are met, the fact that a person is a child of a PD 27 beneficiary shall not disqualify him from being a CARP beneficiary.
DAR OPINION NO. 61, s. 1994
August 23, 1994
BENEFICIARIES; CONSEQUENCES IF THEY WERE PROMOTED TO MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY POSITIONS
- Farmworkers who had been previously identified as qualified beneficiaries but were promoted to managerial or supervisory positions prior to land transfer may still qualify as awardees if they give up their managerial or supervisory positions. On the other hand, farmworkers who had been previously identified as qualified beneficiaries but were promoted to managerial or supervisory positions after land transfer may still qualify as awardees even without giving up their positions.
DAR OPINION NO. 23, s. 2001
November 6, 2001
BENEFICIARIES; EFFECT OF CHOICE TO BE A BENEFICIARY IN ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND
May a tenant who chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land lose his right as leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner?
- In case a tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention.
DAR OPINION NO. 121, s. 1996
December 13, 1996
BENEFICIARIES; GROUND FOR DISQUALIFICATION
- The acceptance by the farmworker of a separation pay may be considered ground for disqualification as ARBs of the CARP if payment is due to retrenchment of worker and the same was not appealed or questioned before the proper government entity as provided for under Section 5 (11) of DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2003 {CY 2003 Guidelines on the Identification, Screening and Selection of, and Distribution to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) of Private Agricultural Lands Under Republic Act 6657}. In view thereof and considering that they are presently challenging the appropriateness and legality of the alleged separation pay given to the workers, it cannot be considered as a ground for disqualification to become farmer-beneficiaries of subject landholding.
- The farmer-beneficiaries have the legal personality as CLOA holders because they have the rights and protection provided under CARP as CLOA holders, and until the CLOAs issued to them are cancelled, they continue to be entitled to such protection provided under R.A. No. 6657. In addition, it is the position of the DAR that all affected FBs/farmworkers should also be given protection pursuant to existing guidelines and other pertinent laws on the implementation of CARP.
DAR OPINION NO. 03, s. 2008
January 14, 2008
BENEFICIARIES; IDENTIFICATION, SCREENING, AND SELECTION; HUSBAND AND WIFE MAY BECOME ARB INDEPENDENT TO THEIR SPOUSE
- Husband and wife may become Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries jointly or in their own right, independent to their spouse’ right during and even prior to their marriage. For as long as his/her right as a farmer-beneficiary have vested and been established separately from his/her spouse, he/she may be entitled to receive land under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
DAR OPINION NO. 30, s. 2007
November 8, 2007
BENEFICIARIES; INSTALLATION MAY PROCEED DESPITE PENDENCY OF A PETITION FOR EXCLUSION
- The implementation and distribution of the land to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) including their installation is not affected by the fact that there are pending issues over the subject lands. It is the primary objective of the Office of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to prevent unreasonable delay and derail in the implementation of CARP over the landholdings in issue. This is in line with the legal mandate of the DAR to distribute lands to the tillers at the earliest practicable time. Thus, the installation of the FBs named in the CLOAs (Medellin and Villalon properties) may immediately proceed so as not to further delay the implementation of CARP.
- The installation of the CLOA holders may proceed despite the pendency of the petition for exclusion from CARP coverage, and petition for inclusion/exclusion of FBs there being no legal impediment or temporary restraining order (TRO) issued by a court to restrict/prevent the ARB’s installation. This is in consonance with the mandate of R.A. No. 6657 to acquire and distribute lands to as many tenants and farmworkers as possible.
- Once a CLOA is issued and registered in the name of a beneficiary, it serves as an evidence of title to the land, entitling him/her to occupy the land and maintain possession of the same. Thus, the pendency of the inclusion/exclusion proceeding is of no moment and a justification to defer installation.
DAR OPINION NO. 25, s. 2007
September 25, 2007
BENEFICIARIES; INSTALLATION OF FARMER BENEFICIARIES
Can the MARO proceed with the physical installation of the FBs immediately after the harvest of the main crop?
- Physical installation of the FBs may take place immediately after the harvest of the main crop. However, the landowner shall retain his share of any standing crops unharvested at the time the DAR shall take possession of the land pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. 6657, and shall be given reasonable time to harvest the same (Section 28, R.A. No. 6657).
- It is believed that the first, second and third ratoons are still considered standing crops. However, the MARO may proceed with the physical installation of the FBs since the CLOAs had already been registered. Pursuant to Section 16 (e) of R.A. No. 6657, the initial issuance of TCT could already pave the way for the redistribution of the land to qualified ARBs. It follows therefore and with more reason that the FBs could already be installed where the CLOAs had already been registered. In fairness to the landowner, however, he should be given reasonable time to harvest the unharvested standing crops. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that mutual arrangement should be arrived at where notwithstanding the installation of the FBs, the landowner could still harvest his standing crops. This is imperative to all concerned in order to effect an orderly and peaceful implementation of the Program without, however, unduly delaying the same.
DAR OPINION NO. 59, s. 1999
October 27, 1999
BENEFICIARIES; LANDLESS WAR VETERANS AND VETERANS OF THE MILITARY CAMPAIGN
Can war veterans and veterans of the military campaigns be considered in the disposition of agricultural lands of the public domain?
- The provisions of Section 7 of Article XVI of the Constitution, Section 40 (6) of R.A. No. 6657 and Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1997 which state, to wit: "landless war veterans and veterans of military campaigns, their surviving spouses and orphans, retirees of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and the Integrated National Policy (INP now PNP), returnees, surrenderees and similar beneficiaries shall be considered in the disposition of agricultural lands of the public domain." It bears stressing here that this privilege is applicable only to landless war veterans and their surviving spouses and orphans, among others enumerated above, but not to those already owners of private agricultural lands. Simply stated, what is contemplated under the aforequoted provision of law in the disposition of agricultural lands of the public domain are not those who are veterans, returnees or surenderees per se, but those who are landless among them.
DAR OPINION NO. 7, s. 1998
January 14, 1998
BENEFICIARIES; MANAGERIAL AND SUPERVISORY EMPLOYEES AS BENEFICIARIES OF COMMERCIAL FARMS
May managerial and supervisory employees who were promoted before June 15, 1988 qualify as beneficiaries of commercial farms?
- Managerial and supervisory employees who were promoted before June 15, 1988 may still qualify as beneficiaries of commercial farms for as long they remain employees of the commercial farm between June 15, 1988 and June 15, 1998 or upon expiration or termination of the deferment, subject to the pertinent provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1993 (Supplemental Guidelines on Administrative Order No. 10, Series of 1990, and Other Issuances on the Rights of Farmworkers) and Joint DAR-CDA-DA Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1997 (Rules and Regulations Governing Membership Issues and Concerns of Farmworkers and Employee Beneficiaries in Agrarian Reform Plantation-Based Cooperatives).
DAR OPINION NO. 66, s. 1999
November 5, 1999
BENEFICIARIES; MEMBERSHIP IN PLANTATION BASED COOPERATIVES, MANDATORY
In corporate farms/commercial farms, is membership of ARBs to association or cooperative mandatory or directory?
- While it is true that the provisions of R.A. No. 6938 provides for open and voluntary membership in a cooperative, the same does not apply in the case of an agrarian reform plantation-based cooperative considering that it is a special cooperative composed exclusively of ARBs who were awarded a collective CLOA.
- Thus, membership of the aforesaid ARBs to such association or cooperative is mandatory. This can be inferred from the provision of Section 29 of R.A. No. 6657.
DAR OPINION NO. 38, s. 1999
July 14, 1999
BENEFICIARIES; ONLY NATURAL PERSONS CAN BE ISSUED CLOAs
- Only natural persons as beneficiaries may be given CLOAs as evidence of their ownership of awarded lands.
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 2007
February 13, 2007
BENEFICIARIES; ORDER OF PRIORITY; QUALIFICATIONS; BIRTH CERTIFICATE NECESSARY REQUIREMENT
- The order of priority of land distribution as provided under Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), specifically Section 22, starts with the qualified children, who are the first group entitled to be beneficiaries of the land and are entitled to receive three (3) hectares each. Any award to the qualified children is a result of the children being qualified beneficiaries of the program, a preferential right that the law only grants the children to be awarded the land of their parents.
- As to their qualifications to become beneficiaries of the land, the children of a landowner must be: at least 15 years of age as of 15 June 1988, (the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657) and actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm from 15 June 1988 up to the time of land acquisition. The required age and actual tillage provided for in the law must concur at the time of the effectivity of the CARL on 15 June 1988.
- A birth certificate is a necessary documentary requirement to prove the relationship of the child-beneficiary and the parent-landowner.
DAR OPINION NO. 14, s. 2008
June 4, 2008
BENEFICIARIES; ORDER OF PRIORITY; SCREENING/SELECTION/IDENTIFICATION
What is the order of priority among the possible beneficiaries?
- The persons mentioned in Section 22 of CARL, including those falling under paragraph (g) thereof — others directly working on the land enjoy priority over those not working thereon such as the employees belonging to management.
DAR OPINION NO. 86, s. 1994
October 17, 1994
Who has jurisdiction over the identification of farmer-beneficiaries?
- The DAR has jurisdiction over the screening/selection/identification of farmer-beneficiaries, thru the MARO. The recommendation of the BARC officials may be considered, but the MARO must exercise sound discretion on the matter. This, however, will not bar any person from questioning the selection of said farmer-beneficiaries.
DAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 1995
April 6, 1995
BENEFICIARIES; PERSONS DIRECTLY MANAGING THE FARM, NOT QUALIFIED TO BECOME CARP BENEFICIARIES
Are persons directly managing the farm qualified as CARP beneficiaries?
- Those directly managing the farm, do not qualify as CARP beneficiaries since they do not fall under any of the categories listed under Section 22 of CARL. The only instance where persons directly managing the farm can be CARP beneficiaries thereof is when they are children of the landowner, as provided in paragraph 1 Section 6 and paragraph 2 Section 22 of CARL.
DAR OPINION NO. 43, s. 1996
June 27, 1996
BENEFICIARIES; PREFERRED; QUALIFICATIONS; ORDER OF PRIORITY
- A child of a landowner may either be identified as preferred beneficiary or an ordinary FB.
- As preferred beneficiary or ordinary FB, a child should meet all the conditions set forth in Section 3 of A.O. No. 6, series of 2006 in relation to the earlier guidelines issued, such as A.O. No. 2, Series of 2003 and A.O. No. 7, series of 2003 except when a child of a landowner enters into VLT/DPS agreement with his/her parent-landowner, the rule requires that he/she is a tenant in his/her own right prior to June 15, 1988. In such cases, the rules and procedures provided under A.O. No. 8, series of 2003 shall apply.
- The order of priority of land distribution as provided under Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), specifically Section 22, starts with the qualified children, who are the first group entitled to be beneficiaries of the land and are entitled to receive three (3) hectares each. Any award to the qualified children is a result of the children being qualified beneficiaries of the program, a preferential right that the law only grants the children to be awarded the land of their parents.
- As to their qualifications to become beneficiaries of the land, the children of a landowner must be at least 15 years of age as of 15 June 1988, (the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657) and actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm from 15 June 1988 up to the time of land acquisition. The required age and actual tillage provided for in the law must concur at the time of the effectivity of the CARL on 15 June 1988.
DAR OPINION NO. 34, s. 2008
December 3, 2008
BENEFICIARIES; QUALIFICATION, WAIVER OF RIGHT AS BENEFICIARY
What is the basic qualification of a beneficiary?
- A basic qualification of a beneficiary is his willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. A person who is found to have waived his right and deliberately refused to enlist as CARP beneficiary during the process of documentation is not qualified to be a CARP beneficiary.
DAR OPINION NO. 42, s. 1997
April 14, 1997
BENEFICIARIES; QUALIFICATIONS
- It is settled that the basic qualification of a beneficiary is his willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. A person who is found to have waived his right and deliberately refused to enlist as CARP beneficiary during the process of documentation is not qualified to be a CARP beneficiary. The refusal of the identified farmer-beneficiaries to sign the Land Valuation and Farmer's Undertaking and their non cooperation in the documentation process is tantamount to waiver of rights that would warrant their disqualifications to become CARP beneficiaries.
DAR OPINION NO. 18, s. 2006
June 29, 2006
BENEFICIARIES; QUALIFICATIONS
- It must be remembered that one of the basic qualifications to be considered for a potential beneficiary is the willingness to cultivate a land. Refusal to be identified and/or registered as a potential beneficiary and failure to question inclusion of seasonal and other farmworkers is contrary to the "willingness" qualification. Also, it is correct to state that the above-mentioned acts or omissions are considered waiver of the right to be recognized as a beneficiary. However, in cases were the regular farmworkers are under duress, which resulted in their refusal to be recognized as a beneficiary or failure to question of seasonal and other farmworkers, these are matters, which are evidentiary in nature and may be threshed out administratively. Furthermore, the implementors must take all necessary action to ensure that proper notice are sent to the regular farmworkers. After such notice, proof of receipt and the date on which they were received must be kept as part of the file. In order to avoid further complications, perhaps the notices should state clearly the consequence of inaction on the part of a potential farmer-beneficiary.
DAR OPINION NO. 21, s. 2001
October 1, 2001
BENEFICIARIES; QUALIFICATIONS
Can a resident alien, specifically a naturalized American Citizen be a farmer-beneficiary?
- Republic Act No. 6657, particulary Sections 22 and 25 thereof and DAR Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1998, provide for the qualifications of an agrarian reform beneficiary. To be an agrarian reform beneficiary, one must: a) be landless; b) be at least 18 years old; and, c) have the willingness, ability and aptitude to cultivate the land and make it as productive as possible.
- By way of a backgrounder, the right of United States citizens and corporations to acquire and exploit private or public lands and other natural resources of the Philippines was intended to expire when the Commonwealth ended on 04 July 1946. Thereafter, public and private agricultural lands and natural resources of the Philippines were or became exclusively reserved by our Constitution for Filipino citizens. This situation lasted until the "Parity Amendment", ratified in November 1946, once more reopened to United States citizens and business enterprises owned or controlled by them the lands of the public domain, the natural resources of the Philippines, and the operation of the public utilities, but not the acquisition or exploitation of private agricultural lands, about which not a word is found in the Parity Amendment (Republic vs. Quasha, 46 SCRA 160). (emphasis supplied)
- Moreover, even assuming that the acquisition by United States citizens of private agricultural lands in the Philippines was valid and constitutional, their rights expired on 3 July 1974. All these rights conferred upon United States citizens and business entities, owned or controlled by them under the Amendment, were subject to one and the same resolutory condition or period: they are to last "during the effectivity of the Executive Agreement entered into on 04 July 1946", "but in no case to extend beyond the third of July 1974."
Section 8, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides, quote:
"SEC. 8. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 7 of this Article, a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to limitations provided by law." (underscoring and emphasis supplied)
Sections 1 and 2 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 185 dated 16 March 1982 provides:
Section 1. In implementation of Section fifteen of Article XIV of the 1973 Constitution (now Section 8 of the 1987 Constitution), a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private land, for use by him as his residence, subject to the provisions of this Act.
Section 2. Any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has the capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine laws, may be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of one thousand square meters, in the case of urban land, or one hectare in the case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence. In the case of married couples, one of them may avail of the privilege herein granted: Provided, That if both shall avail of the same, the total area acquired shall not exceed the maximum herein fixed.
In case the transferee already owns urban or rural lands for residential purposes, he shall still be entitled to be a transferee of additional urban or rural lands for residential purposes which, when added to those already owned by him, shall not exceed the maximum areas herein authorized. (emphasis supplied)
- It can be inferred from the aforequoted provisions of law and the Constitution that a Filipino who has lost his/her Philippine citizenship may only be a transferee of a maximum area of one thousand square meters, in the case of urban land, or one hectare in the case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence. Nothing more.
What is the basic qualification of a beneficiary?
- Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. Only a natural person can possess this qualification.
DAR OPINION NO. 38, s. 1999
July 14, 1999
BENEFICIARIES; QUALIFICATIONS OF ARBS FOR ACQUIRED COMMERCIAL FARMS
What are the qualifications of beneficiaries for acquired commercial farms?
- The pertinent guideline regarding qualifications of agrarian reform beneficiaries for acquired commercial farms is DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1998 (Rules and Regulations on the Acquisition, Valuation, Compensation and Distribution of Deferred Commercial Farms), particularly Section 4 thereof, quote:
"SEC. 4. Qualifications of Beneficiaries — Agrarian reform beneficiaries for acquired commercial farms must have the following qualifications:
(a) They must be at least 18 years old upon filing of application as agrarian reform beneficiary;
(b) They must have the willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land productive; and
(c) They must have been employed in the commercial farm between June 15, 1988 and June 15, 1998 or upon expiration or termination of the deferment: Provided, That farmworkers who have worked longest on the land continuously shall be given priority."
DAR OPINION NO. 66, s. 1999
November 5, 1999
BENEFICIARIES; QUALIFICATIONS; DETERMINATION
- The determination as to who may qualify to become farmer-beneficiaries of the land lies with the DAR. Under Section 15 of R.A. No. 6657 and its implementing guidelines, Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2003, it is the DAR in coordination with the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) which shall identify and register all agricultural lessees, tenants and farmworkers who are qualified to be beneficiaries of the CARP.
- Under II-A of DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1993, qualified farmworkers include those found to be directly working on the land at the time the DAR conducts actual investigation and documentation. This means that the retrenchment or separation of a farmworker prior to the award of the CLOA does not necessarily disqualify him from being an ARB, provided he possesses the basic qualification of willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible.
DAR OPINION NO. 03, s. 2008
January 14, 2008
BENEFICIARIES; QUALIFICATIONS; MEMBERSHIP IN Fos, NGOs AND POs
Is membership to farmer's organization or non government organization a plus factor for farmer applicants?
- Membership in farmer's organizations (FOs), Non Government Organizations (NGOs) and People's Organizations (POs), although generally favorable or beneficial, does not necessarily mean a plus factor for farmer applicants. To reiterate, one must possess all the qualifications to be an agrarian reform beneficiary as provided for under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657.
DAR OPINION NO. 40, s. 1999
July 23, 1999
BENEFICIARIES; QUALIFICATIONS
- The required age and actual tillage provided for in the law must concur at the time of the effectivity of the CARL on 15 June 1988 and not at the time when the Notice of Coverage was issued. Given this requirement, the children could not qualify as preferred beneficiaries.
DAR OPINION NO. 14, s. 2006
February 22, 2006
BENEFICIARIES; QUALIFICATIONS
- It appears that the awardee acquired dual citizenship pursuant to the provisions of Republic Act No. 9225 (Citizenship Retention and Re-Acquisition Act of 2003). R.A. No. 9225 contemplates that Filipino citizens who acquired foreign citizenship are deemed not to have lost their Philippine citizenship under conditions provided in the Act. In other words, natural born citizens of the Philippines who, after the effectivity of said Act, become citizens of a foreign country shall retain their Philippine citizenship upon taking an Oath of Allegiance to the Republic of the Philippines. Thus, those who retain or reacquire Philippine citizenship under said Act shall enjoy full civil and political rights and be subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines pursuant to Section 5 thereof.
In view of all the foregoing, while the awardee may enjoy full civil and political rights as a Filipino citizen, he is nonetheless likewise subject to all attendant liabilities and responsibilities under existing laws of the Philippines. Under existing Philippines laws, rules and regulations, it is required that the awardee should personally cultivate the land (or with the aid of the immediate members of his family) and should continuously do so. Under the facts and circumstances obtaining, we could infer that such is not so in the instant case even granting that the awardee is a resident both of New Jersey, USA and Malino, Mexico, Pampanga per his Special Power of Attorney (SPA). Under such circumstances, the basic requirement of continuous personal cultivation could not possibly be complied with.
DAR OPINION NO. 28, s. 2005
December 8, 2005
BENEFICIARIES; QUALIFIED DISTRIBUTEES OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS UNDER CARP
Who are qualified to become beneficiaries?
- Specifically, Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657 enumerates in the following order of priority Phase who can be the distributees of agricultural lands, to wit:
a. agricultural lessees and share tenants;
b. regular farmworkers;
c. seasonal farmworkers;
d. other farmworkers;
e. actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
f. collective or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
g. others directly working on the land.
DAR OPINION NO. 118, s. 1998
December 8, 1998
BENEFICIARIES; RANK AND FILE EMPLOYEES, WHEN MAY QUALIFY AS BENEFICIARIES
When may rank and file employees qualify as CARP beneficiaries?
- If the actual tillers on the farmholding involved have fixed farmlot, the rank and file employees will qualify as CARP beneficiaries only with respect to that portion of the landholding, if any, that will be left after the same has been apportioned in favor of the persons mentioned in Sec. 22 of RA 6657.
- Otherwise stated, the persons mentioned in Section 22 of CARL, including those falling under paragraph (g) thereof – others directly working on the land – enjoy priority over those not working thereon, such as the employees belonging to management.
DAR OPINION NO. 91, s. 1994
November 28, 1994
BENEFICIARIES; RETRENCHMENT OR SEPARATION OF A FARMWORKER PRIOR TO THE AWARD DOES NOT NECESSARILY DISQUALIFY HIM FROM BEING AN ARB
Does retrenchment or separation of a farmworker prior to the award of the CLOA disqualify a farmworker from being an ARB?
- Under II-A of DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1993, qualified farmworkers include those found to be directly working on the land at the time the DAR conducts actual investigation and documentation. This means that the retrenchment or separation of a farmworker prior to the award of the CLOA does not necessarily disqualify him from being an ARB, provided he possesses the basic qualification of willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible.
DAR OPINION NO. 26, s. 1997
March 17, 1997
BENEFICIARIES; RIGHT OR DISCRETION TO SELECT
Do landowners have the right to select CARP beneficiaries?
- Landowners are not possessed of the discretion or right to select CARP beneficiaries. Land acquisition and distribution involve two separate transactions, first, the government, thru DAR, acquires the land from its owner and then distributes it to the qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries. It is not the landowner, therefore, who is transferring the landholding to the farmer-beneficiaries.
DAR OPINION NO. 40, s. 1999
July 23, 1999
BENEFICIARIES; RIGHT TO BECOME BENEFICIARY A PERSONAL ONE; ORDER OF PRIORITY; QUALIFICATIONS
- The right to become an agrarian reform beneficiary (ARB) is a personal right, accorded only to those who will be qualified upon identification and screening of the DAR pursuant to Sec. 22 of R.A. No. 6657 and Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 2003 [CY 2003 Guidelines on the Identification, Screening and Selection of, and Distribution to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) of Private Agricultural Lands Under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657].
- In the case of the 10 deceased identified beneficiaries, the prospective areas to be awarded to them legally should be allocated or titled in favor of any of their heirs who may be qualified to become beneficiaries themselves and, provided, they are found to be directly working on the land. In other words, the order of priority provided for under Sec. 22 of R.A. 6657 shall by implication of law be applied.
DAR OPINION NO. 17, s. 2008
June 30, 2008
BENEFICIARIES; RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES COMMENCE FROM TIME OF AWARD
- Section 24 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence from the time the DAR makes an award to him. This means that the beneficiary is responsible for the payment of the real property taxes that accrue on the land only from the said award.
DAR OPINION NO. 29, s. 2008
November 14, 2008
BENEFICIARIES; SCREENING, SELECTION AND IDENTIFICATION OF FARMER-BENEFICIARIES
- In the screening, selection and identification of farmer-beneficiaries based on the criteria provided under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, it is the DAR through the MARO which has jurisdiction thereof. Landowners are given the right to choose their preferred beneficiaries, but they do not possess the authority or right to select CARP beneficiaries. Thus, the installation for FBs may proceed despite the pendency of the said petition.
- Under the doctrine of presumption of regularity in the performance of official functions, the identification of FBs is presumed to have been made in accordance with law absent convincing evidence to the contrary.
DAR OPINION NO. 26, s. 2006
October 2, 2006
BENEFICIARIES; SELECTION OF QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES IN COMMERCIAL FARMS
What is the procedure in the selection of qualified beneficiaries?
- In the selection of qualified beneficiaries for acquired commercial farms, Section 6 (a) of DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1998 provides, quote:
"SEC. 6. Procedure for Selection of Beneficiaries. — The selection of qualified beneficiaries for acquired commercial farms shall subscribe to the following procedures:
(a) Beneficiary Screening Committee — A Beneficiary Screening Committee shall be created composed of the following:
(1) Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) who shall act as Chairman;
(2) Municipal-Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), as member;
(3) Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) Chairman or his duly-authorized representative, as member;
(4) Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) Chairman or his duly-authorized representative from each of the barangays where the subject commercial plantation is situated, as member(s); and
(5) Barangay Chairman or duly-authorized representative, from each of the barangays where the subject commercial plantation is situated, as member(s).
The Beneficiary Screening Committee shall be responsible for the qualification, identification and selection of agrarian reform beneficiaries for acquired commercial farms. In the performance of its tasks, the Committee may invite representatives from the landowners, peoples' or non-government organizations and/or such other groups or entities as may be necessary as resource persons."
DAR OPINION NO. 40, S. 1999
July 23, 1999
BENEFICIARIES; SUCCESSOR OF FARMER BENEFICIARIES IN A COLLECTIVE CLOA
Who will succeed the FB in the collective CLOA in case of his death or abandonment?
- In case a farmer beneficiary in a collective CLOA is no longer in possession by reason of his death or abandonment, the area awarded to him which does not exceed three (3) hectares should legally be allocated or titled in favor of any of his heirs who may be qualified to become a beneficiary himself and, provided, he is found to be directly working on the land. In other words, the order of priority provided for under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657 shall by implication of law be applied. It is, however, mandatory that said heir will judiciously use the land and make it as productive as possible. On the other hand, if the farmer beneficiary has no legal heir, his tillage might be transferred to another qualified beneficiary subject to the quasi-judicial process of listing and delisting to be properly undertaken through the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB).
DAR OPINION NO. 20, s. 1999
March 4, 1999
BENEFICIARIES; TRANSFEREES OF CARP AWARDED LAND, LIMITATIONS
Who can be transferees of agricultural lands?
- Only qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries as determined by DAR pursuant to Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657 are eligible to be distributees of agricultural lands and this privilege should not by implication be extended to non-farmer beneficiaries, otherwise, this might open the door towards the circumvention of the provisions of R.A. No. 6657.
- Although Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 expressly declares in clear and categorical terms that lands acquired by beneficiaries under R.A. No. 6657 may be sold, transferred or conveyed to qualified beneficiaries even within the 10-year prohibitory period from the award as one of the exceptions, the restrictive application solely refers to qualified farmer-beneficiaries pursuant to the legally mandated order of their priority and on the conditions that the land sold, transferred or conveyed should remain agricultural in nature and its productivity maintained and may only be converted to non-agricultural use after the lapse of the period provided under Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657.
- Otherwise stated, the transferability of awarded lands as enunciated under Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 must be in conformity with Section 22 of said law both as to the order of priority and qualification of farmer-beneficiaries coupled with the inherent requirements on the maintenance of the agricultural nature of the land and its productivity. The legislative intent of Section 27 is clear and unambiguous, hence, we should not stretch the beneficial provision thereof so as to include even non-farmer beneficiaries of cooperatives.
DAR OPINION NO. 118, s. 1998
December 8, 1998
BENEFICIARIES; USUFRUCTUARY RIGHTS OF FARMER BENEFICIARIES
Does non-acceptance by the farmer-beneficiaries of the conditions a ground for revocation of the usufructuary rights?
- A reading of the MOA would indicate that what is granted to the farmer-beneficiaries was only a usufructuary privilege and, as such, they have the option whether or not to accept the same. The non-acceptance by the farmer-beneficiaries of the conditions indicated in the MOA regarding the grant of usufructuary rights is not a violation as to be a ground for the revocation of the MOA.
DAR OPINION NO. 58, s. 1999
October 27, 1999
BENEFICIARIES; VESTED RIGHT; DEFINED
- The term "vested right" has been defined in the case of Balboa vs. Farrales, G.R. No. 27059, February 14, 1928 as some right or interest in property which has become fixed and established and is no longer open to doubt or controversy. The Supreme Court explained that rights are vested when right to enjoyment, present or prospective, has become the property of some particular person or persons as a present interest (Agrarian Law and Jurisprudence, DAR UNDP, page 27).
DAR OPINION NO. 30, s. 2007
November 8, 2007
BENEFICIARY; CONSEQUENCES IF A BENEFICIARY HAS SOLD OR ABANDONED HIS LAND
- A beneficiary who is found to have culpably sold or abandoned his land shall be disqualified from becoming a beneficiary pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657) and Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2003 [CY 2003 Guidelines on the Identification, Screening and Selection of, and Distribution to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) of Private Agricultural Lands Under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657]. In this case, the landholding shall be forfeited in favor of any other qualified beneficiary duly identified by DAR.
- The act of a beneficiary of selling or abandoning his awarded land rather than cultivate it is a violation of R.A. No. 6657 and is punishable by law. The very essence of agrarian reform is for DAR to acquire all public and private agricultural lands for redistribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries who are landless. Therefore, the farmer-beneficiary in return is under obligation to cultivate the land and make it more productive as possible.
DAR OPINION NO. 27, s. 2005
November 10, 2005
BONDSMAN; DEFINED; DAR PERSONNEL CANNOT SERVE AS BONDSMAN TO A CRIMINAL CASE
- A bondsman is a person who stands as surety for the performance of a legal obligation by another as expressed in a bond. Bondsmen usually have a standing security agreement with local court officials, in which they agree to post an irrevocable "blanket" bond, which will pay the court if any defendant for whom the bondsman is responsible does not appear.
- The function of a bondman and a personnel of this Department is incompatible with each other. The main concern of a bondsman is to act as a surety for the appearance of a criminal defendant in court, while that a personnel of the DAR is to assist in the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) and other agrarian laws, rules and regulations. Therefore, a personnel of the DAR cannot serve as bondsman to a criminal case filed against a tenant.
DAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 2007
March 12, 2007
BUREAU OF AGRARIAN LEGAL ASSISTANCE (BALA); RESPONSIBILITY
What is the responsibility of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance?
- Under Section 163 of the Code of Agrarian Reforms (RA 3844, as amended), the responsibility of the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA), as successor of the defunct office of the Agrarian Counsel, is to represent tenants, agricultural lessees, agricultural farmworkers, and agricultural owner-cultivators or members of their immediate farmhousehold who cannot engage the services of competent private counsel.
- Said responsibility includes representation before courts, including appellate, in cases civil or criminal, instituted by or against said tenant, agricultural lessees, farmworkers or owner-cultivators or the members of their immediate farmhousehold, where the cases arise from or are connected with, or results or effects of an agrarian dispute.
DAR OPINION NO. 19, s. 1994
March 7, 1994
C
CANCELATION/REVOCATION ORDER OF CLOA
- The DAR Secretary's Order cannot extend to an immediate cancellation/revocation of a registered CLOA. A proper petition for cancellation of registered CLOA must be filed with the DARAB.
DAR OPINION NO. 07, s. 2009
March 24, 2009
CANCELLATION OF CLOA; FINALITY OF ORDER
May the Kauswagan Resettlement property be developed into a residential site?
- Since a petition for the cancellation of said CLOA has been filed, and an Order granting said petition has been issued, the finality of said Order will pave the way for its cancellation, thus placing the property within DAR jurisdiction and enabling the development by NHA of the portion designated as a housing site.
January 8, 1996
CANCELLATION OF CLOA; JURISDICTION
- It is noted that the Regional Director in the said order had directed the cancellation of the 84 CLOAs issued over the subject landholding. The 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure provides that the DARAB has the jurisdiction to cancel registered CLOAs. Likewise, Administrative Order No. 02 Series of 1994 (Rules Governing the Correction and Cancellation of Registered/Unregistered EPs and CLOAs Due to Unlawful Acts and Omissions or Breach of Obligations of ARBs and for Other Causes) provides that registered CLOAs may only be corrected or cancelled by the order of the Provincial or Regional Adjudicator which has jurisdiction over the property, in accordance with the DARAB Rules of Procedure. Hence, RD Arsenal’s order may not be implemented since the issuance of such order is outside his jurisdiction. (Note: Under R.A. No. 9700, Jurisdiction is now conferred with the DAR Secretary)
DAR OPINION NO. 14, s. 2010
March 10, 2010
CANCELLATION OF EMANCIPATION PATENTS; HOW EFFECTED
How is the cancellation of Emancipation Patents effected?
- The cancellation of Emancipation Patents is effected by the Register of Deeds only upon presentation of an Order issued by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). Rule II, Section 1(f) of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure provides that cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of EPs and CLOAs which are registered with the Register of Deeds fall within the primary and exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction of the DARAB. The authority to order the cancellation of unregistered Emancipation Patents is vested with the Regional Director, and the Secretary of Agrarian Reform on appeal.
November 10, 1995
CANCELLATION; JURISDICTION; FREE PATENT
- The provisions of Presidential Decree No. 1529 quote:
In case of death of the grantee, the Department of Agrarian Reform shall determine his heirs or successors-in-interest and shall notify the Register of Deeds accordingly."
It can be inferred from the aforementioned that the DAR is not clothed with the authority to cancel Free Patent Titles and issue individual CLOA titles to the heirs of property owners who died intestate. The role of the DAR is to give notice to the Register of Deeds of the existence of heirs or successors-in-interest.
DAR OPINION NO. 10, s. 2010
February 1, 2010
CANCELLATION; PETITION FOR CANCELLATION OF CLOAS: WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO FILE
Who has the authority to file a petition for cancellation of CLOAs?
- Under Executive Order No. 129-A, the Department of Agrarian Reform is responsible for implementing the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and other agrarian laws, rules and regulations. This covers the power to file petition for cancellation of CLOAs before the PARAD, in the face of evidence showing that the FBs have committed acts contrary to their obligation to make the lots awarded to them as productive as possible.
- Moreover, since the Regional Offices are responsible for the implementation of laws, policies, plans, projects, rules and regulations of the Department in their administrative region, the Regional Director shall represent the Department, assisted by a DAR lawyer in the Region.
July 13, 1994
CANCELLATION; PROPER PARTY TO INITIATE ACTION FOR CANCELLATION OF CLOA
Who is the proper party to initiate action for cancellation of CLOA?
- A close reading of R.A. No. 6657 readily suggests that the personality to cancel the CLOA apparently erroneously issued pertains to the aggrieved party, that is, one who stands to be injured by the issuance thereof.
July 7, 1998
CAPITAL GAINS TAX; LIABILITY FOR PAYMENT THEREOF
Who shall be liable for the payment of Capital Gains Tax?
- While Section 66 of R.A. No. 6657 categorically exempts transactions under CARP involving transfer of ownership whether for natural or juridical persons from Capital Gains Tax, the same is not absolute. What is contemplated under Section 66 of R.A. No. 6657 are those transactions which are necessary for the issuance of EP/CLOA in favor of farmer-beneficiaries.
March 11, 1997
CAPITAL GAINS TAX; PAYMENT
Is compensation paid for the construction of a conveyance canal subject to Capital Gains Tax?
- Compensation paid to landowners as payment for the portion used for the construction of a conveyance canal is not subject to capital gains tax. Specifically, only transactions which involve the disposition of property are subject to said tax. Such being the case, the compensation given to the landowners by reason of the expropriation of their landholdings is exempt from capital gains tax.
May 22, 1998
CAPITAL GAINS TAX; TRANSACTIONS EXEMPTED FROM PAYMENT
What kind of transactions are exempted from payment of capital gains tax?
- Sec. 66 of R.A. No. 6657 (CARL) expressly provides, quote: "transactions under this Act involving a transfer of ownership whether from natural or juridical persons, shall be exempted from taxes arising from capital gains". The exemption referred to above is not, however, encompassing so as to exempt all transactions from capital gains tax. Specifically, only transactions which are agrarian related are exempt. In this connection, the sale or disposition of the subject property from the landowner to a tenant is undoubtedly an agrarian related transaction, thus, exempt from said tax. However, all other transactions or subsequent transfers thereof from the tenant to third persons are not exempt from Capital Gains Tax since the same are no longer deemed agrarian related matters.
May 7, 1997
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER; AUTHORITY OF THE PARO TO ISSUE
Who has the authority to issue CDO?
"Upon determination of a prima facie case, the Secretary or the duly authorized DAR official shall issue a cease and desist order (CDO) directing the respondent to stop any and all development activities in the area and requiring him to explain within ten (10) days from receipt why he should not be penalized for violation of existing laws, rules and regulations on land use conversion."
- From the provision of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1999, particularly Article IX, Section 45 (b) thereof, it explicitly provide that the Secretary or the duly authorized DAR Official has the authority to issue a cease and desist order (CDO). It is considered that the "duly authorized DAR official" mentioned therein is the PARO, who is necessarily the official representative and extension of the Secretary's personality in the province. Thus, the PARO may issue the CDO, upon recommendation of the Provincial Task Force on Illegal Conversion, the latter being the authority responsible for the investigation, gathering of evidence and the filing of complaints against illegal, premature or unauthorized conversion within its area of jurisdiction pursuant to Joint DAR-DOJ Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1994.
November 27, 2000
CEASE AND DESIST ORDER; IN RELATION TO R.A. NO. 6657
What is a Cease and Desist Order as applied under R.A. 6657?
- The Cease and Desist Order was only a temporary relief to insure that objections to coverage are first addressed and resolved.
- The effectual expiration of the CDO lies in the eventual resolution of the issues of exemption, conversion and/or coverage of subject landholding, on the basis of the availability of evidence received in support thereto, or, the lack of it.
April 27, 2000
CERTIFICATE OF FINALITY
When may the Order issued by the DAR Secretary be implemented?
- Pertinently, the third paragraph of Memorandum Circular No. 3, series of 1994 states, thus:
"2) An appeal from the decision/order issued by the Department shall be perfected within fifteen (15) days after receipt of a copy of the decision/order complained of by the party adversely affected, by filing with the DAR a notice of appeal, serving copies thereof upon the prevailing party and the Office of the President and paying the required fees. The DAR shall upon perfection of the appeal transmit the records of the case to the Office of the President." (underscoring and emphasis supplied)
November 9, 2000
CERTIFICATE OF FULL PAYMENT; ISSUANCE OF; PURPOSE
- The LBP could issue a Certificate of Full Payment notwithstanding the pendency of an administrative proceeding or valuation case for the reason that under Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), acquisition and distribution are two (2) separate transactions. The former is a transaction between the government and the landowner, while the latter is a separate and distinct transaction between the government and the agrarian reform beneficiaries. This means that even though the landowner may still be contesting the land valuation, title to the land may already be transferred to the Republic of the Philippines then ultimately to the beneficiaries [Section 16 (e), R.A. No. 6657]. Thus, in the event that the landholding has already been fully paid by the beneficiary as determined by DAR and LBP, a certification of full payment should forthwith be issued for the purpose, among others, of registering with the Register of Deeds the cancellation of the encumbrance annotated in the title.
DAR OPINION NO. 04, s. 2009
March 11, 2009
CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD/FREE PATENTS; AS COLLATERAL FOR LOANS
- "CLOAs can be legally used as collateral for loans. While Section 27 of R.A. 6657 expressly provides that lands acquired by beneficiaries under said Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except thru hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years, such prohibition applies only to transactions where ownership is parted with. Said provision of law does not apply to the contract of mortgage, because ownership still remains with the mortgagor. As held by the Supreme Court in the case entitled "Eleazar and Elena Adlawan vs. Hon. Judge Ramon Torres" (G.R. Nos. 65957-58, July 5, 1994), by mortgaging a piece of property, a debtor merely subjects it to lien, but ownership is not parted with. Such being the case, a mortgage is not one of the transactions referred to in the aforequoted provision."
DAR OPINION NO. 01, s. 2005
February 8, 2005
CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD; AS COLLATERAL FOR LOANS
- CLOAs may be used as collaterals for loan. While Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) expressly provides that lands acquired by beneficiaries under said act may not be transferred except through hereditary succession or to the Government or to LBP or to other beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years, such prohibition applies only to transactions where ownership is parted with. Said provision of law does not apply to a contract of mortgage because ownership still remains with the mortgagor (DAR Opinion No. 25, Series of 1996).
DAR OPINION NO. 06, s. 2005
February 11, 2005
CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD; AS COLLATERAL FOR LOANS
- Since the PNOC is a Government-owned and controlled corporation (GOCC), it is one of those contemplated under Section 118 of the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141) as exempt from the prohibition against encumbrance or alienation of lands covered by free patent titles.
- In view of the foregoing, PNOC may accept Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and free patent titles as collaterals for loan.
DAR OPINION NO. 01, s. 2005
February 8, 2005
CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD; AS COLLATERAL FOR LOANS
Can CLOA be legally used as collateral for loans?
- CLOAs can be legally used as collateral for loans. While Section 27 of R.A. 6657 expressly provides that lands acquired by beneficiaries under said Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession or to the government or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years, such prohibition applies only to transactions where ownership is parted with. Said provision of law does not apply to the contract of mortgage because ownership still remains with the mortgagor.
December 28, 1995
January 11, 1996
May 28, 1996
CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD; AS EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP
What is the proof of ownership of an awarded land?
- The second sentence of Section 24 of CARL provides: "Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award which shall contain the restrictions and conditions provided for in this Act, and shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title".
October 27, 1994
CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD; AS EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP
What is the proof of ownership of an awarded land?
- Section 24 of RA 6657 provides in part that . . . "ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award, which shall contain the restrictions and conditions provided in this Act, and shall be recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title.
December 13, 1996
CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD; CANCELLATION THROUGH A COURT (DARAB) PROCEEDING
May a CLOA be cancelled through a court (DARAB) proceeding?
- A CLOA may only be cancelled through a court proceeding upon proper showing that the farmer beneficiary has committed an act that violated the DAR rules on cancellation, more specifically upon the grounds provided for under A.O. No. 02, series of 1994.
September 23, 1996
CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD; FOR REGISTRATION WITH THE REGISTER OF DEEDS
What kind of CLOA may be indorsed for registration with the Register of Deeds?
- Only regularly generated/documented CLOAs may be indorsed for registration with the Register of Deeds.
January 28, 1997
CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD; OFFERED AS PROPERTY BONDS
Can a CLOA be offered as property bond?
- As regards farmlots covered by CLOAs or lands acquired under R.A. No. 6657, within ten (10) years from award the same cannot be offered as property bonds in view of the prohibition provided under Sec. 27 of R.A. No. 6657, to quote: "Lands acquired by the beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the Land Bank of the Philippines, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years.
March 5, 1998
CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER; AS COLLATERAL FOR AGRI-BUSINESS LOAN
May Certificate of Land Transfer be used as collateral for agri-business loan?
- Under P.D. No. 315 dated October 22, 1973, all financing institutions are mandated to accept as collateral for loans any duly registered Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) issued by the Government, through the DAR, to tenant-farmers in an amount of not less than sixty percent (60%) of the value of the landholding with the proviso that the loans obtained shall be used in the improvement or development of the farmholding of the tenant-farmers or the establishment of facilities that will enhance production or marketing of agricultural products or increase farm income.
October 18, 1995
CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER; ISSUANCE THEREOF NOT A GROUND FOR REFUSAL OF TENANT TO PAY RENTALS
Does the issuance of a CLT vest ownership of the land?
- The mere issuance of CLT does not vest in the farmer/grantee ownership of the land. At most, it merely evidences the governments recognition of the grantee as the party qualified to avail of the statutory mechanism for the acquisition of ownership of the land tilled by him as provided under P.D. No. 27. Neither is this recognition permanent nor irrevocable.
- Failure on the part of the farmer/grantee to comply with his obligation to pay his lease rentals or amortization payments when they fall due for a period of two (2) years to the landowner or agricultural lessor is a ground for forfeiture of his CLT.
- The deposit of lease rentals by the tenant with the LBP is sanctioned by law. DAR Department Memorandum Circular No. 6, Series of 1978 allow tenants to deposit their lease rentals with the LBP in case of refusal of landowners to accept lease rentals/amortizations or issue receipts to tenants evidencing payments thereof.
- Sec. 2 of PD 816 expressly provides that illegal acts committed by tenants, shall upon hearing and final judgment forfeit the CLT issued in his favor, if his farmholding is already covered by such CLT. Conversely, any agricultural lessee whose landholding is not yet covered by a CLT, upon hearing and judgment, loses his right to be issued a CLT under PD 27 for his farmholding.
December 13, 1996
CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER; NOT EVIDENCE OF OWNERSHIP
Is Certificate of Land Transfer an evidence of ownership?
- The CLT is not evidence of ownership. In the case entitled "Engracia Vinzons-Magana vs. Hon. Conrado Estrella" (G.R. No. 60269; September 13, 1991) the Court held that "the mere issuance of the certificate of land transfer does not vest in the farmer-grantee ownership of the land described therein. At most, the certificate merely evidences the government's recognition of the grantee as the party qualified to avail of the statutory mechanisms for the acquisition of ownership of the land tilled by him as provided under Presidential Decree No. 27."
September 21, 1994
CERTIFICATE OF LANDOWNER AWARD/EMANCIPATION PATENT; EXTENT OF THE DECISION OF THE PARAD/RARAD ON CANCELLATION OF CLOAs/EPs
What is the extent of the Decision of the PARAD/RARAD in cases of Cancellation of Registered EP/CLOA?
- The Decision of the PARAD/RARAD in cases of cancellation of registered EP/CLOA can extend to the screening of the ARBs and the reallocation of the land subject of the cancelled EP/CLOA, where the issue of reallocation/screening is related thereto. In such cases the MARO/PARO, thru a duly designated DAR lawyer, may intervene for purposes of making a recommendation on the qualified reallocatee. Where the PARAD/RARAD Decision has already been issued and the field officer concerned believes that there is a qualified reallocatee other than the one named in the Decision, he may move for Reconsideration or Appeal, where applicable.
July 23, 1996
CERTIFICATION OF DEPOSIT; ISSUED DESPITE AN APPEAL
- A Certification of Deposit shall be issued notwithstanding any appeal before the Court of Appeals. To do otherwise shall amount to an act that precludes this office to perform its powers and functions.
DAR OPINION NO. 03, s. 2010
January 8, 2010
CERTIFICATION OF DEPOSIT; ISSUED NOTWITHSTANDING APPEAL WITH THE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT; REFERENCE
- A certification of deposit shall be issued notwithstanding any appeal before the Office of the President or to any regular courts. To do otherwise shall amount to an act that precludes this Office to perform its powers and functions.
DAR OPINION NO. 33, s. 2008
December 3, 2008
CERTIFICATION; DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE TO ISSUE CERTIFICATION THAT LANDHOLDING NO LONGER SUITABLE FOR AGRICULTURE
Who will issue a certification that the land is not suitable for agriculture or that its valuation is rejected for the same reason?
- It is the Department of Agriculture that has the authority to issue a certification that the landholding is no longer suitable for agriculture. The authority includes land which was refused valuation by the LBP after it has been found to be no longer suitable for agriculture.
October 11, 1996
CLOA/EP TITLES; PROHIBITED AS PAYMENT FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES WITHIN THE 10 YEAR PROHIBITORY PERIOD
- Paragraph 1, Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) insofar as pertinent, reads:
"SECTION 27. Transferability of Awarded Lands. — Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years: Provided, however, That the children or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from the government or LBP within the period of two (2) years. . . ."
- Implementing aforesaid provision of law is DAR A.O. No. 8, Series of 1995 (Transferability of Lands Awarded to ARBs Pursuant to P.D. 27 as Amended by E.O. No. 228 and R.A. 6657), which provides, quote:
"3. Transfer of awarded lands under P.D. No. 27, as amended by E.O. No. 228 and R.A. No. 6657 may be allowed, provided the following shall be observed:
a) that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
b) that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landowner ceiling provided by law; and
c) that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall be imposed."
- Clearly, it is believed that the ten-year period prescribed in the foregoing provisions prohibits the use of CLOAs/EPs for payment of attorney’s fees.
DAR OPINION NO. 12, s. 2009
June 17, 2009
CLOA/EP ; AS COLLATERAL FOR LOANS
- An awarded land covered by CLOA/EP may be used as collateral for a loan even without necessarily securing a DAR Clearance since it involves a transaction of which ownership is not parted with (A.O. No. 1, Series of 1989).
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 2009
April 17, 2009
CLT — CERTIFICATE OF LAND TRANSFER; NOT PROOF OF OWNERSHIP
Is a Certificate of Land Transfer an evidence of ownership of the land?
- A Certificate of Land Transfer, is not per se an evidence of ownership of the land. The mere issuance thereof does not vest in the farmer-grantee, ownership of the land described therein. It merely provides evidence of the government's recognition of the grantee as the party qualified to avail of the statutory requirements for acquisition under P.D. No. 27. Failure of the farmer-beneficiary to comply with the requirements will result in the cancellation of said CLT.
- However, in the absence of proof and determination by legitimate authority that he has not complied with the requirements and therefore not a bona fide beneficiary, the presumption is that he is DEEMED OWNER of the land awarded to him pursuant to the provisions of P.D. No. 27, and anyone who wishes to contest said presumption and the rights of a CLT holder has the burden of proving that he is not a qualified and legal holder thereof.
July 1, 1998
COMMERCIAL FARM; RECKONING PERIOD FOR ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION
What is the reckoning period for the acquisition and distribution of commercial farms?
- Section 11 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended provides that the acquisition and distribution of commercial farms shall be effected after the ten-year period reckoned from 15 June 1988 or from the first year of commercial production or operation, as the case may be.
June 5, 1997
COMMERCIAL FARMS; DEFERMENT: ELIGIBILITY OF WORKERS WHOSE ENTERPRISE WAS DISCONTINUED
Are qualified ARBs remain to be such even if the farm ceases to operate?
- Those workers who have qualified as ARBs prior to the grant of Commercial Farm Deferment (CFD), remain as qualified ARBs even if the farm ceases to operate, since what is suspended only is the acquisition and distribution aspect of the commercial farm.
- On the other hand, workers who are not qualified as of 15 June 1988 but possess the basic qualifications enumerated under RA 6657 may be eligible as ARBs upon determination by DAR that they possess the said qualifications and provided that the area to be distributed is enough for all the qualified beneficiaries.
December 23, 1996
COMMERCIAL FARMS; NOT EXEMPT FROM CARP COVERAGE
Are commercial farms exempt from CARP coverage?
- The coverage of agricultural lands under Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is not affected by the fact that they were placed under commercial deferment. Specifically, this scheme is resorted purposely to allow landowners the chance to recover their investments and insulate them from possible disruptions in operations and productivity during land acquisition and distribution. It is a 10-year transition period pending final transfer of the land to agrarian reform beneficiaries.
April 30, 1998
COMMERCIAL FARMS; WHEN TO COMMENCE; RATIONALE
When shall coverage of commercial farms under deferment commence?
- The acquisition and distribution of private agricultural lands under deferment pursuant to R.A. No. 6657 shall not be undertaken until the lapse of the ten (10) year period to be reckoned from 15 June 1988. In case of new farms, the 10-year deferment period shall begin from the first year of commercial production and operation, as determined by DAR pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 16, Series of 1988. The rationale for the 10-year deferment in the acquisition of commercial farms is to allow landowners to recover their investments and insulate them from possible disruption in operations and production during said period before eventual acquisition and distribution thereof take place.
June 5, 1997
COMPENSATION; FACTORS
What are the factors attendant in the fixing of the price of landholdings?
- As held by the SC in the case of "B.H. Berkenkotter & Co. vs. CA (GR No. 89980 Dec. 14, 1992), the fixing of the price of landholding may vary depending on several factors attendant thereto, to wit: cost of acquisition, current value of like properties, its actual or potential uses, and in the particular case of lands, their size, shape, location and the tax declarations thereon. As such, the price previously charged the tenant in selling her tenancy rights should not stand as the basis in fixing the price thereof.
December 13, 1996
COMPENSATION; SUBJECT TO THE DETERMINATION OF DAR OFFICER/ADJUDICATOR
- As to how much share the tenants should be entitled, sound judgment dictates that the DAR Officer/Adjudicator concerned should determine what would be just and equitable under the circumstances with due regard to the tenant-lessees.
DAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 2005
April 18, 2005
COMPOSICION CON EL ESTADO; PRINCIPLE
What is the principle of Composicion con el estado?
- The "composicion con el estado which was granted by the Spanish Government through the Direccion General de Administracion Civil, pursuant to the provision of the Royal Decree of June 25, 1880 is premised upon the assumption that all those lands to which the state has never executed any deed were property of the state.
December 13, 1996
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT; VALID CONTRACT
- It was further stressed by the Supreme Court in a case that:
"(T)his Court, time and again, has ruled that a compromise agreement entered into by party-litigants, when not contrary to law, public order, public policy, morals, or good custom is a valid contract which is the law between the parties themselves." (Juan-Marcelo, et al. vs. Go Kim Pah, et al., 22 SCRA 309).
- The information that the former landowner who stands to (re)acquire rights and interest over the subject property by virtue of the compromise agreement as approved by the court is bound to voluntarily offer the same for sale to the government (VOS), should not be taken as an impediment, but should be taken as in full support to the CARP coverage of the subject landholdings, and in line with the same objective of maintaining the distribution of the same to duly qualified farmer-beneficiaries.
- It is not imperative to substantially change the documentation of the claim folder. It will be enough to officially inform and advise all parties concerned to execute what was agreed upon in the Compromise Agreement, who shall then be recognized by the DAR and LBP for purposes of claiming the compensation/proceeds on the property.
DAR OPINION NO. 27, s. 2007
October 3, 2007
COMPROMISE AGREEMENT; WHEN MAY BE LEGALLY IMPLEMENTED
When may compromise agreement be legally implemented?
- The Compromise Agreement may be legally implemented so long as it does not contravene the mandate under CARL to redistribute the property in favor of qualified beneficiaries.
August 29, 1994
COMPULSORY ACQUISITION
What lands are covered by Compulsory Acquisition?
- Compulsory acquisition (CA) is mandatory for all private agricultural lands which become due for coverage under the phase of implementation provided in Section 7 of R.A. No. 6657. CA is also done in idle and abandoned lands regardless of their size and phasing and in lands whose commercial farm deferment is revoked. However, CA is suspended in those cases where the landowners opt for other modes of compliance, such as voluntary offer to sell or voluntary land transfer. However, CA is resumed once the negotiations in these other modes fail.
June 7, 2002
COMPULSORY ACQUISITION: CANNOT BE BURDENED BY CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY THE PARTIES
Can compulsory coverage under RA 6657 be burdened by conditions which the parties may wish to impose?
- Compulsory coverage under R.A. 6657 cannot and should never be burdened by conditions which the parties may wish to impose because its coverage cannot be made to depend indirectly, at least, on the party's volition.
April 24, 1997
COMPULSORY ACQUISITION; DEFINED
What is compulsory acquisition?
- Compulsory Acquisition of landholdings is a scheme done to all agricultural lands which become due for coverage following the phasing of CARP implementation under Section 7 of R.A. No. 6657 (The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law). Agricultural lands subject for coverage include those owned by private entities and those owned or held by government agencies, corporations and instrumentalities (Sections 4 and 7 (par. 2), R.A. No. 6657).
June 2, 1997
COMPULSORY ACQUISITION; LANDS COVERED BY COMPULSORY ACQUISITION
- Compulsory acquisition (CA) is mandatory for all private agricultural lands which become due for coverage under the phase of implementation provided in Section 7 of R.A. No. 6657. CA is also done in idle and abandoned lands regardless of their size and phasing and in lands whose commercial farm deferment is revoked. However, CA is suspended in those cases where the landowners opt for other modes of compliance, such as voluntary offer to sell or voluntary land transfer. However, CA is resumed once the negotiations in these other modes fail.
DAR OPINION NO. 17, s. 2002
June 7, 2002
CONFIDENTIALITY OF INTER-OFFICE COMMUNICATIONS
How are inter-office communications treated?
- Memorandum Circular No. 25, Series of 1995 provides for the observance of measures to uphold the integrity and confidentiality of inter-office communications and draft resolution of cases involving agrarian reform law implementation and personnel discipline. Specifically, item 1 of said memorandum circular provides that investigation reports, transmittal slips, memoranda, indorsement and other communications stating the action taken or recommendations of the officers shall be treated as confidential. Pursuant thereto, a party to an administrative case is thus not entitled, as a rule, to a copy of an investigation report.
December 23, 1999
CONSULTA; WHEN IS IT NECESSARY
When is consulta necessary?
- Consulta, should it still be necessary, is proper only if said instruments are denied registration in writing by the ROD, setting forth the defects of the instruments or the legal grounds relied upon.
August 21, 2001
CONSULTA; WHEN IS IT NECESSARY
- Consulta, should it still be necessary, is proper only if said instruments are denied registration in writing by the ROD, setting forth the defects of the instruments or the legal grounds relied upon.
DAR OPINION NO. 13, s. 2001
August 21, 2001
CONTEMPT; IMPLIED POWER OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Whether or not the Regional Director can Cite a Party in Contempt Under Section 20 of DAR Administrative Order No. 03, series of 2003?
- The power of the Regional Director to cite a party in contempt is implied and could be inferred under the aforequoted provisions of law, rules and regulations. This is particularly clear based on the 1st paragraph of DAR Administrative Order No. 03, Series of 2003 which provides that said guideline is issued pursuant to sections 49 and 50 of R.A. No. 6657. In Section 50, paragraph 3, last sentence of R.A. No. 6657, DAR is expressly vested with the power to punish direct and indirect contempts in the same manner and subject to the same penalties as provided in the Rules of Court.
- Moreover, a Cease and Desist Order issued by the Regional Director would possibly be without teeth and, hence, no force and effect if he could not cite a party in contempt. The authority of Regional Directors to cite a party in contempt can be deduced as an incident arising within their jurisdiction for the effective and orderly implementation of said Order, in particular and the Program, in general.
March 11, 2004
CONTRACT; LAW BETWEEN PARTIES
- Although permission to work on the farm was given, there was no intention to constitute said person as the agricultural lessee of the farm land. The agreement (mortgage), which as a valid contract is the law between the parties which they are expected to abide with good faith in such contractual commitments.
DAR OPINION NO. 21, s. 2008
August 21, 2008
CONVERSION
What is the effect of approval of conversion?
- Section 34, DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 2002
"Section 34. Effects of approval of conversion — The approval of an application for conversion shall have, but shall not be limited to, the following effects:
34.1 It shall be limited to the specific use of the land authorized in the Conversion Order;
34.2 It shall be subject to the schedule indicated in the detailed site development, work and financial plans, but in no case shall the period of development extend beyond five (5) years from issuance of the Conversion Order except as authorized by the Secretary or the approving official on meritorious grounds, provided that, if the development cannot be accomplished within five (5) years, the grantee of the Conversion Order shall submit a written request for extension within the six (6) months before the lapse of the five (5) year period, and provided further, that the extended development period shall be one (1) year for every five (5) hectares, but in no case shall the extension exceed five (5) years.
34.3 The conditions thereof shall be binding upon successors-in-interest of the property."
April 13, 2004
CONVERSION AND EXEMPTION; OCULAR INSPECTION FEES
- From the provisions of Sec. 1 par. 3(d) of R.A. No. 8532 and Sec. 3.2 and 3.4 of DAR M.C. No. 2, Series of 2002, it is very clear that inspection fees for application for conversion and exemptions being paid by the applicants to the DAR thru RCLUPPI as contained in DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2002 shall be remitted to the Agrarian Reform Fund. Payment by the applicant of such inspections fees should be made directly to the cashier office of DAR Regional/Central Office. As such, any disbursement of said funds, which includes inspection fees, shall be subject to the existing normal accounting and auditing rules and regulations.
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 2006
January 27, 2006
CONVERSION CLEARANCE
- There is no need to apply for a separate DAR conversion clearance over a portion of the landholding where a clearance had already been issued. The conversion clearance issued by the PARO is encompassing as to include amenities incidental in carrying out the thrust and objective of the organization. It must be emphasized, however, that the area intended for said purpose is really within the same landholding, otherwise, application for land use conversion is already required.
DAR OPINION NO. 13, s. 2010
March 3, 2010
CONVERSION CLEARANCE; CONVERSION CLEARANCE NO LONGER NEEDED ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS EXPROPRIATED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS (LGUs) PURSUANT TO THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
Is Conversion Clearance required on agricultural lands expropriated by LGU pursuant to the power of eminent domain?
- Agricultural lands expropriated by Local Government Units (LGUs) pursuant to the power of eminent domain need not be subject of DAR conversion clearance prior to change in use. In Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled:
"Resolution No. 129, series of 1988, was promulgated pursuant to Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337, Local Government Code, xxx Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337 does not intimate in the least that local government units must first secure the approval of the Department of Land Reform for the conversion of lands from agricultural to non-agricultural use, before they can institute the necessary expropriation proceedings. Likewise, there is no provision in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which expressly subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units to the control of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
xxx xxx xxx
To sustain the Court of Appeals would mean that the local government units can no longer expropriate agricultural lands needed for the construction of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc., without first applying for conversion of the use of the lands with the Department of Agrarian Reform, because all of these projects would naturally involve a change in the land use. In effect, it would then be the Department of Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use."
July 9, 2003
CONVERSION CLEARANCE; NOT NECESSARY FOR LANDS EXEMPTED FROM CARP COVERAGE BY REASON OF RECLASSIFICATION BEFORE 15 JUNE 1988
- "Section 3. Applicability of Rules — These guidelines shall apply to all applications for conversion, from agricultural to non-agricultural uses, such as:
3.4. Conversion of agricultural lands or areas that have been reclassified by the LGU or by way of a Presidential Proclamation, to residential, commercial, industrial, or other non-agricultural uses on or after the effectivity of RA 6657 on 15 June 1988, pursuant to Section 20 of RA 7160, and other pertinent laws and regulations, and are to be converted to such uses. However, for those reclassified prior to 15 June 1988, the guidelines in securing an exemption clearance from the DAR shall apply."
- It can be clearly inferred from the above provisions that DAR Conversion Clearance is no longer necessary for lands exempted from CARP Coverage by reason of its reclassification as commercial, residential or industrial before 15 June 1988 and, that, only an exemption clearance is required. However, in your case, conversion clearance is necessary before any development on the land may be introduced because as per HLURB Certificate dated 28 August 2006 issued by Director Pilar J. Jamandre of HLURB Region VI, the subject landholdings are reclassified after June 15, 1988.
DAR OPINION NO. 06, s. 2007
February 7, 2007
CONVERSION CLEARANCE; NOT NEEDED ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS EXPROPRIATED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS (LGUs) PURSUANT TO THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
- The ruling in Camarines Sur may not be applicable in the instant case since it appears that the subject land was not expropriated by the LGU but was acquired through a private transaction. Only agricultural lands expropriated by local government units (LGUs) pursuant to the power of eminent domain may no longer be the subject of DAR conversion clearance prior to change in use. Thus, an application for conversion and DAR conversion clearance shall still be required if said agricultural lands shall be converted into residential or housing.
- On the other hand, should the subject lands be expropriated by the LGU rather than privately acquired, DAR conversion clearance may no longer be required pursuant to the said ruling in Camarines Sur.
DAR OPINION NO. 04, s. 2004
February 4, 2004
CONVERSION CLEARANCE; NOT NEEDED ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS EXPROPRIATED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS (LGUs) PURSUANT TO THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
- Agricultural lands expropriated by Local Government Units (LGUs) pursuant to the power of eminent domain need not be subject of DAR conversion clearance prior to change in use. In Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court ruled:
"Resolution No. 129, series of 1988, was promulgated pursuant to Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337, Local Government Code, xxx Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337 does not intimate in the least that local government units must first secure the approval of the Department of Land Reform for the conversion of lands from agricultural to non-agricultural use, before they can institute the necessary expropriation proceedings. Likewise, there is no provision in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which expressly subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by local government units to the control of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
xxx xxx xxx
To sustain the Court of Appeals would mean that the local government units can no longer expropriate agricultural lands needed for the construction of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc., without first applying for conversion of the use of the lands with the Department of Agrarian Reform, because all of these projects would naturally involve a change in the land use. In effect, it would then be the Department of Agrarian Reform to scrutinize whether the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use."
DAR OPINION NO. 11, s. 2003
July 9, 2003
CONVERSION OR EXEMPTION; NOT AUTOMATIC
Is an application for conversion or exemption still required?
- DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 2002 (2002 Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion); provides:
"Section 6. Priority Development Areas and Projects —
6.1 In accordance with RA 7916, EO-124-1993, and EO-258-2000, the following are priority development areas for land conversion:
xxx xxx xxx
6.1.3 Agricultural areas intended for Eco Zone Projects, endorsed by Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), pursuant to RA 7916."
- Conversion or exemption is not automatic. It must be on the merits after proper and thorough determination pursuant to the requirements and provisions of existing law and guidelines on conversion and/or exemption, as the case may be. Thus, an application for and order of conversion or exemption is still required.
December 16, 2003
CONVERSION OR EXEMPTION; PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS AND PROJECTS
- DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 2002 (2002 Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion); provides:
"Section 6. Priority Development Areas and Projects. —
6.1 In accordance with RA 7916, EO-124-1993, and EO-258-2000, the following are priority development areas for land conversion:
xxx xxx xxx
6.1.3 Agricultural areas intended for Eco Zone Projects, endorsed by Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA), pursuant to RA 7916."
DAR OPINION NO. 25, s. 2003
December 16, 2003
CONVERSION ORDER/CLEARANCE; REQUIRED BEFORE CHANGING THE CURRENT USE OF A LANDHOLDING
- It is the DAR's mandate to preserve and maintain agricultural lands with increased productivity. Any act of changing the current use of a landholding is tantamount to conversion which requires a conversion order/clearance from DAR. An absence of said order/clearance is prohibited by law.
DAR OPINION NO. 27, s. 2005
November 10, 2005
CONVERSION ORDER; ATTACHED REQUIREMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT PURPOSES
What is the purpose of the DAR Order of Conversion?
- The DAR Order of Conversion attaches to the land and authorizes the development of the property as specified in the application for conversion. Whoever owns the property must observe the conditions specified in said Order relative to the development of the property, otherwise the same shall be recalled.
September 2, 1994
CONVERSION ORDER; EFFECT
What is the effect of a Conversion Order?
- DAR Order of Conversion is in effect a go-signal for the use of the property for non-agricultural purposes, which further means that as long as said property is developed for the purpose specified in the application for conversion, it will no longer be distributed to farmer-beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. DAR will place the property under CARP compulsory coverage should there be failure to implement and complete the development of the area within the specified time, as provided in paragraph XVI of DAR A.O. 12, Series of 1994.
April 3, 1995
Can the converted lot be sold by executing a Deed of Absolute Sale?
- After the land has been converted, the same ceases to be agricultural over which the DAR has no more jurisdiction. Hence, it can already be sold by executing a Deed of Absolute Sale. This is in consonance with the legal-maxim in statutory construction that "when the reason of the law ceases, the law ceases."
DAR OPINION NO. 01, s. of 1997
January 9, 1997
May lands classified by the Department of Agriculture as no longer suitable for agriculture be sold to a third party without applying the DAR rules on conversion?
- If the agricultural land has been found to be no longer suitable or economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the Department of Agriculture, it can already be sold to a third party who may have interest over the same. However, in this case, conversion of the land shall first be required applying thereof the DAR rules on conversion.
March 20, 1997
CONVERSION ORDER; MANDATORY/LEGAL REQUIREMENT
Is DAR Conversion Order a mandatory requirement?
- Landowners are required to apply for DAR Conversion Order to enable them to legally convert a portion of their agricultural lands to residential purposes. The intent of said requirement is to allow the DAR to scrutinize the proposed conversion and ensure that the same is not done to circumvent the mandate of CARL to redistribute the property to qualified beneficiaries.
July 22, 1994
Is Conversion Order a legal requirement before a farmlot may be used for piggery project?
- The use of the farmlot for the piggery project must be covered by a DAR Order of Conversion for the change in land use to be considered legal.
October 16, 1995
CONVERSION ORDER; NO LONGER NECESSARY FOR PROPERTIES RECLASSIFIED AS NON-AGRICULTURAL PRIOR TO JUNE 15, 1988
- A conversion order is no longer necessary for properties already reclassified as non-agricultural prior to June 15, 1988 or before the effectivity of CARP. However, an exemption clearance is required. On the other hand, a conversion order is necessary for those agricultural properties reclassified as non-agricultural from June 15, 1988 onwards. Please note that a conversion order is necessary before any conversion activities may be performed on the subject lands.
DAR OPINION NO. 11, s. 2001
August 7, 2001
CONVERSION; AWARDED LANDS
- Lands awarded to farmer-beneficiaries can be the subject of conversion only after five (5) years from award when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial and industrial purposes. In such case, the DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition provided, that the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation.
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 2010
January 27, 2010
CONVERSION; RECLASSIFIED LANDS STILL NEEDS CONVERSION ORDER
- Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that when a land ceases to be of sound agricultural use, and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), upon application, may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition. An application before the DAR is a condition sine qua non in facilitating the conversion of the landholding into another purpose aside from agricultural use.
- Thus, landholding reclassified as non-agricultural by virtue of a City Ordinance after the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 still needs a conversion order from the DAR.
DAR OPINION NO. 20, s. 2010
July 7, 2010
CONVERSION; RETROACTIVE EFFECT OF A.O. NO. 5, S. 2007
- DAR A.O. No. 5, Series of 2007 was issued which prescribes rules and procedures relative to conversion of land from agricultural to non-agricultural use, hence, can be considered procedural in nature and could be given retroactive effect. In view thereof, said guideline could be applied retroactively to the application for PARO Clearance filed by Iglesia ni Cristo for the church they have constructed prior to the issuance of said guideline.
DAR OPINION NO. 08, s. 2010
January 26, 2010
CONVERSION; TEMPORARY SUSPENSION OF ALL CONVERSION APPLICATION FOR RICELAND
- Malacañang Administrative Order No. 226-A dated 14 July 2008 temporarily suspended all land use conversion applications affecting rice lands mentioned under Republic Act No. 8435 considered as Network of Protected Areas for Agriculture and Agro-Industrial Development (NPAAD) which includes and covers all irrigated area, all irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects for two (2) years and, in effect, repealed moratorium dated 15 April 2008 issued by Secretary Nasser C. Pangandaman.
DAR OPINION NO. 30, s. 2008
November 25, 2008
CONVERSION; APPLICATION FOR CONVERSION, CANNOT BE GIVEN DUE COURSE IF THERE IS ALREADY A NOTICE OF ACQUISITION
May the application for conversion be given due course if the DAR has already issued a Notice of Acquisition?
- DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1994 entitled, "Consolidated and Revised Rules and Procedures Governing Conversion of Agricultural Land to Non-agricultural Uses", specifically VI-E provides that "No application for conversion shall be given due course if 1) the DAR has issued a Notice of Acquisition under the Compulsory Acquisition process; . . . ."
December 24, 1996
CONVERSION; AREAS NON-NEGOTIABLE FOR CONVERSION
Are lands covered by commercial farm deferment negotiable for conversion?
- Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1997 (Item VI-B, 3 and 4) enumerates the areas which shall not be subject to or non-negotiable for conversion; and the areas classified as highly restricted from conversion. A reading of such enumeration reveals that lands covered by a commercial farm deferment order is not included among them. Hence, lands may be the subject of an application for conversion provided that the property has not been actually distributed to the farmer-beneficiaries thereof and, provided further, that the requirements mentioned under said guideline are duly complied with if the subject lands for conversion fall within Item VI-B (4-b and c) of the guideline
February 4, 1998
What are the lands that are non-negotiable for conversion?
- Under Administrative Order No. 20 of the Office of the President, it expressly provides that the following shall not be subject to and non-negotiable for conversion: 1) all irrigated lands where water is available to support rice and other crop production, and all irrigated lands where water is not available for rice and other crop production but are within areas programmed for irrigation facility rehabilitation by the Department of Agriculture and National Irrigation Administration; and 2) all irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects with firm funding commitments at the time of the application for land use conversion.
July 1, 1997
CONVERSION; AS DISTINGUISHED FROM RECLASSIFICATION
- DAR's conversion authority is most often seen as synonymous with the power of local government units (LGUs) to reclassify lands within their territorial jurisdiction. This misconception has resulted in a clash, lot of conflicts and confusion not only between the two agencies but among other concerned sectors.
- "Reclassification" refers to the "act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses as residential, industrial, commercial, as embodied in the land use plan, subject to the requirements and procedures for conversion. It also includes the reversion of non-agricultural use." (Joint HLURB, DAR, DA, DILG Memo Circular Prescribing the Guidelines to Implement OP-MC 54, [1995], sec. 2[2.3]). On the other hand, conversion is defined by the same Memorandum Circular as the "act of changing the current use of a piece of land into some other use." (Id., sec. 2 [2.2])
DAR OPINION NO. 26, s. 2007
September 27, 2007
CONVERSION; AUTHORITY OF DAR TO APPROVE CONVERSION WITHIN OR OUTSIDE URBAN CENTERS OR CITY LIMITS
Whether or not landowners of agricultural lands within or outside Urban center or City Limits need to apply for conversion?
- If a piece of land is agricultural, whether it is within or outside urban centers or city limits, it is coverable under CARP and any change in the nature of its use to non agricultural may not be allowed except with the approval of DAR under its rules on conversion or exemption. When the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish.
- Thus, the act or process of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other non-agricultural use necessitates DAR approval notwithstanding that said land is within city limits or urban centers, or, was already reclassified into non-agricultural on or after 15 June 1988 as provided above.
September 10, 2001
CONVERSION; AUTHORITY OF DAR TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE CONVERSION
What agency of the government has the authority to approve or disapprove conversion?
- The authority to reclassify lands is lodged with the local government units concerned pursuant to section 20 of R.A. No. 7160 (Local Government Code) while the exclusive authority to approve or disapprove applications for conversion belongs to the Department of Agrarian Reform as provided under Sections 4 (j) and 5 (l) of Executive Order No. 129-A and Section 4 of presidential Memorandum Circular No. 54, series of 1993.
August 28, 2003
CONVERSION; AUTHORITY OF DAR TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE CONVERSION
What agency of the government has the authority to approve or disapprove conversion?
- Pursuant to Section 4 (j) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987, the Department of Agrarian Reform is mandated to "approve or disapprove applications for conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses". Section 4 (l) of said law likewise vests in the DAR the exclusive authority to approve or disapprove applications for conversion of agricultural lands for residential, commercial, industrial, and other land uses. Applications for conversion must comply with the documentary requirements and procedures as laid down under DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 1997.
March 22, 1999
Is Conversion Order necessary before the land can be legally converted?
- If the land had not been devoted to poultry raising prior to 15 June 1988 (i.e., effectivity of R.A. No. 6657) but, nevertheless, the landowner wishes to convert his land for said purpose, the owner must perforce apply for conversion pursuant to the provisions of Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1997, otherwise, the conversion of the crop land without the benefit of DAR conversion clearance or approval shall be construed as an intent to avoid the application of CARP and will thus be considered as invalid and illegal.
- The same rule applies even if the land is purportedly devoted to poultry raising as of 15 June 1988 and subsequently converted unilaterally by the landowner to residential, commercial or industrial since the presumption is that the land is agricultural. To forego with the requirement of DAR Conversion Clearance on or after said date might open the floodgates towards widespread circumvention of the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 and is violative of the legal mandate of DAR to approve or disapprove applications for conversion from the aforesaid date pursuant to Section 4 (j) and Section 5 (l) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1997, and DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990.
October 12, 1998
March 5, 1998
CONVERSION; AUTHORITY OF REGIONAL DIRECTOR TO APPROVE CONVERSION
Who has the authority to approve conversion?
- Conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses insofar as those with areas of not more than five (5) hectares is cognizable by the DAR Regional Director. This is pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 7, Series of 1997. Hence, application for DAR Conversion Clearance cannot be dispensed with.
March 22, 1999
CONVERSION; AUTHORITY TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE
Which has the authority to approve or disapprove conversion?
- The exclusive authority to approve or disapprove applications for conversion of agricultural lands for residential, commercial, industrial and other land uses is vested with the Department of Agrarian Reform (Sections 4(j) and 5(l), Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987). Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) likewise empowers the DAR to authorize under certain conditions, the conversion of agricultural lands.
- Corollarily, DAR Administrative Order No. 08, Series of 1995 provides that any change in the nature of awarded lands' use shall not be allowed except with the approval of the DAR under its rules on conversion or exemption.
January 11, 2000
CONVERSION; BASES TO SUPPORT AN APPLICATION FOR CONVERSION
What are the bases to support an application for conversion?
- Pursuant to Section 4 of Memorandum Circular No. 54, series of 1993 of the Office of the President, in relation to Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657 and Sections 4 (j) and 5 (l) of Executive Order No. 129-A, actions on application for land use conversions shall remain as the responsibility of DAR. The DAR shall, in such applications, utilize as its primary reference, documents on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and accompanying ordinance passed upon and approved by the local government units concerned, together with the National Land Use Policy. It must be stressed, however , that although said documents serve as bases to support an Application for Conversion, actual land use conversion takes place only upon the issuance of a DAR Order approving said application.
September 10, 2001
CONVERSION; BASIS OF COMPUTATION OF FILING FEES FOR APPLICATION
What is the basis of computing the filing fees for application for conversion?
- Section 12, Art. III of DAR A.O. No. 01, Series of 1999 provides for the rates of filing fees in applications for conversion, that is, the size or area of the land being sought to be converted.
October 6, 1999
CONVERSION; BEFORE THE EFFECTIVITY OF CARL
Is the conversion of property before the effectivity of CARL or without the authority to convert falls within the purview of CARL?
- The conversion of the property to industrial uses long before the effectivity of CARL, if made without the requisite authority to convert did not have the effect of legally placing the property outside the classification of agricultural land, hence, the same still falls within the purview of CARL. It follows that a DAR Clearance for conversion must first be obtained.
July 18, 1996
CONVERSION; CARP AWARDED LAND
Are lands awarded to farmer-beneficiaries be the subject of conversion?
- Pursuant to Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657, lands awarded to farmer-beneficiaries can be the subject of conversion only after five (5) years from award when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes. In such case, the DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition: provided, that the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation. Obviously, the construction of a post harvest facility which is the solar dryer of the farmer cooperative will in effect change the current use of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural which therefore necessitates an application for conversion pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 1997.
December 8, 1998
CONVERSION; CARP AWARDED LANDS
- Once an application for conversion is granted by DAR, it follows that the awarded land is eligible for disposition/conveyance to persons outside those enumerated under Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 and A.O. No. 8, series of 1995.
- It is explicit from the provision of Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657 that reclassification or conversion and disposition of awarded lands after the lapse of five (5) years is allowed provided that the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbanized and that the land have a greater value for purposes other than agricultural.
- That the transfer of awarded lands prior to the lapse of ten (10) years from its award is allowed only after full payment of land amortization and provided, further that the conditions/pre-requisites laid down in Section 65, or under A.O. No. 8, Series of 1995 are observed.
DAR OPINION NO. 11, s. 2009
June 2, 2009
CONVERSION; CLEARANCE FOR ROAD CONSTRUCTION
Is DAR Conversion Clearance required for purposes of building a road within an agricultural road?
- DAR Conversion clearance is still necessary for the purpose of building a road within an agricultural land. Building said road is an act of conversion because it would change the use of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural, albeit the same would likewise facilitate the transport of agricultural products.
- Prior DAR approval must be sought when a portion of agricultural land is intended to be used as a road to safeguard against indiscriminate land use conversion to the detriment of agricultural production.
December 13, 1996
CONVERSION; COCONUT LANDS ELIGIBLE FOR LAND USE CONVERSION
- Should the coconut land not belong to either item I or II of Article II Sections 4 and 5 of DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 2002, then the same can be a subject of an application for conversion.
- Malacañang Administrative Order No. 226 dated 16 May 2008 was to temporarily suspend all land use conversion applications affecting rice lands mentioned under Republic Act No. 8435 considered as Network of Protected Areas for Agriculture and Agro-Industrial Development (NPAAD) for two (2) years and, in effect, repealed moratorium dated 15 April 2008 issued by Secretary Nasser C. Pangandaman, which temporarily suspended all Land Use Conversion applications. Clearly, therefore, coconut lands are not included in the said A.O.
DAR OPINION NO. 26, s. 2008
October 9, 2008
CONVERSION; COMMENCES UPON THE ISSUANCES OF A DAR ORDER APPROVING SAID APPLICATION
- Pursuant to Section 4 of Memorandum Circular No. 54, series of 1993 of the Office of the President, in relation to Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657 and Sections 4 (j) and 5 (l) of Executive Order No. 129-A, actions on application for land use conversions shall remain as the responsibility of DAR. The DAR shall, in such applications, utilize as its primary reference, documents on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan and accompanying ordinance passed upon and approved by the local government units concerned, together with the National Land Use Policy. It must be stressed, however, that although said documents serve as bases to support an Application for Conversion, actual land use conversion takes place only upon the issuance of a DAR Order approving said application.
DAR OPINION NO. 16, s. 2001
September 10, 2001
CONVERSION; CONDITIONS
When may the conversion of farmlot be allowed by DAR?
- The conversion of farmlot may be allowed by DAR only if the following conditions are satisfied:
a. that 5 years have elapsed from the award thereof;
b. that the land has ceased to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes; and
c. that the farmlot has been fully paid.
January 25, 1996
CONVERSION; CONSTRUCTION OF FEEDER ROAD CONSTITUTES CONVERSION
- Any change of the current use of an agricultural land to non agricultural use is tantamount to conversion, no matter how minimal the area that will be covered or affected by such change. The construction of a feeder road, which is a branch railway to a main line or minor road to a main one, is already an act of conversion because it would change the use of the land from agricultural to non agricultural even if the same would likewise facilitate the transport of agricultural products.
- Conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural use is strictly regulated and may be allowed only when the conditions prescribed under R.A. No. 6657 and/or R.A. No. 8435 are present and complied with (DAR A.O. No. 01, series of 2002, 2002 Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion).
DAR OPINION NO. 01, s. 2008
January 4, 2008
CONVERSION; CONVERSION CLEARANCE NECESSARY BEFORE CONVERSION OF AN AGRICULTURAL LAND RECLASSIFIED AS NON-AGRICULTURAL AFTER 15 JUNE 1988 TAKES PLACE
Whether or not conversion clearance must be secured first before agricultural lands which are reclassified as non-agricultural after 15 June 1988 be converted?
- With respect to agricultural lands which are reclassified to commercial, industrial or residential in the new or revised town plans promulgated by the local government unit (LGU) and approved by the HLURB or by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) after June 15, 1988 in accordance with Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160 (Local Government Code), and other pertinent laws and regulations, Conversion Clearance must be secured from the DAR before these lands may be converted to such uses.
September 10, 2001
CONVERSION; CONVERSION CLEARANCE NO LONGER NEEDED ON AGRICULTURAL LANDS EXPROPRIATED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS (LGUs) PURSUANT TO THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
Is Conversion Clearance required on agricultural lands expropriated by LGU pursuant to the power of eminent domain?
- The ruling in Camarines Sur may not be applicable in the instant case since it appears that the subject land was not expropriated by the LGU but was acquired through a private transaction. Only agricultural lands expropriated by local government units (LGUs) pursuant to the power of eminent domain may no longer be the subject of DAR conversion clearance prior to change in use. Thus, an application for conversion and DAR conversion clearance shall still be required if said agricultural lands shall be converted into residential or housing.
- On the other hand, should the subject lands be expropriated by the LGU rather than privately acquired, DAR conversion clearance may no longer be required pursuant to the said ruling in Camarines Sur.
February 4, 2004
CONVERSION; CONVERSION CLEARANCE REQUIRED BEFORE LANDHOLDINGS ARE CONVERTED INTO A FARMLOT SUBDIVISION
Is DAR Conversion Clearance required before said landholdings are to be converted into a farmlot subdivision?
- If subject properties are to be developed into a farmlot subdivision under such facts and circumstances as planned, said lands will in effect revert to agricultural since they will no longer be actually, directly and exclusively used for the purpose for which they were exempted (i.e., livestock). Thus, they may be covered under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Accordingly, conversion clearance is necessary if said landholdings are to be converted into a farmlot subdivision.
March 2, 2004
CONVERSION; CONVERSION OF A PORTION OF AN AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF ERECTING A CELL SITE
Is conversion order required in converting a portion of an agricultural land for the purpose of erecting a cell site?
- DAR's mandate is to preserve and maintain agricultural lands with increased productivity. But where, as apparently it is herein, there is need for conversion in the land use of an agricultural land, existing laws and issuances have provided for the conditions and requirements therefore. Should there be non-compliance, same may constitute a prohibited act under Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6657 and related laws and, accordingly, criminally punishable.
June 7, 2002
CONVERSION; CONVERSION OF COCONUT LAND INTO RESIDENTIAL, BUILDING PERMIT
Is Conversion Order required in converting coconut lands into residential?
- This Department has consistently enunciated the basic rule that if the land is classified as agricultural, it may be used for non-agricultural purposes, only if an application for conversion has been approved by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). As defined in this jurisdiction, conversion is the act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other uses, i.e., residential, commercial or industrial. The conversion of subject coconut land into residential land may be legally undertaken only after approval thereof by the DAR as provided in Sections 4 (j) and 5 (l) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987 in relation with DAR Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1997.
- Moreover, it is a requirement under P.D. No. 1096 (Section 301 thereof) that no person, firm or corporation, including any agency or instrumentality of the government shall erect, construct, alter, repair, move, convert or demolish any building or structure or cause the same to be done without first obtaining a building permit therefor from the Building Official assigned in the place where the building is located or the building work is to be done.
March 22, 1999
CONVERSION; CONVERTED PROPERTY MAY BE USED AS COLLATERAL IN A CONTRACT OF MORTGAGE WITH THE BANK
Is it proper to use the converted property as collateral in a contract of mortgage with the bank?
- There is nothing illegal nor improper to use the converted property as collateral in a contract of mortgage with the bank. The rationale for the allowance of a mortgage as security is premised on the theory that contract of mortgage is even less burdensome than the contract of sale. It stands to reason that if a converted property can be the subject of a contract of sale, with more reason that it can be the subject of a contract of mortgage. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of "Adlawan, et al. vs. Hon. Torres, et al." G.R. No. 65957-58, July 5, 1994, by mortgaging a piece of property, a debtor merely subject it to a lien but ownership thereof is not parted with.
- Moreover, after the property has been legally converted, the same ceases to be agricultural over which the DAR has no more jurisdiction. The aforecited interpretation is in consonance with the legal maxim in statutory construction that "when the reason of the law ceases, the law ceases". Such being the case, there is no reason much less legal impediment why the property which has been legally converted cannot be the object of a contract of mortgage to finance the proposed project.
January 27, 1997
CONVERSION; CREATION OF PROVINCIAL/CITY TASK FORCES ON ILLEGAL CONVERSION
- Under Article IX, Sections 50 and 54.1 of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2002 (2002 Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion) in relation to Item III.A and B of Joint DAR-DOJ Administrative Order No. 05, Series of 1994 that it is mandatory to create Provincial/City Task Forces on Illegal Conversion which are responsible for the investigation, gathering of evidence, filing and monitoring of complaints against illegal, premature or unauthorized conversion within their respective areas of jurisdiction.
DLR OPINION NO. 24, s. 2005
September 13, 2005
CONVERSION; DAR’S AUTHORITY TO APPROVE
Reclassification may be allowed provided there is compliance with the requirement of DAR Certification that subject lands are not distributed or covered by a notice of acquisition/valuation and, provided further, that, said lands are not classified as non-negotiable for conversion. However, while ordinances reclassifying lands are not subject to DAR approval, finality of the ordinance reclassifying the land will not convert the agricultural areas covered thereby to non-agricultural uses. It is still the DAR which has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to order the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses as it is the DAR’s mandate to preserve and maintain agricultural lands with increased productivity and any act of changing the current use of a landholding is tantamount to conversion which requires a conversion order/clearance from DAR. Thus, an absence of said order/clearance is prohibited by law.
The provision of Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160 is explicit when it provides a city or municipality may, through an ordinance passed by the sanggunian after conducting public hearings for the purpose, authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition in the following cases: (1) when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the Department of Agriculture or (2) where the land shall have substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes, as determined by the sanggunian concerned.
DAR OPINION NO. 02, s. 2009
February 2, 2009
CONVERSION; DAR's AUTHORITY TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE AS MANDATED UNDER E.O. NO. 129-A
- The mandate of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in the area of land use conversion is found in the following provisions of law:
1. Sections 4 (j) and 5 (l) of Executive Order No. 129-A (Modifying Executive Order No. 129 Reorganizing and Strengthening Department of Agrarian Reform and for Other Purposes):
"Section 4. Mandate. — The Department shall be responsible for implementing the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and, for such purpose, it is authorized to:
xxx xxx xxx
j) Approve or disapprove the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses;
xxx xxx xxx
Section 5. Powers and Functions. — Pursuant to the mandate of the Department and in order to ensure the successful implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, the Department is hereby authorized to:
xxx xxx xxx
l) Have exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversion of agricultural lands for residential, commercial, industrial, and other land uses as may be provided for by law."
2. Section 65 of Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law:
"SECTION 65. Conversion of Lands. — After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR, upon application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws, may authorize the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition: Provided, That the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation."
DAR OPINION NO. 06, s. 2007
February 7, 2007
CONVERSION; DAR'S EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
Is the use of an agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes subject to DAR's evaluation and approval?
- Since land use conversion falls within the jurisdiction of the DAR, the use of an agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes is subject to DAR's evaluation and approval. This means that before an agricultural land embraced by Ordinance No. 10 may be used for non-agricultural purposes an application for conversion thereof must be filed with the DAR
- Land Use Conversion is the actual change in land use from agricultural to non-agricultural and goes through the DAR's evaluation process, which takes into account the tenants and farmworkers, if any, on the landholding and the ascertainment of disturbance compensation.
March 27, 1996
CONVERSION; DEFINED
How is conversion defined?
- Conversion is defined as the act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other uses, i.e., residential, commercial or industrial. The conversion of an agricultural land to non-agricultural use may be legally undertaken only after approval thereof by the DAR.
November 7, 2000
December 23, 1999
CONVERSION; DEFINED, ROLE OF DAR
What is conversion?
- Conversion is defined as the act of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other uses, i.e., residential, commercial or industrial. There is no conversion to speak of if the change of crop will not change the use of the land as agricultural.
February 22, 1995
Who shall approve or disapprove the conversion of agricultural lands into other land uses?
- The authority to approve or disapprove application for land use conversion vests exclusively in the Department of Agrarian Reform (E.O. No. 129-A, Series of 1987). Likewise, A.O. No. 12, series of 1994 provides that the DAR is mandated to approve or disapprove applications for conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses. It can be logically inferred therefrom that the formulation of guidelines relative thereto shall also be within the jurisdiction of the DAR.
December 13, 1996
CONVERSION; DISTINCTION BETWEEN LAND USE CONVERSION AND FARMLOT SUBDIVISION
What is the difference between Land Use Conversion and Farmlot Subdivision?
- As defined in DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1999, "land use conversion" refers to the act or process of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use as approved by DAR. On the other hand, a "farmlot subdivision" had been defined under the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (now Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board) Rules and Regulations Implementing Farmlot Subdivision Plan as "a Planned community intended primarily for intensive agricultural activities, and secondarily for housing."
August 9, 2001
CONVERSION; DISTINCTION BETWEEN LAND USE CONVERSION AND FARMLOT SUBDIVISION
- As defined in DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1999, "land use conversion" refers to the act or process of changing the current use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use as approved by DAR. On the other hand, a "farmlot subdivision" had been defined under the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (now Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board) Rules and Regulations Implementing Farmlot Subdivision Plan as "a Planned community intended primarily for intensive agricultural activities, and secondarily for housing."
DAR OPINION NO. 10, s. 2001
August 9, 2001
CONVERSION; DISTINGUISHED FROM LAND RECLASSIFICATION
Are reclassification and conversion synonymous with each other?
- Reclassification and conversion are not synonymous and therefore do not refer to one and the same thing. Land reclassification is a power exercised by the municipal or city government through the town planning process, subject to review and approval by the Provincial Sanggunian through the Provincial Land Use Council (PLUC). Land Use Conversion, on the other hand, is the actual change in land use from agricultural to non-agricultural and goes through the DAR's evaluation process, which takes into account the tenants and farmworkers, if any, on the landholding and the ascertainment of disturbance compensation. It bears stressing here that ordinances reclassifying lands are not subject to DAR approval, however, the finality of the ordinance reclassifying the land will not convert the agricultural areas covered thereby to non-agricultural uses. Land use conversion legally falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR, thus, the change in the use of an agricultural land for non-agricultural purposes is subject to DAR's evaluation and approval.
February 11, 1999
Is conversion under RA 6657 the same as reclassification under the Local Government Code?
- Conversion refers to the "change of the current use" of an agricultural land to non-agricultural use which is within the legal jurisdiction of DAR pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 (j) and 5 (l) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987, Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657, Section 4 of Memorandum Circular No. 54, Series of 1993 of the Office of the President, Malacañang Administrative Order No. 363, Series of 1997 and DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 1997. On the other hand, R.A. No. 7160 or the Local Government Code speaks of reclassification not conversion. Land use reclassification by the Local Government Unit does not place the subject property outside the purview of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program since it merely specifies how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, commercial as embodied in the land use plan. In other words, R.A. No. 7160 speaks only of reclassification not conversion which is still within the legal jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
July 7, 1998
CONVERSION; DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR APPLICATION FOR CONVERSION
- Please be reminded that in the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), the pertinent administrative orders, memorandum and other rules and guidelines applicable on the matter must be observed, unless they are abrogated, suspended, repealed, or superseded. Henceforth, applicant Iglesia Ni Cristo must comply the required submission of documents, otherwise the said application will be denied. The DAR personnel cannot do away such rules and guidelines without infringing the procedural due process in the implementation of the CAR Program. The applicable rule on the matter is Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2002, entitled Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion. Thus, the aforementioned administrative order should be your guiding rule on the issue.
DAR OPINION NO. 21, s. 2006
July 25, 2006
CONVERSION; DOCUMENTS REQUIRED FOR APPLICATION OF CONVERSION
What are the documents required to support the application for conversion?
- As to the documents required to support the application for conversion, you my refer to Administrative Order No. 01, series of 1999 for your general guidance and reference.
DAR OPINION NO. 06, s. 2001
July 9, 2001
CONVERSION; EFFECT OF FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE CONDITIONS OF CONVERSION ORDER
What is the effect of failure to comply with the conditions of conversion order?
- Effect of Failure to Comply with the Conditions Enumerated in Section 33 (Conditions of Conversion order) of Article V (Issuance of Conversion Order and its Effects), Particularly the Period Within Which the Applicant Must Submit Documents to the Regional Center for Land Use Policy Planning and Implementation (RCLUPPI)
Pertinent to the above issue are the following provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 01, series of 2002:
Section 47. Grounds. — The following acts or omissions shall warrant revocation of the Conversion Order:
xxx xxx xxx
47.3. Non-compliance with the conditions of the Conversion Order. (emphasis supplied)
Section 61. Administrative Sanctions. — The DAR may impose any or all of the following sanctions after determining, in an appropriate administrative proceeding, that a violation of these Rules has been committed:
61.1. Revocation or withdrawal of the authorization for land use conversion;
61.2. Blacklisting of the applicant, developer or representative;
61.3. Automatic disapproval of pending and subsequent conversion applications that the offender may file with the DAR;
61.4. Issuance of cease and desist order by the Secretary or Regional Director, as the case may be, upon verified reports that premature, illegal or unauthorized conversion activities are being undertaken; or
61.5. Forfeiture of cash bond or performance bond." (emphasis supplied)
- Given the above provisions, the time frame stated in the conditions of the Conversion Order must be complied with. Otherwise, corresponding sanctions could be imposed, as may be warranted.
December 9, 2003
CONVERSION; EFFECT OF REVOCATION OF CONVERSION ORDER
- Pursuant to Section 49 of Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2002 (2002 Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion), the effect of the revocation of the conversion order is that the land subject thereof shall be reverted to the status of agricultural lands and shall be subjected to CARP coverage as circumstances may warrant. Thus, the landholding subject of the revocation order can be subjected to CARP acquisition for distribution to qualified beneficiaries.
DAR OPINION NO. 16, s. 2005
May 3, 2005
CONVERSION; EFFECTS OF APPROVED CONVERSION ORDER
- Section 34, DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 2002
"Section 34. Effects of approval of conversion. — The approval of an application for conversion shall have, but shall not be limited to, the following effects:
34.1 It shall be limited to the specific use of the land authorized in the Conversion Order;
34.2 It shall be subject to the schedule indicated in the detailed site development, work and financial plans, but in no case shall the period of development extend beyond five (5) years from issuance of the Conversion Order except as authorized by the Secretary or the approving official on meritorious grounds, provided that, if the development cannot be accomplished within five (5) years, the grantee of the Conversion Order shall submit a written request for extension within the six (6) months before the lapse of the five (5) year period, and provided further, that the extended development period shall be one (1) year for every five (5) hectares, but in no case shall the extension exceed five (5) years.
34.3 The conditions thereof shall be binding upon successors-in-interest of the property."
DAR OPINION NO. 11, s. 2004
April 13, 2004
CONVERSION; EXEMPTION FROM CONVERSION CLEARANCE OF GOVERNMENT OWNED AND CONTROLLED CORPORATIONS
Is a government-owned and controlled corporation exempt from Conversion Clearance thru the exercise of its right to eminent domain?
- Landholdings acquired by NPC, a Government-Owned and Controlled Corporation, thru the exercise of its right to eminent domain shall be exempt from Conversion Clearance since the intention for which said landholdings has been expropriated is for public use and public purpose. Permits/clearances are required only to conversion or reclassification submitted by landowners or tenant beneficiaries but not to lands taken by the government for public use or purpose.
- It has to be established, however, that the expropriation is indeed for public use and that the subject agricultural lands are not to be owned by the National Power Corporation and/or its partner-entity in their proprietary capacity actually and primarily intended for profit or pecuniary purposes, otherwise, the project partakes of the nature of a private endeavor where the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1997 will apply. Item No. IV (c) of said guideline provides:
"IV. Who may apply for conversion:
xxx xxx xxx
Government agencies, including government owned or controlled corporations."
May 19, 1998
Is a Conversion Clearance condition sine qua non before conversion can be legally undertaken?
- The issuance of DAR Conversion Order by the Department of Agrarian Reform is a mandatory requirement intended to preserve prime agricultural lands for food production purposes, and to give highest priority to the completion of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). In line with this declared policy, the DAR as the agency tasked to implement the agrarian reform program of the government is mandated pursuant to Section 4 (j) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987 to approve or disapprove the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses. Clearly, the imposition of DAR Conversion Order as a condition sine qua non before conversion can be legally undertaken is a compulsory one, which exempts no one from compliance therewith including government agencies and government-owned or controlled corporations.
March 05, 1998
CONVERSION; FARMLOT SUBDIVISIONS STILL NEED CONVERSION CLEARANCE
- The fact that there is a housing requirement is an indication to change the use of an agricultural land to residential and this is covered by the definition of "land use conversion". In other words, the slightest change in the agricultural land use to some other non-agricultural use (which in this case is residential), no matter how minimal the area to be covered by such change and even if housing is a secondary purpose, will be interpreted as land use conversion. As such, there is a need to apply for conversion clearance from the DAR.
- The issuance of HLURB Resolution No. 750 (Liberalizing the Requirements and License to Sell for Farmlot Subdivisions) is no in accordance with DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 2002 (Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion). It appears that the Board has put emphasis only on the definition of farmlot subdivisions as a planned community intended primarily for agricultural activity that became their basis in the issuance of said Resolution without regard on the other use of the land.
DAR OPINION NO. 10, s. 2006
January 31, 2006
CONVERSION; FILING FEE, INSPECTION FEE AND FORFEITED CASH BOND TO BE REMITTED TO ARF 158
- Section 1.d of R.A. No. 8532 [An Act Strengthening Further the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), by Providing Augmentation Fund Therefor, Amending for the Purpose Section 63 of Republic Act No. 6657, Otherwise Known as "The CARP Law of 1988"] provides that among the sources of funding or appropriations of the Agrarian Reform Fund (ARF) include "all income and collections arising from the agrarian reform operations, projects and programs of CARP implementing agencies."
- Section 9.3.7 of DAR Memorandum Circular No. 02, Series of 2002 (Guidelines for the Processing of Land Use Conversion Application's Pursuant to AO No. 1, Series of 2002) further provides that "the bond forfeited pursuant to this Memorandum Circular shall be remitted to ARF 158 in accordance with Section 1.d of Republic Act No. 8532, subject to existing accounting and auditing rules and regulations."
- In view of the foregoing, collected filing and inspection fees and forfeited cash bonds shall be remitted to ARF 158 and may not therefore be allowed to be deposited in your local trust account.
DAR OPINION NO. 03, s. 2005
February 9, 2005
CONVERSION; GROUNDS THEREOF
What are the grounds for conversion?
- Sec. 65 of RA 6657 expressly provides for 2 grounds under which the DAR may authorize the reclassification or conversion and disposition of agricultural land awarded pursuant to said law, to wit: when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become highly urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes.
December 13, 1996
CONVERSION; GUIDING PRINCIPLE
- The guiding principle for the policies on conversion is the prevention of indiscriminate conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses which may lead to the diminution of CARP coverage and the undue displacement of tenants and beneficiaries.
DAR OPINION NO. 03-A, s. 2009
March 6, 2009
CONVERSION; ILLEGAL CONVERSION CASE SHALL PROSPER NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABSENCE OF A CEASE AND DESIST ORDER
Whether or not a case for illegal conversion shall prosper notwithstanding the absence of a cease and desist order?
- A case for illegal conversion shall prosper notwithstanding the absence of a cease and desist order. It is not a prerequisite for filing an illegal conversion case. What is important is the existence of a prima facie case of illegal, premature, or unauthorized conversion and the issuance of a Cease and Desist Order is, at best, procedural and when warranted by the circumstances to prevent further damage to the agricultural state of the land involved.
October 1, 2001
CONVERSION; ILLEGAL CONVERSION, DAR AS COMPLAINANT
Can the DAR serve as complainant in illegal conversion cases?
- Pursuant to Joint DAR-DOJ Administrative Order No. 04, Series of 1993 as amended by Joint DAR-DOJ Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1994, it expressly provides that the DAR Members of the Provincial/City Task Force have the duty to file the necessary complaint-affidavit together with supporting documents before the task force member prosecutor. In turn, it is the duty and responsibility of the DOJ Prosecutor Member to recommend and file criminal cases before the courts against the landowners and developers involved in illegal conversion of agricultural lands under R.A. No. 6657. Likewise stated therein is that the Provincial/City Task Force is jointly headed by the DAR Chief Legal Officer in the province and the Provincial or City Prosecutor. It has for its members thereof the Chief Agrarian Reform Program Officer in the said province including two (2) MAROs to be designated by the PARO and, likewise, the Assistant Provincial/City Prosecutors to be designated by the Provincial/City Prosecutor.
- From the aforesaid circumstances, the Department of Agrarian Reform which may be properly represented by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officers may serve as the complainants in illegal conversion cases, considering that they are in the best position to determine the factual incidents regarding the matter.
April 08, 1998
CONVERSION; ILLEGAL, ELEMENTS
What are the elements of illegal conversion?
- Under paragraph (c) of Section 73 of R.A. no. 6657 there are two elements of the crime of illegal conversion; first is the conversion by any landowner of his agricultural land into non-agricultural use with intent to avoid the application of R.A. No. 6657, and second to dispossess his tenant farmers of the land tilled by them. Absence of either of the elements mentioned would result in the dismissal of the illegal conversion case.
Does illegal conversion take place if the land is untenanted?
- There is no illegal conversion if the land is untenanted. However, although the two elements must concur under Sec. 73 par. © the absence of either may still cause the prosecution of the crime of illegal conversion for the willful prevention or obstruction by any person, association, or entity of the implementation of the CARP under Section 73, par. (d) of the same law.
MAY 8, 1997
CONVERSION; INSTANCES WHEN CONVERSION CLEARANCE MAY BE DISPENSED WITH
What are the instances when we can dispense with conversion clearance?
- DAR conversion clearance is no longer needed for lands exempted from CARP coverage by reason of its reclassification as commercial, residential or industrial before 15 June 1988. Thus, in DAR Opinion No. 11, series of 2001, we stated that a conversion order is no longer necessary for properties already classified as non-agricultural prior to June 15, 1988 or before the effectivity of CARP and, that, only an exemption clearance is required.
- Although in said opinion it was opined that exemption from CARP coverage is not in the same nature as conversion of agricultural land from agricultural use to non-agricultural use, we qualified the same in the penultimate paragraph of the same opinion that "DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1994 (sic) is the only ground for exemption which does not require a conversion order/clearance". Thus, exemption from CARP coverage pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990 as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994 partakes in effect, as in the instant case, of the nature of a conversion of agricultural lands from agricultural to non-agricultural use since said lands reclassified as non-agricultural prior to 15 June 1988 are no longer deemed agricultural and covered by CARP pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990 and Sections 3 (c) and 4 of R.A. No. 6657.
July 12, 2002
CONVERSION; INSTANCES WHEN THE REQUISITE CLEARANCE MAY BE DISPENSED WITH (ESTABLISHMENT OF POST-HARVEST FACILITIES)
What are the instances when the requisite clearance for conversion may be dispensed with?
- 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 (i.e., establishment of said post-harvest facilities) 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.
October 28, 1999
CONVERSION; IRRIGATED AND IRRIGABLE LANDS NOT SUBJECT TO CONVERSION
- Section 22 of R.A. No. 9700 [An Act Strengthening the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), Extending the Acquisition and Distribution of All Agricultural Lands, Instituting Necessary Reforms, Amending for the Purpose Certain Provision of Republic Act No. 6657, Otherwise Known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, As Amended, and Appropriating Funds Therefor] provides that irrigated and irrigable lands shall not be subject to conversion. Simply put, Malacanang Administrative Order No. 226-A suspending for two (2) years the processing and approval of all land conversion applications for all rice lands is deemed repealed in view of the latter law prohibiting the conversion of irrigated and irrigable lands.
DAR OPINION NO. 19, s. 2009
October 8, 2009
CONVERSION; IRRIGATED LANDS NON-NEGOTIABLE FOR CONVERSION
Are irrigated lands subject to conversion?
- Administrative Order No. 20 of the Office of the President provides that all irrigated lands are not subject to and non-negotiable for conversion.
May 28, 1996
Are government agencies allowed to develop for residential purposes lands which are irrigated?
- While transfer in favor of NHA is highly favored for undoubtedly, it is the indigent that would benefit from it, the same is not without limitation. Administrative Order No. 20, S. 1992 of the Office of the President expressly provides that "all irrigated lands shall not be subject to and non-negotiable for conversion". In this light, transfer in favor of NHA cannot be granted as a matter of right even if it is a government agency if the subject landholding is irrigated. Conversely, if the landholding is un-irrigated, the same can be devoted to the purpose intended provided the requirements prescribed under DAR Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1994 on land use conversion are complied with. Such being the case, the NHA should still file an application for conversion.
January 28, 1997
CONVERSION; ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF ELIGIBILITY
Is the issuance of Certificate of eligibility required before conversion of agricultural lands?
- Pursuant to Department of Agriculture Memorandum dated 07 October 1998, Certificates of Eligibility shall be issued and approved by the Office of the Secretary of Agriculture to ensure proper evaluation and monitoring of land use conversion within the Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries Development Zones (SAFDZs) and other prime agricultural lands within the Network of Protected Areas for Agricultural and Agro-industrial Development (NPAAD). The DA Regional Field Units shall continue to document, investigate and recommend action on applications for land use conversion.
October 6, 1999
CONVERSION; LAND FALLING OUTSIDE AREAS NON-NEGOTIABLE FOR CONVERSION
May an application for conversion be given course if the land falls outside areas non-negotiable for conversion?
- If it falls outside areas non-negotiable for conversion then it may be given due course. Hence, the existence of the said provision in the penultimate paragraph of DAR Opinion No. 14, Series of 2001. The word "may" thereof is purposely to emphasize that the granting of conversion in this instance shall be on a case to case basis. This provision is in accord with Section 8 (a) of DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1999 which states that "Conversion may be allowed if the land subject of application is not among those considered non-negotiable for conversion"
October 16, 2002
CONVERSION; LANDHOLDING IS WITHIN PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREA AND OUTSIDE AREAS NON-NEGOTIABLE FOR CONVERSION
- The subject areas which fall under any of those cases enumerated therein, although they form part of priority development areas for conversion, are non-negotiable for conversion. Consequently, DAR is thus mandated to place them under CARP coverage for redistribution to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries. In which case, we could not in principle indorse said areas for the issuance of a Presidential Proclamation converting the same to non-agricultural uses. On the other hand, should subject areas fall within priority development areas for conversion and are found to be outside areas-non-negotiable for conversion, then your request for conversion may be given due course.
DAR OPINION NO. 14, s. 2001
August 21, 2001
CONVERSION; LANDS NON-NEGOTIABLE FOR CONVERSION
May an application for conversion involving areas non-negotiable for conversion be given due course regardless of whether all or some portions thereof are within priority development areas for conversion?
- The subject areas which fall under any of those cases enumerated therein, although they form part of priority development areas for conversion, are non-negotiable for conversion. Consequently, DAR is thus mandated to place them under CARP coverage for redistribution to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries. In which case, we could not in principle indorse said areas for the issuance of a Presidential Proclamation converting the same to non-agricultural uses. On the other hand, should subject areas fall within priority development areas for conversion and are found to be outside areas-non-negotiable for conversion, then your request for conversion may be given due course.
August 21, 2001
CONVERSION; LANDS NON-NEGOTIABLE FOR CONVERSION
Are applications for conversion involving irrigated and potentially irrigable lands be given due course?
- On land classification, you stated that a letter from the Director of the Department of Agriculture, Region III, declares that the area is classified to be within the prime agricultural zone consisting of irrigated lands; that Republic Act No. 8435 (Agricultural & Fisheries Modernization Act) refers to the Network of Protected Areas for Agricultural and Agro-Industrial Development (NPAAAD) which includes all irrigated lands; that Administrative Order No. 363, Series of 1997 (Office of the President) states that Network for Protected Agricultural Areas refers to lands reserved for agricultural activities and which includes all irrigated and potentially irrigable land; and that in all cases, applications for conversion involving lands protected from and non-negotiable for conversion shall not be given due course by the DAR.
September 24, 1999
CONVERSION; LANDS SUBJECT OF DISAPPROVED PETITIONS FOR CONVERSION NOT AUTOMATICALLY PLACED UNDER CARP
Are lands covered by petition for conversion which had been disapproved automatically covered by CARP?
- The effect of the express repeal of A.O. No. 12, Series of 1994 by A.O. No. 01, Series of 1999 is the revocation or superseding of the provisions of the former which are inconsistent with that of the latter. Inasmuch as the former A.O. had already been expressly repealed and the substance of paragraph XVI of said Administrative Order is not reproduced in the repealing Administrative Order, those lands covered by a petition for conversion which had been disapproved or covered by conversion order which had been cancelled or withdrawn are not automatically placed under CARP compulsory coverage. Under A.O. No. 01, Series of 1999 (Sec. 37, Art. VII), "the land subject thereof shall revert to the status of agricultural lands and shall be subject to CARP coverage as circumstances may warrant".
October 6, 1999
CONVERSION; LICENSE TO SELL, DEVELOPMENT PERMIT, NOT A VALIDATION FOR THE CONVERSION OF LANDHOLDING FROM AGRICULTURAL TO NON-AGRICULTURAL USE
Can license to sell and development permit validate conversion of lands from agricultural to non-agricultural uses?
- The mere issuance per se of License to Sell by the HLURB and Development Permit by a local government unit does not by itself validate the conversion of the landholding from agricultural to non-agricultural use and dispense with the requirements of existing laws, rules and regulations on conversion. Stated otherwise, said License to Sell and Development Permit should not serve as substitutes for the compliance of the laws and rules on conversion since the issuance of the same presupposes that the property had earlier been lawfully converted to non-agricultural uses upon previous application and due issuance of prior DAR Conversion Order.
January 11, 2000
CONVERSION; LIMITATION
- DAR's authority to allow conversion is not limited only to lands awarded under CARP. As stated in DOJ Opinion No. 44 (1990):
Being vested with exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, it is believed to be the agrarian reform law’s intention that any conversion of a private agricultural land to non-agricultural uses should be cleared beforehand by the DAR. True, the DAR’s express power over land use conversion is limited to cases in which agricultural lands already awarded have, after five years, ceased to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes. But to suggest that these are the only instances when the DAR can require conversion clearances would open a loophole in R.A. No. 6657, which every landowner may use to evade compliance with the agrarian reform program. Hence, it should logically follow from the said department’s express duty and function to execute and enforce the said statute that any commercial or industrial property should first be cleared by the DAR.
- With respect to conversion of agricultural lands covered by RA No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses, the authority of DAR to approve such conversion may be exercised from the date of the law’s effectivity on June 15, 1988. This conclusion is based on a liberal interpretation of R.A. No. 6657 in the light of DAR’s mandate and the extensive coverage of the agrarian reform program.
DAR OPINION NO. 26, s. 2007
September 27, 2007
CONVERSION; LOCATION OF THE PROPERTY SUBJECT OF AN APPLICATION FOR CONVERSION ALREADY INCORPORATED IN THE CERTIFICATE OF TITLE
- While the "location of the property" may not be listed under Section 32, the same, is already incorporated in the technical description of a property contained in the Certificate of Title. Such description indicates the specific area and location of the property covered by any OCT/TCT, subject of an application for conversion. It is a given fact that the location of the property is required as this is evident under DAR A.O. No. 15, Series of 1988 (Rules and Procedures Governing Conversion of Private Agricultural Lands to Non-agricultural Uses) which explicitly indicates under Item VII (A) thereof the necessity of providing the location of the property in the filing of an application for conversion.
DAR OPINION NO. 34, s. 2007
December 26, 2007
CONVERSION; MECHANICS/REQUIREMENTS
What are the mechanics/requirements for the conversion of agricultural lands?
- DAR Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1994 prescribed the requirement in applying for land use conversion. One of the mandatory requirements therein is the issuance of zoning certification from the HLRB Regional Officer when the subject land is within a city/municipality with a land use plan/zoning ordinance approved and certified by the HLRB.
- Reclassification takes precedence over conversion in the order of preference when it comes to application for land use conversion. Reclassification specify how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, commercial, industrial as embodied in the land use plan. In other words, it merely allocates lands to different activities or classes of land uses, evolved and enacted through the town planning and zoning process. It is not synonymous with conversion under Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657 for while the authority to reclassify is lodged with the local government units, the authority to convert remains with the DAR.
January 9, 1997
CONVERSION; MORATORIUM APPLIES TO RICELANDS; EXCEPTION
- It is clear from Administrative Order No. 226-A and Memorandum of Usec. Renato Herrera dated 23 April 2008 that the moratorium applies to all pending and new applications for land use conversion of all rice lands from the time Administrative Order No. 226 took effect. Notwithstanding the advent of Administrative Order No. 226-A amending the former Order, there are only two exceptions of the moratorium as per Memorandum dated 23 April 2008. These are, when the application is a Government-Initiated and/or Private Sector-led in consideration of mass housing program of the government, and to address the relocation/resettlement project for the urban poor.
DAR OPINION NO. 32, s. 2008
November 28, 2008
CONVERSION; NECESSARY BEFORE EXEMPTED LANDS UNDER DAR A.O. NO. 13, S. OF 1990 AND DAR A.O. NO. 3, S. OF 1995 BE CONVERTED TO OTHER NON-AGRICULTURAL USES
- It bears noting that aforesaid exemption does not include or contemplate exemption orders or clearances issued not in pursuance of DOJ 44 or Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657 in relation to DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994 such as those exempted pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1990 (Section 10, R.A. No. 6657 as amended), DAR Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1993 (Livestock, Poultry and Swine) and DAR Administrative Order No. 3, series of 1995 (Fishponds and Prawn Farms). The lands under the latter-enumerated exemptions may revert to agricultural if they are no longer actually, directly and exclusively used for the purpose for which they were exempted. Thus, they would still necessitate a conversion clearance should they later be converted to other non-agricultural uses such as residential, commercial or industrial.
DAR OPINION NO. 03, s. 2003
March 19, 2003
CONVERSION; NECESSARY IF AN AGRICULTURAL LAND IS RECLASSIFIED AS NON-AGRICULTURAL AFTER 15 JUNE 1988
- With respect to agricultural lands which are reclassified to commercial, industrial or residential in the new or revised town plans promulgated by the local government unit (LGU) and approved by the HLURB or by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) after June 15, 1988 in accordance with Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160 (Local Government Code), and other pertinent laws and regulations, Conversion Clearance must be secured from the DAR before these lands may be converted to such uses.
DAR OPINION NO. 16, s. 2001
September 10, 2001
CONVERSION; NOT AN ALTERNATIVE OPTION FOR LANDOWNERS
Is Conversion absolute?
- While conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses is allowed, the same is not absolute. Administrative Order No. 363 of the Office of the President and DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 1997 laid down the procedures together with the documentary requirements in applying for land use conversion. It has to be stressed in the context, however, that conversion of an agricultural land shall be determined on the merits thereof and is not suppose to be an alternative option available to the landowners to spare their agricultural lands from CARP coverage. Section 73 (c) of R.A. No. 6657 does not sanction this practice by specifically prohibiting the conversion by any landowners of this agricultural land into any non-agricultural use with intent to avoid the application of this Act to his landholdings and to dispossess his tenant farmers of the land tilled by them.
April 30, 1998
May the HLURB issue the license to sell involving agricultural lands prior to the issuance of DAR clearance?
- The issuance of license to sell involving agricultural lands prior to the issuance of pertinent DAR clearance in a way pre-empts the action that may be taken by this Department on any application for conversion/exemption. The HLURB is not barred however from issuing said license in areas already legally devoted to other uses. This holds true because while the license to sell is not one among the requirements which are obtained from other government agencies for review of the DAR in application for exemption/conversion, its premature issuance will in effect render nugatory the purposes and may possibly circumvent the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
February 9, 1998
CONVERSION; ORDER OF CONVERSION
May a land covered by an approved conversion order be certified as eligible for mortgage?
- Said properties should comply with the Order of Conversion, particularly, for the landowner to implement the land development phase of the area. To mortgage the land may eventually possibly prejudice the implementation of the development phase of the area (i.e., in case of default in the payment of mortgage loan), non-implementation of which is, as stated, a ground for cancellation or withdrawal of the authorization for conversion. To issue a certification allowing that said properties could be mortgaged to a private commercial bank without any restrictions and conditions (underscoring supplied as per letter suggestion/requirement of Metrobank dated 12 February 1999) would not therefore be in consonance and may run counter with the dispositive clause of the abovementioned Order of Conversion.
December 14, 1999
CONVERSION; PARO/MARO LIABLE FOR FAILURE TO ACT ON ILLEGAL CONVERSION
Can MAROs/PAROs be held administratively liable if they fail to act expeditiously on illegal land conversion.
- MAROs/PAROs who are personally charged with knowledge of any ongoing illegal land conversion undertaken in their area of jurisdiction fails to take positive and appropriate action within the prescribed time from discovery thereof, cannot in any manner feign ignorance to escape administrative liability.
December 24, 1996
CONVERSION; PAYMENT OF DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION
When is the tenant entitled to a disturbance compensation?
- Payment of disturbance compensation as provided and contemplated under Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended by Section 7 of R.A. No. 6389, pertains to the compensation given to the agricultural lessee who is dispossessed of the land he tills in cases of legal conversion, that is, in cases where the use of the land for purposes other than agricultural is approved by DAR upon application of the landowner. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Pagtalunan vs. Tamayo, G.R. No. 54281, March 19, 1990, payment of disturbance compensation only covers legal conversion undertaken at the instance of the landowner.
May 2, 2001
CONVERSION; PAYMENT OF DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION
What is the basis of computing the disturbance compensation given to farmer beneficiaries affected in case of land conversion?
- Farmer beneficiaries whose landholdings fall outside those highly restricted from conversion or non-negotiable for conversion, must be paid disturbance compensation which should not be less than five (5) times the average of the annual gross value of the harvest on their actual landholdings during the last five (5) preceding calendar years. In addition thereto, the DAR shall exert efforts to see to it that free homelots and assured employment are provided by the applicant/developer.
February 11, 1999
CONVERSION; PROOF OF RECEIPT OF PAYMENT OF DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION AS ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE APPROVAL; PROPERTY COVERED BY CONVERSION ORDER NO LONGER SUBJECT TO LEASEHOLD CONTRACT
- Please be informed that under 8.0 of Memorandum Circular No. 9, Series of 1999 (Internal/Clarificatory Guidelines for the Processing of Land Use Conversion Applications Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1999 entitled "Revised Rules and Regulations on the Conversion of Agricultural to Non-agricultural Uses"), provides that the approval of conversion application shall be subject to conditions, among which, is a disturbance compensation to affected tenants, and Administrative Order No. 04, Series of 2003 [2003 Rules on Exemption of Lands from CARP Coverage under Section 3 (c) of Republic Act No. 6657 and Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990] which listed as a requirement proof of receipt of payment of disturbance compensation or a valid agreement to pay or waive payment of disturbance compensation.
- Applying the above provisions of the aforecited administrative orders to your query, it is clear that the property covered by a conversion order with certificate of finality can no longer be subjected to a leasehold contract considering that tenancy relationship is terminated from the moment the required disturbance compensation have finally been settled, it being a condition for the approval of the application for conversion. Hence, in effect, a leasehold contract is no longer possible.
DAR OPINION NO. 01, s. 2007
January 16, 2007
CONVERSION; PROPERTIES WITHIN LUNGSOD SILANGAN TOWNSITE
Are properties falling within Lungsod Silangan Townsite be subject of conversion?
• If the properties fall within the Lungsod Silangan Townsite as duly proved and certified, and the same are not tenanted rice and corn lands with Certificates of Land Transfer/Emancipation Patents (CLTs/EPs), the provisions of DAR Memorandum Circular No. 25, Series of 1997 (particularly Item 7 thereof) as amended by Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1998 may apply.
March 22, 1999
CONVERSION; PURPOSE OF FIXING MANDATORY PERIOD TO COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA
What is the purpose of fixing a mandatory period to complete development of the area?
- It is beyond cavil that the purpose of DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 1997 in imposing said condition as an integral part for the issuance of DAR Conversion Order is to prevent circumvention of coverage under Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Without such restriction, a landowner/developer who is granted a DAR Conversion Clearance would be at liberty to render such condition at naught by abandoning indefinitely the land development phase of the area covered by DAR Conversion Order. To prevent such occurrence, the law mandatorily requires that the development phase of the area shall be completed within the period fixed by law depending on the area involved.
- Considering the mandatory character of the Conversion Order to complete the development phase within the periods fixed, the filing of the aforesaid Petition for Exemption from Compliance with the condition for the development of the property will not necessarily have the effect of suspending the mandatorily required land development phase.
May 28, 1999
CONVERSION; REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO COMPLETE THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAND
Whether or not a new landowner who has purchased a portion of a property covered by Land Use Conversion Order has the legal personality to request for an extension of period to complete the development of the land?
- While the attached Conversion Orders dated 07 December 1994 and 12 July 1999 issued by the DAR, mandate the observation/compliance on the conditions stipulated therein, otherwise, the same may be cancelled or recalled, the circumstances which led to the delay in the development of the land however, appear not to be attributable to their fault or negligence. Thus, in accordance with justice, fairness and equity, the herein request of the AFP MBAI for the extension of development of the 10.239 hectares which they had purchased from the V.A. Realty Inc. is imperative. Their request for extension on the said property is inherent and appurtenant to the exercise of one's right of ownership.
January 28, 2002
CONVERSION; REQUIRED BEFORE AN AGRICULTURAL LAND IS TO BE USED AS A CELL CITE
- DAR's mandate is to preserve and maintain agricultural lands with increased productivity. But where, as apparently it is herein, there is need for conversion in the land use of an agricultural land, existing laws and issuances have provided for the conditions and requirements therefore. Should there be non-compliance, same may constitute a prohibited act under Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6657 and related laws and, accordingly, criminally punishable.
DAR OPINION NO. 18, s. 2002
June 7, 2002
CONVERSION; REQUIREMENTS
Who may apply for conversion?
- An application for land use conversion is a personal undertaking which can be filed only at the instance of the following:
1. owners of private agricultural lands or other persons duly authorized by the landowner;
2. farmer beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program after the lapse of five (5) years from award, reckoned from the date of registration of their landholdings and who have fully paid their obligations and are qualified under DAR Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1994, or persons duly authorized by them; and
3. government agencies, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
June 26, 1997
CONVERSION; REQUIREMENTS
What are the requirements for DAR conversion clearance?
- Although the reclassification of an agricultural land to non-agricultural uses through a municipal ordinance could be used to support an application for a DAR conversion clearance, what is needed is a DAR Order approving said conversion.
March 23, 1995
CONVERSION; REQUISITE NUMBER OF DAYS WITHIN WHICH AN APPLICANT IS REQUIRED TO POST A PERFORMANCE BOND
- Requisite Number of Days Within Which an Applicant is Required to Post a Performance Bond
Section 26, Article III (Procedures) of DAR Administrative Order No. 01, series of 2002 pertinently provides:
"Section 26. Performance Bond. — Within five (5) days from receipt of a copy of the Conversion Order, the applicant shall post a performance bond in the form of either of the following . . . . ."
On the other hand, Section 33.2, Article V (Issuance of Conversion Order and its Effects) of the same Administrative Order provides:
"Section 33. Conditions of Conversion Order. — The approval of the application for conversion shall be subject to the following conditions:
xxx xxx xxx
Section 33.2. Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Conversion Order, the landowner shall post a performance bond in accordance with Sections 25 or 26 hereof."
- Basic is the rule in statutory construction that where there is a particular or special provision and a general provision in the same statute, and the latter in its most comprehensive sense would overrule the former, the particular or special provision must be taken to effect only the other parts of the statute to which it may properly apply. In other words, the particular or special provision is construed as an exception to the general provision.
- Here, we could infer that Section 26 is the special provision regarding the posting of performance bond while Section 33 is the general provision, in which case the former shall prevail. Thus, an applicant for conversion should post a performance bond within five (5) days from receipt of a copy of the conversion order.
DAR OPINION NO. 24, s. 2003
December 9, 2003
CONVERSION; ROLE OF DAR
What is the role of DAR in the conversion of agricultural lands?
- Under Section 4 (j) of EO 129-A, Series of 1987, the DAR is mandated to approve or disapprove applications for conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses. Under Section 5 (1) of the same EO, the DAR has exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversion of agricultural lands for residential, commercial, industrial and other land uses as may be provided by law. Moreover, under Section 50 of RA 6657, the DAR is vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and has exclusive original jurisdiction over all matter involving the implementation of agrarian reform.
March 28, 1994
CONVERSION; SUSPENSION OF ISSUANCE OF LAND CONVERSION CLEARANCE
When may conversion be allowed? When is it suspended?
- Agricultural lands classified or zonified for non-agricultural uses by LGUs and approved by the HLURB before June 15, 1988 (i.e., effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 — CARL), shall be governed by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994 (guidelines on exemption from CARP coverage). On the other hand, conversion may be allowed if at the time of application, the lands are reclassified as commercial, industrial, residential or non-agricultural in the new or revised town plans promulgated by the Local Government Unit (LGU) and approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) or by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan (SP) after June 15, 1988 in accordance with Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7160, as implemented by M.C. No. 54, and E.O. No. 72 Series of 1993 of the Office of the President. Under Memorandum Circular No. 1, Series of 1999 and in line with the President's directive dated December 28, 1998, however, the issuance of land conversion clearances is suspended, and new applications shall not be accepted in the meantime that DAR is reviewing the guidelines and until such time the new revised rules and regulations on land use conversion are issued. Thereafter, new applications for land use conversion may be accepted pursuant to the new/revised guidelines.
March 22, 1999
CONVERSION; WHEN ALLOWED
When may an agricultural land be used for non-agricultural purposes?
- If the area is classified as agricultural, it may be used for non-agricultural purposes (e.g., residential) only if an application for conversion have been filed with the DAR and have obtained a DAR Order approving the same. In such a case, only the tenants thereof will be entitled to the payment of disturbance compensation. Persons applying as CARP beneficiaries in the area cannot hinder conversion thereof so long as DAR has approved said conversion.
August 23, 1994
- The conversion of an agricultural land to non-agricultural use may be legally undertaken only after approval thereof by the DAR. Section 4(j) of E.O. No. 129-A series of 1989 specifically provides that the Department shall be responsible for implementing the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and, for such purpose is authorized to approve or disapprove the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses. Sec. 5 (1) of the same E.O. also provides that pursuant to its mandate and in order to ensure the successful implementation of the CARP, the DAR has exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversion of agricultural lands for residential, commercial, industrial and other land uses as may be provided for by law.
March 23, 1995
- "Section 65. Conversion of Lands. — After the lapse of five (5) years from its award when the lands ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR upon application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to existing laws may authorize the reclassification or conversion on the land and its disposition: Provided that the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligation.
January 25, 1996
When may the conversion of agricultural lands be allowed?
- If it could be adequately proven that the land is no longer economically feasible for agriculture or the area is urbanizing and the greater economic value is non-agricultural then Sec. 65 of the same law allows conversion by the landowner.
April 26, 1994
CONVERSION; WHEN CONSIDERED ILLEGAL
When is the conversion of agricultural lands considered illegal?
- The conversion of agricultural land covered by the CARL (R.A. No. 6657) is deemed illegal if undertaken after 15 June 1988 without the required order of conversion from the DAR.
June 13, 1994
CONVERSION; WHEN IS CONVERSION ORDER NECESSARY
Is Conversion Order necessary before the land can be legally converted?
- A conversion order is no longer necessary for properties already reclassified as non-agricultural prior to June 15, 1988 or before the effectivity of CARP. However, an exemption clearance is required. On the other hand, a conversion order is necessary for those agricultural properties reclassified as non-agricultural from June 15, 1988 onwards. Please note that a conversion order is necessary before any conversion activities may be performed on the subject lands.
August 7, 2001
CONVERSION;
WHEN MAY BE ALLOWED, DOMINANT USE OF THE SURROUNDING AREA — NO LONGER DETERMINATIVE
When is conversion allowed?
- Pursuant to A.O. No. 12, Series of 1994, conversion may be allowed if the dominant use of the area surrounding the land subject of the application for conversion is no longer agricultural, or if the proposed use is similar to, or compatible with the dominant use of the surrounding areas as determined by the DAR. However, with the enactment of DAR A.O. No. 01, Series of 1999, which expressly repealed DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1994 and A.O. No. 7, Series of 1997, this criterion ceased to be determinative.
October 6, 1999
CONVERSION; WHEN NECESSARY
Is an application for conversion still required?
- Should the subject land be converted into non-agricultural uses such as residential, commercial or industrial, the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2002 shall apply. Hence, application for conversion shall still be required.
September 2, 2003
CONVERSION; WHICH OFFICE HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE
- Under Sec. 4 and 5 of EO 129-A (1982), the DAR is mandated to "approve or disapprove the conversion, restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses." It authorizes DAR to "have exclusive authority to approve or disapprove conversion of agricultural land for residential, commercial, industrial, and other land uses as may be provided for by law." Also, Sec. 4 of OP-MC 54 (1993), provides that "action on application for land use conversion on individual landholdings shall remain as the responsibility of the DAR, xxx, pursuant to RA No. 6657 and EO 129-A."
DAR OPINION NO. 26, s. 2007
September 27, 2007
COOPERATIVE OWNERSHIP; AS A FORM OF COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP
What is collectivism in relation to CARP awarded lands?
- Cooperative ownership of an awarded land is actually just a kind or form of collective ownership by the individual beneficiaries (Section 25, R.A. No. 6657 and Item I, DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1993). In collectivism, there is an aggregate participation of individuals relating to a co-ownership. Thus, as far as CARP- awarded lands are concerned:
a) Where the collective CLOA is issued in the name of the cooperative without the names of individual ARBs listed at the back thereof, which were resorted to in the past to speed up, simplify and facilitate the distribution process of awarded lands, it presupposes that a cooperative had already been organized even prior to the acquisition and eventual distribution of the lands wherein the beneficiaries may not yet have been identified or were only partially identified. This is what is contemplated under Section 22 (f) of R.A. No. 6657. Notwithstanding the issuance of the collective CLOA in the name of the cooperative alone, the ownership of the land is, however, still actually vested with the individual beneficiaries to the extent of their respective shares based on the aforementioned legal premises but in no case to exceed the equivalent of the award ceiling.
b) Where the collective CLOA is issued in the name of the cooperative with the name of the ARBs listed at the back thereof, it presupposes that during the acquisition and distribution process of the land to be awarded, there were already identified ARBs who opted to collectively own the awarded land through a cooperative. This may also be the case where the land is not economically feasible and sound to divide among the worker-beneficiaries pursuant to Section 29 of R.A. No. 6657. The annotation or listing of the names of ARBs at the back of the collective CLOA is intended to protect the farmer-beneficiaries from possible summary and unjust separation by the cooperative or association (Items III.A and IV.A.1, DAR A.O. No. 3, Series of 1993).
c) Where the collective CLOA is issued in the name of Juan dela Cruz, et al. with names of individual ARBs listed at the back, it presupposes that the awarded land is co-owned by each individual ARBs listed therein. A collective CLOA on a co-ownership basis shall indicate the approximate area actually occupied by each ARB (Item III.B, A.O. No. 3, Series of 1993).
d) Where specific number of hectarage is included in the CLOA, it indicates that the different portions of the awarded land are owned by different ARBs. There is already a concrete determination and identification of each ARB's corresponding area of award, which should not exceed three (3) hectares, even if not yet technically described. Where no specific number of hectarage is indicated per ARB, it connotes that there is a juridical concept of co-ownership. Each ARB, being a co-owner, is the owner of an undivided aliquot part thereof (not to exceed the award limit of 3 hectare) which is presumed to be equal with the respective aliquot shares of the other co-owners, unless the contrary is proved (Article 485, Civil Code and Section 25, R.A. No. 6657).
July 14, 1999
COOPERATIVE; JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT WITH THE LGU
May a cooperative enter into a joint venture agreement with the LGU for a housing project?
- A cooperative may enter into a joint venture agreement with the LGU for a housing project, provided that said agreement contains a provision that in case of default by the original housing beneficiaries, the lot shall be transferred to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries/cooperative members. It goes without saying that said agreement shall be subjected to a review by DAR.
December 22, 1995
COOPERATIVE; LAND AS ASSET, PURPOSES OF ITS CREATION
Is the awarded considered as cooperative asset?
- Cooperative is only a vehicle created for practical necessity, convenience and purposes towards the ARBs' upliftment. Legally, the owners are the ARBs. Therefore, the land cannot be made as part of the cooperative's assets. However, for accounting purposes, the land may be recorded as "asset" of the cooperative but this is counterbalanced by the ownership claim of the ARBs over such land as reflected in the equity section of the balance sheet. Thus, when the awarded land is recorded as "asset" of the cooperative for accounting purposes, there is actually no transfer of title or ownership over the land, hence, ownership thereof by the cooperative cannot be said to have legally taken.
- Whether in voluntary or involuntary dissolution, the awarded land may be included in the liquidation process only if said land was used as security in the fulfillment of a principal obligation incurred with the consent and for the general benefit of the ARBs. In this case, the ARBs may thereby lose the award. Any of the foregoing, however, shall be without prejudice to the right given a CLOA holder under Executive Order No. 26, Series of 1998.
July 14, 1999
CORRECTION AND CANCELLATION OF REGISTERED EPs AND CLOAs; PROCEDURE
What is the procedure for the correction and cancellation of registered EPs and CLOAs?
- Under DAR Administrative Order No. 2, S. 1994, otherwise known as the "Rules Governing the Correction and Cancellation of Registered Emancipation Patent (EPs) and Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs)…", it provides in the transitory provision thereof that: "the implementation of these rules shall be governed by the procedure of the DARAB to include the concept of designating a nominal party and the concept of exhaustion of administrative remedies". From the aforequoted, it is very clear that prior to the filing of a Petition for Cancellation of registered Emancipation Patents to the DARAB, the ground for the cancellation of the EP title should first be determined by the Secretary or his authorized representative under the principle of exhaustion of administrative remedies. Likewise, the same procedure applies where the land is found exempt/excluded from P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 or CARP coverage or to be part of the landowner's retained area.
April 4, 1997
CORRECTION OF EPs; AUTHORITY TO ISSUE EMANCIPATION PATENTS
May the Department of Agrarian Reform issue emancipation patents?
- Section 5(g) of Executive Order No. 129-A on Powers and Functions provides that the Department of Agrarian Reform, pursuant to its mandate and in order to ensure the successful implementation of CARP, is authorized to issue emancipation patents to farmers and farm workers covered by agrarian reform for both private and public lands and when necessary make administrative corrections of the same.
May 28, 1996
CORRECTION OF TITLE; DAR TO CAUSE THE INSCRIPTION OF THE CORRECTED TECHNICAL DESCRIPTIONS IN THE TITLES
Does DAR has the authority to cause the inscription of the corrected technical description in the titles of landholdings?
- The DAR being constitutionally and legally aptly clothed with more than ample authority and personality should strongly undertake whatever necessary action to cause the inscription of the corrected technical descriptions in the titles of the subject landholdings and accordingly to cover the subject landholding under the compulsory acquisition scheme of the Program.
April 14, 1997
CORRECTION OR CANCELLATION OF CLOAs
Are CLOAs issued to ARBs be cancelled or corrected?
- CLOAs issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) may be corrected or cancelled for violation of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. This include cases of lands which are found to be exempt/excluded from P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 or CARP coverage, or part of the landowners retained area.
July 3, 1997
COVERAGE
- Bilang tugon po sa inyong mga katanungan, mangyari po lamang na pag-ukulan ng pansin ang mga probisyon ng DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 2009 [Rules and Procedures Governing the Acquisition and Distribution of Agricultural Lands Under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657 as Amended by R.A. No. 9700], Statement of Policies A.5, kung saan isinasaad na:
In the case of lands for which NOCs have already been issued, the DAR Provincial Office (DARPO) shall send a memorandum to the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), copy furnished the LO, directing him/her to proceed with the process of land acquisition and distribution of the landholdings under the CARP, either immediately or on the specific schedule provided under Item IV (A) (2) of this Order.
Ibig pong sabihin nito, maaring ipagpatuloy ang pagsaklaw sa lupa ayon sa lumang batas (R.A. No. 6657) kung ang NOC ay naisyu na ng Kagawaran bago sumapit ang Mayo 30, 2009.
DAR OPINION NO. 01, s. 2010
January 5, 2010
COVERAGE
- Coverage under CARP does not cancel the right of the mortgagee to foreclose said properties. In a contract of mortgage, the mortgagor is duty bound to fulfill his obligation with the mortgagee. Accordingly, in case the mortgagor defaults in his obligation with the mortgagee, the latter has the legal right to demand payment from the former or to foreclose the mortgage, as the case may be. However, Section 71 of R.A. No. 6657 on bank mortgages must be taken into consideration where it provides that agricultural properties mortgaged to banks and other financial institutions are subject to existing laws on compulsory transfer of foreclosed assets and acquisition as prescribed under Section 16 of said law.
- DAR need not to be informed of the mortgage. Nonetheless, DAR may still proceed with CARP coverage regardless of whether or not it was informed thereof in view of its legal mandate under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) to acquire all public and private agricultural lands falling outside the 5-hectare retention area of landowners for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries.
DAR OPINION NO. 13, s. 2005
March 22, 2005
- As regards alienable and disposable lands (A & D), it is provided under Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657 that public and private agricultural lands and lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture are covered by CARP. It provides, among others, that all alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted or suitable to agriculture and all lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits of the public domain as determined by congress shall be covered by CARP.
DAR OPINION NO. 12, s. 2006
February 2, 2006
COVERAGE, PROPERTIES UNDER LEASE CONTRACTS
Can the lessor sell properties under lease contracts to the lessee?
- Section 72 of R.A. No. 6657 explicitly provides, quote:
"SECTION 72. Lease . . .. — Lands covered by this Act under lease . . . contracts shall be disposed of as follows:
(a) Lease . . . contracts covering private lands may continue under their original terms and conditions until the expiration of the same even if such land has, in the meantime, been transferred to qualified beneficiaries.
November 8, 2000
COVERAGE; ACQUISITION OF A LANDHOLDING WITH A STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION (SDO) PLAN UNDER THE VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL SCHEME (VOS)
- Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) provides that all public and private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon are covered by CARP. It follows that coverage may proceed irrespective of whether or not the landholding is titled or not, or whether there is an adverse claim of ownership over the same, for as long as the landholding is agricultural and is not declared to be exempt or excluded from CARP coverage.
- Acquisition under CARP may be effected pursuant to Item E of DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 2006 [Supplemental Guidelines in the Implementation and Monitoring of Approved Stock Distribution Option (SDO) Plans], that an approved SDO Plan/Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) may be revoked by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) and once the decision by the PARC or by other appropriate forum canceling the approved SDO Plan/MOA became final and executory and upon receipt of such decision by DAR, the latter shall proceed with the immediate coverage of the landholding under CARP.
- Item II (2) of DAR Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 2005 (Revised Rules Governing the Issuance of Notice of Coverage in the Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Under R.A. No. 6657) and DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1996 (Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Subject of VOS and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant to RA 6657) that any transaction involving acquisition of agri-lands under CARP is transparent not only to an heir or to any party-in-interest but to the public as well, considering the requirement of posting and publication of the Notice of Coverage in a newspaper of general circulation. However, generally, for purposes of transacting any VOS, the same can only be done by the landowner or his authorized representative. Where the landowner is a juridical person, a Board Resolution is required, authorizing any person to transact with DAR regarding its property for CARP coverage.
DAR OPINION NO. 18, s. 2008
July 11, 2008
COVERAGE; GFIs FORECLOSED PROPERTIES
- Considering that the LBP is a government financial institution, and considering further that the provisions of the General Banking Law of 2000, the LBP is permitted to dispose of the real properties it acquired to third persons, subject to their eventual coverage under the CARP. It is therefore clear that the rights of the tenants/farmers are still protected under the law; moreover, their preferential rights as such will not be affected and shall still be respected.
- That said, it is our considered view that limiting the conveyance of the subject property by LBP in favor of WCC to only five (5) hectares is apparently not in conformity with the provisions of the General Banking Law in relation to pertinent agrarian reform laws and issuances.
DAR OPINION NO. 31, s. 2010
December 29, 2010
COVERAGE; PROSPECTIVITY OF LAW
- The law which shall govern the coverage of subject landholding is PD 27 since it was the law existing and being implemented at the time of the coverage.
- Using the basic rule in statutory construction anchored in the provision of the New Civil Code that laws shall be applied prospectively, RA 6657 cannot be applied in the instant. Retrospective application is not tenable since it will impair vested rights which have been acquired by the tenants under PD 27.
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 2008
April 14, 2008
COVERAGE; AGRICULTURAL LANDS NOT EXCEEDING FIVE (5) HECTARES NOT SUBJECT TO ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION
- Section 4, Art. XIII of the 1987 Constitution subjects the distribution of agricultural lands for agrarian reform to reasonable limits as Congress may prescribe. Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 operationalizes this mandate and observes the right of persons to own, or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to the factors governing a viable family-size farm such as commodity produce, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility, but in no case shall exceed five (5) hectares.
DAR OPINION NO. 22, s. 2007
June 15, 2007
COVERAGE; AGRICULTURAL LANDS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO LEGAL EASEMENTS
Whether or not agricultural lands which are subject to legal easements may be covered under CARP?
- Given the above provisions of law, rules and regulations, we could infer that portions of titled or registered private agricultural lands subject of legal easements form as inseparable part of the landholding of the landowner, thus, they may be covered under Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) and accordingly be compensated by the Land Bank of the Philippines.
DAR OPINION NO. 05, s. 2004
February 4, 2004
COVERAGE; CANNOT BE AFFECTED BY A NEW ZONING ORDINANCE
May the lands distributed to qualified beneficiaries pursuant to CARL be affected by any zoning ordinance of the Local Government Unit?
- Once a landholding has been acquired and redistributed to qualified beneficiaries pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, said coverage under CARL cannot be affected by a new zoning ordinance declaring as residential the area wherein the property is located. This must be so since Sec. 20 (e) of RA 7160 (The Local Government Code) provides that nothing therein shall be construed as repealing, amending or modifying in any manner the provisions of RA 6657".
July 25, 1994
COVERAGE; CLAIM FOR ATTORNEY'S FEE SHALL NOT SERVE AS A STUMBLING BLOCK IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF R.A. NO. 6657
Can a claim for Attorney's fees derails the implementation of CARP?
- Attorney's lien on the landholding should not serve as a stumbling block in the smooth implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Specifically, Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6657 expressly provides that "the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture." Stated differently, the right of a lawyer to claim attorney's fees for services rendered is subordinate to the right of the State to acquire agricultural lands for distribution to qualified farmers-beneficiaries pursuant to said laws.
- The issue as to the claim of attorney's fees is a distinct and separate matter personal to counsel and client which they alone should resolve (through the corresponding payment by the latter to the former after the land in issue has been acquired under CARP and paid by the Land Bank of the Philippines) without unduly affecting the coverage of the subject landholding.
June 23, 1998
COVERAGE; COMMERCIAL FARMS, EFFECT TO LOI NO. 790
Does the full implementation of CARL now render LOI 790 moot and academic?
- LOI No. 790, which allows the development of additional banana plantation areas over the total acreage previously authorized under LOI No. 58, is not inconsistent with Section 11 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, it remains in full force and effect. The only perceived possible effect, by the coverage of commercial farms (devoted to banana plantation) pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) whose deferment had expired, is the mandated change in their ownership and management as adverted to above.
- In fine, LOI 790 was not repealed by Republic Act No. 6657. It was only modified to some extent as discussed and explained above.
November 10, 1999
COVERAGE; CORPORATE FARM ENGAGED IN EXPORT-ORIENTED PRODUCTION
Are corporate farms engaged in export-oriented production covered by CARL?
- CARL mandates the acquisition and redistribution to qualified beneficiaries of all agricultural lands falling outside the 5-hectare retention of landowners. Said mandate is immediate in the case of lands subject of VOS, because under paragraph 2, Section 7 of CARL, private lands voluntarily offered by the owners for agrarian reform fall under Phase One of CARL implementation. This mandate to immediately redistribute is not amended by RA 7844, as there is no provision in said law to that effect.
February 15, 1996
COVERAGE; DETERMINATION OF OWNERSHIP
What lands are covered by CARP pursuant to R. A. No. 6657?
- Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that all private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. It follows that agricultural lands covered by Tax Declarations though untitled are also private properties which may likewise be the subject of coverage under CARP.
April 30, 1998
COVERAGE; DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS
- This office concur with the opinion of the Land Bank of the Philippines that there is no substitute for the form for Land Valuation and Farmer's Undertaking since it is in such document that the amount in which the farmer beneficiary acknowledges/undertakes to pay the amortization is fixed and determined.
DAR OPINION NO. 18, s. 2006
June 29, 2006
COVERAGE; EFFECT OF COURT OF APPEALS DECISION
- The Court of Appeals decision will not affect the coverage of the subject property as land acquisition is done through the mandate of the law whether or not the landowner disagrees to part with his property. Moreover, it appears that the Court of Appeals has only ruled for the cancellation of the titles issued to the children and for the reinstatement of the title of spouses Ferreras.
DAR OPINION NO. 32, s. 2007
November 16, 2007
COVERAGE; EFFECT OF ISSUANCE OF INJUNCTION, RESTRAINING ORDER, PROHIBITION OR MANDAMUS
May coverage proceed notwithstanding the issuance of injunction, restraining order, prohibition or mandamus from the lower courts?
- Section 68 of R.A. No. 6657 contemplates a different situation from that of Section 14, DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 2000. The former provides that no injunction, restraining order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued by the lower courts against the government agencies named therein, including the DAR, in their implementation of CARP. In other words, CARP coverage may proceed notwithstanding the issuance by the lower courts of the aforesaid injunction, restraining order, prohibition or mandamus in matters concerning the implementation of CARP brought before said courts (e.g., subject agrarian law implementation cases). Section 55 of R.A. No. 6657 further provides, quote:
"SECTION 55. No Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. — No court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the PARC or any of its duly authorized or designated agencies in any case, dispute or controversy arising from, necessary to, or in connection with the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform."
- Section 14 (a-c) of DAR Administrative Order No. 06, series of 2000, on the other hand, speaks of the effects of filing with the DAR of agrarian law implementation (ALI) cases, such as application or petition for exemption, exclusion, conversion, retention, or protest against coverage, on land acquisition and distribution. Under said section of the guideline, particularly paragraphs b and c thereof, the coverage and land compensation process may continue, except that the Certification of Deposit (COD) to the PARO shall not be issued until the application, protest or petition is finally resolved. The rationale for this is given in DAR Opinion No. 9, series of 1999 which is to preclude the government from incurring unnecessary wastage of valuable time, effort and resources incident to the coverage in case the petition, application or protest will later be resolved against the coverage of the land in issue.
June 7, 2002
COVERAGE; EFFECT OF PARTIAL COVERAGE
What is the effect of partial coverage?
- DAR Administrative Order No. 03, S. 1996 expressly provides that if the landholding is partially covered but an R.P. title or CLOA has been issued for the whole property, a segregation survey of the landholding shall be conducted. The Deed of Transfer shall be amended to include only the CARP covered areas. The portion not covered shall be reconveyed to the concerned government instrumentality or landowner-offeror through the execution of a Deed of Reconveyance. Said implementing rules and regulations likewise provide that Emancipation Patents (EPs) or Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) already generated for landholding to be reconveyed shall have to be cancelled first pursuant to DAR Administrative order No. 2, Series of 1994 prior to the actual reconveyance. The cancellation shall either be through administrative proceedings in cases where EP/CLOA has not yet been registered with the ROD or through quasi-judicial proceedings in cases where the said EP/CLOA has already been registered.
April 14, 1997
COVERAGE; EFFECT WHEN THERE IS A PENDING APPLICATION FOR CONVERSION
What is the effect on coverage when an application for conversion is filed?
- Under Section 14 (a) of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 2000 [Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases], a notice of coverage may not be issued if there is already a pending application for conversion. However, it appears that there was no application for conversion filed in the instant case. What was filed was a complaint for illegal conversion, hence, the coverage of subject landholding may proceed.
December 21, 2001
COVERAGE; E.O. NO. 407 LANDS; STEPS IN THE REDISTRIBUTION OF LANDS
What are E.O. 407 lands?
- Executive Order No. 407 mandates all government instrumentalities to surrender to the DAR all landholdings for agriculture all pertinent documents in their custody. It is understood, however, that the government financing institutions and government-owned or controlled corporations cannot sell or dispose of their lands which are suitable for agriculture directly to private individuals since the DAR has the right of first refusal in the sale or disposition of their lands which are suitable for agriculture.
- Under the aforecited Order and in consonance with Section 69 of R.A. No. 7881, while it is mandated that said provision allows government financial institutions and government-owned or controlled corporations to dispose to third parties their properties which were foreclosed on or after the effectivity of RA 7881, i.e., March 12, 1995, the same shall still be acquired if they fall under CARP coverage for distribution to qualified farmer beneficiaries as mandated under RA 6657. It goes without saying, however, that a former owner can no longer redeem his foreclosed property after the lapse of the prescribed redemption period, for the same has already been transferred or must be transferred to DAR for distribution to qualified beneficiaries.
January 16, 1997
What are the basic steps in the redistribution of lands under E.O. No. 407?
- Applying Section 1 of EO 407 properties foreclosed by abovementioned institutions shall not be vested upon them. Rather said institutions shall execute immediately. Deed of Transfer in favor of the DAR. The DAR will cause the transfer of ownership to it and once ownership has been transferred, the DAR, in coordination with the concerned agencies, will not determine who the qualified beneficiaries will be. In choosing the qualified beneficiaries, the DAR shall give preference to the farmer owners and their children.
January 29, 1997
COVERAGE; E.O. NO. 407, PROPOSED AMENDMENT EXCLUDING PASTURE FROM COVERAGE
Are Pasture lands excluded from CARP coverage?
- Section 4 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988 (Rep. Act No. 6657) is explicit in its mandate of coverage, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised therein. Moreover, the basic principle of land-to-the-tiller and policy of the State to promote and pursue a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, where the welfare of the landless farmers and farmworkers shall receive the highest consideration to promote social justice (Section 21, Article II, Philippine Constitution and Section 2, R.A. No. 6657).
December 12, 2000
COVERAGE; EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 407
What is the mandate of E.O. No. 407?
- Executive Order No. 407 is very explicit by providing that the government through the DAR shall accelerate the acquisition and distribution of agricultural lands, agro-forestry lands and other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture. Corollarily, Section 7 of R.A. No. 6657 mandates, among others, that all lands foreclosed by government financial institution, all lands acquired by the Presidential Commission on Good Government, and all other lands owned by the government devoted to or suitable for agriculture, shall be acquired and distributed immediately upon the effectivity of the said Act on 15 June 1988. Moreover, Executive Order No. 360, Series of 1989, enjoins all government financial institutions and government-owned or controlled corporations to grant the Department of Agrarian Reform the right of first refusal in the sale or disposition of all lands owned by them which are suitable for agriculture.
- VLT/DPS scheme is not an ordinary transaction which can be placed outside the ambit of Executive Order No. 407. Such being the case, it is E.O. No. 407 that will govern the mode of coverage as regards the landholdings in issue.
December 24, 1998
COVERAGE; EXPIRED FISHPONDS LEASE AGREEMENTS
May lands covered by expired FLAs be included within the scope of CARP?
- Lands covered by expired FLAs like those lands covered by cancelled or amended FLAs under Executive Order No. 407, be included within the scope of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform program for distribution to qualified beneficiaries.
October 8, 1996
COVERAGE; FORECLOSED AGRICULTURAL LANDS
May foreclosed agricultural lands be covered under CARP?
- Corollarily, although Section 6 of R.A. No. 7881 allows the transfer by banks of such foreclosed assets to third parties, they shall nonetheless be eventually acquired by the government through the DAR, under Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657, for distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries.
June 7, 2002
COVERAGE; FORECLOSED ASSETS
May the subject properties foreclosed by private banks be covered under CARP?
- To preclude circuitous and complex reversion proceedings, and pursuant to the aforequoted/aforecited more recent special provisions of R.A. No. 6657 (CARL) and R.A. No. 337 (The General Banking Act) vis-à-vis a general provision of the Public Land Act (Section 118 thereof), the subject properties foreclosed by private banks, consolidated in their favor and offered for CARP coverage may be placed under the Program since in the final analysis said properties will end up/revert to the State, through the DAR, for distribution to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries.
August 28, 2003
COVERAGE; FORECLOSED ASSETS
Are foreclosed assets of banks subject to acquisition under CARP?
- Although private banks my sell to third parties their foreclosed assets, the same are still subject to acquisition under Section 16 of R.A. No. 6557 (CARL), if warranted.
August 21, 2001
COVERAGE; FORECLOSED ASSETS
Are land foreclosed by Government Financial Institutions (GFI) covered under CARP?
- Under Section 7 of CARL, all lands foreclosed by government financial institutions shall fall under Phase I of CARP implementation. Under E.O. No. 407, all government instrumentalities including government financial institutions are mandated to immediately execute Deeds of Transfer in favor of the Republic of the Philippines as represented by the DAR.
April 11, 1995
COVERAGE; FORECLOSED PROPERTIES OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
- Private agricultural lands foreclosed/owned by financial institutions are still subject to R.A. No. 6657 and not exempt for acquisition by SPVs under R.A. No. 9182.
- Under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6657, the schedule of acquisition and distribution of agricultural lands covered by CARP include, among others, all lands (that means private and public lands) foreclosed by government financial institutions. Moreover, mortgage rights or security interests in agricultural lands of banks and other financial institutions are subject to existing laws on compulsory transfer of foreclosed assets and acquisition as prescribed under Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657 (Section 71, R.A. No. 6657).
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 2005
March 1, 2005
COVERAGE; FREE PATENTS
Are lands covered by Free Patents within the scope of R.A. No. 6657?
- Lands covered by Free Patents may be the subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell Scheme under CARP even within the 5-year prohibitory period from and after the issuance of said patents. This is so because an exception to the prohibition against transfer within the said 5-year period has been provided with respect to transfers in favor of the government or any of its branches, units or institutions. This exception is believed to cover transfers made under the land redistribution program of the government, specifically the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). In fine, the coverage under CARL of lands covered by Free Patents, specifically thru the VOS scheme, is believed legally tenable, as the 5-year period limitation will not apply.
October 16, 2000
COVERAGE; GFI'S FORECLOSED LANDS
What is the mandate of R.A. No. 6657 regarding GFI's foreclosed lands?
- Section 7 of R.A. No. 6657 mandates that all lands foreclosed by government financial institutions (GFIs) shall be acquired and distributed immediately upon the effectivity of said Act on 15 June 1988. Moreover, Executive Order No. 360, Series of 1989, enjoins all government financial institutions to grant the DAR the right of first refusal in the sale or disposition of all lands owned by GFIs which are suitable for agriculture. A similar provision is enunciated under Executive Order No. 407, Series of 1990, which mandates the immediate execution of Deeds of Transfer in favor of the Republic of the Philippines as represented by DAR and surrender to the latter department all landholdings suitable for agriculture. The foregoing laws and executive orders altogether maintain that agricultural landholdings foreclosed by GFIs are within the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
May 22, 1998
COVERAGE; IMMEDIATE SURRENDER OF FORECLOSED ASSET TO THE GOVERNMENT FOR CARP COVERAGE
What is the proper procedure in the acquisition of lands pursuant to E.O. 407?
- Said law permits government financial institutions to dispose of their properties foreclosed by them to third parties only on or after the effectivity of R.A. No. 7881 (i.e., March 12, 1995) and not those foreclosed prior to said date.
May 26, 1999
COVERAGE; INCLUDES PUBLIC LANDS
- Ang isinasaad sa Seksyon 4 (Lawak) ng Batas sa Komprehensibong Repormang Pansakahan ng 1988:
"SEKSIYON 4. Lawak. — Ang Batas sa Komprehensibong Repormang Pansakahan ng 1988 ay dapat sumaklaw sa lahat ng mga lupang agricultural na pampubliko at pribado, ano pa naman ang kaayusan sa pagmamay-ari at inaani, ayon sa itinatadhana sa Proklamasyon Blg. 131 at Kautusang Tagapagpaganap Blg. 229, kasama ang iba pang mga lupaing pambayan na angkop sa agrikultura."
Malinaw po na isinasaad na ang mga lupang pampubliko ay saklaw ng nabanggit na batas.
DAR OPINION NO. 03, s. 2009
February 2, 2009
COVERAGE; INTEGRATED SOCIAL FORESTRY PROGRAM/COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM (ISFP/CARP)
Whether or not the subject property can be covered under ISFP/CARP?
- It is clear that subject 1,400 hectare property is part of the public forest. As such, its reclassification to agricultural land cannot be undertaken, in view of the prohibition found in Section 4 (a) of R.A. No. 6657 against the reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands until Congress has determined by law the specific limits of the public domain
- In view of the foregoing, coverage of the property under the Integrated Social Forestry Program/Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, as embodied in the Memorandum of Agreement signed between and among the DENR, U.P. and DAR, should be pursued to its completion." (Emphasis supplied)
- However, should, in the process, a vested right stands to be adversely affected, considering that pursuant to Article I, Section 5 of DENR Administrative Order No. 96-29, the Community-Based Forest Management Program (CBFMP) is subject to prior vested right, then it behooves upon the implementing agency to have it resolved before full implementation is effected. For the University of the Philippines, the UP Land Grant Law of 1930 shall be the basis of its vested rights, if any.
February 20, 2002
COVERAGE; LAND COVERED BY ESCHEAT ORDER MAY BE COVERED BY CARP
- Since the Municipality of Baliangao, Misamis Occidental has inherited subject property by operation of law thru an escheat order, said municipality now possesses, as a rule, all the rights over the property. Hence, the land covered by the escheat order may now be covered under the agrarian reform program for its subsequent transfer to the qualified beneficiaries, and to further hold in trust the funds out of the land value as may be determined by the DARAB or Special Agrarian Court.
- In Roman Catholic Archbishop of Caceres vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform and DAR Regional Director (Region V), the Supreme Court ruled that, quote:
"The laws simply speak of the "landowner" without qualification as to under what title the land is held or what rights to the land the landowner may exercise. There is no distinction made whether the landowner holds "naked title" only or can exercise all the rights of ownership. To do so would be to frustrate the revolutionary intent of the law, which is the redistribution of agricultural land for the benefit of landless farmers and farmworkers."
DAR OPINION NO. 14, s. 2009
June 17, 2009
COVERAGE; LANDOWNERS NOT REQUIRED TO PAY REAL PROPERTY TAXES DURING THE PERIOD OF ERRONEOUS COVERAGE
- On grounds of fairness and equity, it is our view that since there appears to be an erroneous coverage by DLR of the subject landholding the fault of which could not be attributed to the landowners, they may not therefore be penalized by requiring them to pay the real property taxes during the period of erroneous coverage of said landholding.
DAR OPINION NO. 11, s. 2005
March 10, 2005
COVERAGE; LANDS ALREADY COVERED UNDER PD 27 CANNOT BE DECLARED AS "PROTECTED AREAS" THROUGH A PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION
- Lands already covered under P.D. No. 27 may not subsequently be declared as "protected areas" through a later Presidential Proclamation since, meanwhile, vested rights could have already set in. It should be stressed that both proclamations in issue provide for an exclusionary clause, that is, the provisions thereof are "subject to existing recognized and valid private rights."
DAR OPINION NO. 07, s. 2002
February 21, 2002
COVERAGE; LANDS COVERED BY PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATIONS
May CARP coverage be effected?
- Executive Order No. 506 dated 18 February 1992 which amended Executive Order No. 407 and Executive Order No. 448 states, quote:
- "Section 1. Section 1.A. of Executive Order No. 407, series of 1990, as amended by Executive Order No. 448, series of 1991, is hereby further amended to read as follows:
Section 1.A. Except national parks and other protected areas, all lands or portions of the public domain reserved by virtue of proclamation or law for specific purposes or uses by departments, bureaus, offices and agencies of the Government, which are suitable for agriculture and no longer actually, directly and exclusively used or necessary for the purpose for which they have been reserved as determined by the Department of Agrarian Reform in coordination with the government agency or instrumentality concerned in whose favor the reservation was established, shall be segregated from the reservations and transferred to the Department of Agrarian Reform for distribution to qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program."
- Section 2. A new section is hereby added to Executive Order No. 407, as amended, to read as follows:
"Section 1.B. All existing and proposed National Parks, Game Refuge and Bird Sanctuaries, Wildlife Reserves, Wilderness Areas and Other Protected Areas, including old growth or virgin forests, and all forests above 1,000 meters elevation or above 50 percent slope, are hereby excluded from the present segregation, acquisition and distribution procedures being conducted by the Department of Agrarian Reform until such time as these areas shall have been identified, studied and determined to be either retained and reclassified under the National Integrated Protected Areas System of DENR or to be segregated for agricultural purposes." (emphasis supplied)
- Section 3. All proclamations establishing such reservations and falling within the coverage of this Executive Order are hereby revoked, amended or modified accordingly.
- Given the above-quoted provisions of law, the CARP coverage of subject landholdings may not be effected until they are segregated for agricultural purposes by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) in coordination with DAR.
February 21, 2002
COVERAGE; LANDS FORECLOSED/OWNED BY FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
- Section 6 of CARL provides that no person may own or retain directly or indirectly, any agricultural land in excess of five (5) hectares. It shall be understood that the term "person" includes both natural and juridical persons.
- Private agricultural lands foreclosed/owned by financial institutions are still subject to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) pursuant to R.A. No. 6657, E.O. No. 407 and E.O. No. 360, and not exempt for acquisition by SPVs under R.A. No. 9182.
DAR OPINION NO. 13, s. 2007
February 16, 2007
COVERAGE; LANDS PREVIOUSLY EXEMPT FROM CARP WHEN SUBSEQUENTLY DEVELOPED FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION MAY BE COVERED UNDER R.A. NO. 6657
- Pertinent provision of the Civil Code of the Philippines, provides, quote:
"Art. 428 The owner has the right to enjoy and dispose of a thing, without other limitations than those established by law."
xxx xxx xxx
Likewise, DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 2004 (2004 Rules and Regulations Governing the Exclusion of Agricultural Lands Used for Cattle Raising from the Coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program) insofar as pertinent, provides:
"Sec. 14. Permanent/Continuous Exclusion of Lands Devoted to Cattle Raising Issued Exclusion Orders by the DAR. — Lands devoted to cattle raising which have been issued exclusion orders by the DAR may be permanently excluded from the coverage of the CARP, subject to the following conditions:
14.1 The subject lands which have been excluded must be continuously utilized for cattle production; or
14.2 The Stocking Rate (SR) should not fall below the prescribed SR. SR is considered below the prescribed ratios when:
xxx xxx xxx
14.3 The landowner shall submit, under oath, an annual report on the status of compliance with the conditions imposed under this Section to the MARO, copy furnished PARO and DAR Regional Office covering the subject property."
The abovequoted provisions of the Civil Code and A.O. No. 01, Series of 2004, when taken together, would clearly and explicitly reveal that landowner may exercise his rights, i.e., to develop the 10-hectare portion of his property into saba banana farm, but the same shall be subject to existing laws, the Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), in particular. Since the portion of the property will eventually be devoted to agricultural activity, it will cease to be exempt from the CARP coverage. The government through the DAR will acquire the property to be distributed to qualified farmer-beneficiaries as mandated under R.A. No. 6657 subject however to the landowner’s right of retention.
DAR OPINION NO. 08, s. 2007
February 7, 2007
COVERAGE; LANDS UNDER E.O. 407 AS AMENDED BY E.O. 448
What are the conditions in order that lands reserved by Presidential Proclamations may be covered under CARP?
- All lands or portions thereof reserved by virtue of Presidential Proclamation which are suitable for agriculture and no longer actually, directly and exclusively used or necessary for the purpose for which they have been reserved, as determined by the DAR in coordination with the government agency or instrumentality concerned, shall be covered by CARP.
October 27, 1999
COVERAGE; LANDS UNDER PD 27 CANNOT BE DECLARED AS "PROTECTED AREAS" THROUGH A PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION
May lands already covered under PD 27 be declared as "protected areas" through a later Presidential Proclamation?
- Lands already covered under P.D. No. 27 may not subsequently be declared as "protected areas" through a later Presidential Proclamation since, meanwhile, vested rights could have already set in. It should be stressed that both proclamations in issue provide for an exclusionary clause, that is, the provisions thereof are "subject to existing recognized and valid private rights."
February 21, 2002
COVERAGE; LUNGSOD SILANGAN TOWNSITE
Are lands falling within Lungsod Silangan Townsite excluded from CARP coverage?
- Executive Order No. 448, mandates the segregation for CARP coverage of said lands suitable for agriculture, if the same are no longer actually, directly and exclusively used or necessary for the purpose for which they have been reserved. Thus, portions of lands not actually, directly and exclusively used or necessary for townsite purposes within the boundaries of the Lungsod Silangan Townsite may be excluded from the operation of Presidential Proclamation 1283, Presidential Proclamations 1637 and Letter of Instruction 625 and placed under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program for distribution to qualified beneficiaries. However, there should be a joint coordinative determination by DAR and the government agency concerned pursuant to the aforequoted provision of E.O. No. 448.
September 16, 1999
COVERAGE; NOT DEPENDENT ON THE WILLINGNESS OF THE LANDOWNERS TO HAVE THEIR PROPERTIES COVERED
Is acquisition of agricultural lands in excess of the retention area imperative?
- Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) expressly provides that said law shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture. Specifically, paragraph (d) thereof provides that all private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon are subject to compulsory acquisition by the government through DAR for distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries. Section 7 of the same law (first and fifth paragraphs) further provides that "The DAR, in coordination with the PARC, shall plan and program the acquisition and distribution of all agricultural lands through a period of ten (10) years from the effectivity of said Act (i.e., 15 June 1988)" and that there is "the need to distribute lands to the tillers at the earliest practicable time" (underscoring supplied). Moreover, DAR Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989 likewise provides that in order to hasten the implementation of the CARP, compulsory acquisition shall be the priority mode of land acquisition.
- The acquisition of agricultural lands in excess of the retention area is imperative and should in no case be dependent on the willingness of the landowners to have their properties covered. To continuously accede to their will and to indefinitely wait for the subject evidences to be submitted to DAR, despite the lapse of already more than one year from the time the Office of the President had issued the aforesaid directives, would obviously place the coverage of the lands in issue at the mercy of landowners whose primary objective is patently to unduly delay and derail the implementation of R.A. No. 6657. This should not be countenanced.
July 1, 1998
COVERAGE; OLT
What is the effect if the requisites of OLT coverage is not in existence prior to effectivity of P.D. No. 27?
- If the requisites of OLT coverage were in existence as of the effectivity of PD 27 on 21 October 1972, the property should be covered under OLT notwithstanding the transfer of the property in favor of the Bank. PD 27 is inapplicable, the property should be placed under CARL coverage.
August 5, 1994
COVERAGE; OLT COVERED LANDS NOT SUBJECTED UNDER THE VOS SCHEME
Can OLT covered lands be the subject of VOS Scheme?
- OLT covered lands cannot be subjected under the Voluntary Offer to Sell scheme as it is not a mode allowed under P.D. No. 27.
December 23, 1996
- Operation Land Transfer coverage is pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27. Said Decree mandates the transfer of private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice/corn to the tenants thereof.
December 2, 1994
COVERAGE; ONLY LANDS SUITABLE FOR AGRICULTURE
Can the lot on which a house stands be awarded pursuant to R.A. 6657?
- The lot on which a house stands cannot be awarded pursuant to R.A. 6657 because only lands suitable for agriculture are subject to redistribution under said law. Moreover, the qualified beneficiaries of CARL are tenants, tillers and farmworkers.
July 2, 1996
COVERAGE; PASTURE LAND
Are farms primarily used as a pasture land be covered under CARP?
- DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993 pertinently provides, quote:
"III. POLICY STATEMENT
A. Private agricultural lands or portions thereof exclusively, directly and actually used for livestock, poultry and swine raising as of June 15, 1988 shall be excluded from the coverage of CARP.
B. In determining the areas qualified for exclusion under this Administrative Order, the following ratios of land, livestock, poultry and swine raising shall be adopted.
1.0 Grazing
1.1 Cattle, Carabao and Horse Raising
— cattle, carabao and horses (regardless of age) — the maximum ratio is one (1) head to one (1) hectare."
- If the subject farms conform with the requirements prescribed by the above-quoted Administrative Order, the same shall be exempted from CARP coverage, after the landowner has duly applied for exemption and such has been adjudicated on the merits to be indeed exempt from CARP coverage.
September 8, 1999
COVERAGE; P.D. NO. 399: PROVISION
What does P.D. No. 399 provide?
- A perusal of Presidential Decree No. 399 shows that lands of the public domain as well as lands owned by private persons within the strip of one thousand meters along existing, proposed or on-going public highways or roads may be covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform program (CARP). Said Presidential Decree specifically provides that the use of such land shall first be available for human settlement sites, land reform, relocation of squatters from congested urban areas, tourism development, agro-industrial estates, environmental protection and improvement, infrastructure and other vital projects in support of the socio-economic development program of the Government.
July 7, 1997
COVERAGE; PENDING INVESTIGATION
Can the DAR proceed with the acquisition of properties subject of investigation or litigation?
- Under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6657, the DAR is mandated to cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture. Thus, although ownership of said landholdings is under investigation or litigation, the DAR may still proceed with their acquisition considering that no matter what the outcome of the investigation or litigation may be, the lands are still covered under CARP.
October 23, 2000
COVERAGE; PROPERTIES DISPOSED OF BY A GFI
May the properties disposed of by a GFI, such as DBP be covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
- Properties disposed of by a GFI, such as DBP may be transferred in the name of the vendees. However, the properties transferred shall still be subjected to acquisition and redistribution to qualified beneficiaries pursuant to CARL. Simply stated, although the transfer of said properties is allowed under RA 7881, the same are not excluded from CARP coverage.
September 27, 1995
COVERAGE; QUESTION OF OWNERSHIP NOT A BAR IN THE COVERAGE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND
Is a question of ownership a bar in the coverage of agricultural land?
- It could be inferred from the provision of Section 16 (e) of RA 6657 that question of ownership is not a bar in the coverage of an agricultural land under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) especially so if it is clear that no matter what the outcome of the litigation may be, the land is still covered under CARP. Thus, the DAR could immediately take possession of the land and proceed with the coverage upon deposit in cash or in LBP bonds of the compensation for the land pending the resolution of the ownership dispute. Furthermore, it bears stressing likewise that in Republic of the Philippines vs. Eduardo M. Cojuangco, Jr., et al., Sandiganbayan Resolution No. 0033 dated January 16, 1996, the Sandiganbayan had ruled that in cases where ownership of the land is under litigation, the DAR may proceed without leave of Court to implement R.A. No. 6657, as well as related laws and implementing regulations under its own authority over agricultural lands covered by CARP.
October 16, 2000
COVERAGE; RESERVED LANDS PURSUANT TO PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION
Are reserved lands pursuant to a Presidential Proclamation be covered by CARP?
- Executive Order No. 448 which amends Executive Order No. 407 provides for the following:
"Sec. 1-A. All lands or portions thereof reserved by virtue of Presidential Proclamations for specific public uses by the government, its agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations suitable for agriculture and no longer actually, directly and exclusively used or necessary for the purposes for which they have been reserved, as determined by the Department of Agrarian Reform in coordination with the government agency or instrumentality concerned in whose favor the reservation was established, shall be segregated from the reservation and transferred to the Department of Agrarian Reform for distribution to qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program."
- It is very explicit that reserved lands by virtue of a Presidential Proclamation may be covered by CARP for distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries provided these are no longer actually, exclusively and directly used or necessary for the purposes for which they have been reserved as determined by the DAR in coordination with the government agency or instrumentality concerned in whose favor the reservation was established. This joint determination must first be made in order that said lands may be covered under R.A. No. 6657 (CARL).
- Pursuant to Executive Orders Nos. 407 and 448, all government agencies or government owned and controlled corporations or financial institutions, as the case may be, shall immediately execute a Deed of Transfer in favor of the Republic of the Philippines as represented by the Department of Agrarian Reform and surrender to the latter Department all landholdings suitable for agriculture for distribution to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries. This is anchored on the State principle that land has a social function and land ownership has a social responsibility, thus, agricultural lands should be turned into their wisest and most productive use for the material upliftment of the many and the prosperity of all.
September 4, 1998
COVERAGE; RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF LANDOWNER AND TENANT UNDER OLT
What are the rights and obligations of landowner and tenant under OLT, on land pending transfer and payment?
- In a situation wherein the owner of an agricultural land covered under Operation Land Transfer (OLT) is not yet compensated by either the government or the tenant-beneficiary. In such case, the landowner has the right to receive the land compensation from the Land Bank, while the tenant-beneficiary has the obligation to pay the value of the land to the Land Bank by way of land amortization payment.
February 21, 2002
COVERAGE; RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF LANDOWNER AND TENANT UNDER OLT WHEN OWNERSHIP HAS NOT YET BEEN TRANSFERRED BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS YET TO PAY DUE COMPENSATION TO LANDOWNER
- In a situation wherein the owner of an agricultural land covered under Operation Land Transfer (OLT) is not yet compensated by either the government or the tenant-beneficiary. In such case, the landowner has the right to receive the land compensation from the Land Bank, while the tenant-beneficiary has the obligation to pay the value of the land to the Land Bank by way of land amortization payment.
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 2002
February 21, 2002
COVERAGE; SCOPE OF CARL
What is the scope of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law?
- The provision of R.A. No. 6657 which particularly deals with coverage is Section 4, quote:
"SECTION 4. Scope — The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.
More specifically, the following lands are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program:
xxx xxx xxx
d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon."
October 6, 1999
- As regards the coverage of agricultural lands under CARP, it is basic that the application of the law to a particular property is made only once. That is, if a landowner's property has been subjected to CARP coverage, at no instance shall his retention be taken again without his consent for redistribution to farmer-beneficiaries.
However, any other agricultural land of a landowner beyond his retention area shall likewise be covered under CARP.
December 14, 1999
- Section 4(a) of R.A. No. 6657 provides that CARP covers all alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture. Section 7 of the same law includes alienable and disposable public agricultural lands in Phase Two of CARP implementation.
October 27, 1994
December 2, 1998
- Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657 covers, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. For purposes of determining whether or not the said agricultural land falls under CARP coverage, the aggregate area of the said agricultural land shall be considered. Accordingly, all agricultural lands in excess of the five (5) hectare retention allowed a landowner and the three (3) hectare award to each of his children if qualified, are subject to acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries pursuant to the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law).
October 5, 1999
March 4, 1999
December
July 3, 1997
October 27, 1994
February 9, 1994
Does CARL cover those areas within the geothermal block?
- CARL does not cover those areas within the geothermal block, considering that they are reserved by Proclamation for geothermal exploration/development and have been confirmed as active area for said purpose.
September 24, 1994
COVERAGE; SCOPE OF CARL
What is the scope of the CARL?
- It bears stressing here, moreover, Sections 4 (d) and 6 (1st paragraph) of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), which provide:
"SECTION 4. Scope — The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.
More specifically, the following lands are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program:
xxx xxx xxx
d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon." (emphasis supplied)
"SECTION 6. Retention Limits. — . . . In no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. . ."
- From the aforequoted provisions of R.A. No. 6657, it is clear that all private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture in excess of the 5-hectare retention limit shall be acquired under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) for distribution to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries (as defined and contemplated under existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations) and not to "weekend farmers."
- It is the spirit and intent of the law to cover all agricultural lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture. Moreover, since R.A. No. 6657 is a social welfare legislation, the rules on exemptions, exclusions and/or conversions must be interpreted restrictively and any doubt as to the applicability of the law should be resolved in favor of inclusion. Thus, the subject agricultural landholding which is beyond the 5-hectare retention area, if not converted, may be acquired under the CARP for distribution to agrarian reform beneficiaries.
September 17, 2003
COVERAGE; SCOPE OF CARL
What is the scope of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law?
- Section 4 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657) is explicit. It mandates the coverage, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture, regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised therein. Thus, for as long as the land in issue is agricultural and coverable, we may proceed with the coverage.
December 21, 2001
COVERAGE; SCOPE OF CARL
What is the scope of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law?
- It should be stressed that all agricultural lands are automatically covered under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program. Landowners whose agricultural lands are covered by CARP have really no choice except to submit to the program. Only those lands specifically exempted from the coverage of CARP may be transferred irrespective of agrarian laws. Since your queries involve agrarian matters, such as the lands being agricultural, the transfer being in favor of alleged farmers, and the segregation and titling of the lands, then the transfer agreement should still comply with all the requirements of agrarian laws.
May 24, 2001
COVERAGE; SEQUESTERED AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Are sequestered agricultural lands covered under CARP?
- The DAR can proceed with the acquisition and distribution under CARL of sequestered agricultural lands subject of pending cases in Court provided that a Court Order allowing said CARL coverage has been secured by DAR.
August 17, 1994
COVERAGE; SUGARLANDS
Should sugarlands within the Ormoc Sugar Mill District be covered by CARL?
- Since the mandate of CARL is for the acquisition and distribution of agricultural lands, the coverage of sugarlands within the Ormoc Sugar Mill District should not be affected by the allegation that it is not economically feasible to divide sugarlands into small farms. The mandate under CARL to acquire and redistribute to qualified beneficiaries all lands suitable for agriculture outside of the retention limits subsists.
December 13, 1996
COVERAGE; SUGARLANDS FORECLOSED BY GFIs
Are sugarlands already foreclosed by GFIs as of the effectivity of R.A. No. 7202 excluded from CARP Coverage?
- DOJ Opinion No. 91, Series of 1995, holds the view that "sugarlands already foreclosed by GFIs as of the effectivity of RA 7202 are not excluded from CARP coverage although their respective owners are entitled to the benefit of recomputation of their paid loan accounts for the purpose of determining if they had made any excess payments on interests, penalties and surcharges which are condoned, and if so, for such excess payments to be credited to payment of their remaining accounts, if any or refunded to them."
- In fine, the DOJ concludes that "RA 7202 (Sugar Restitution Law) has not repealed RA 6657 insofar as the latter covers foreclosed sugarland, referring to foreclosed land where title has fully vested in the purchaser after the lapse of the period of redemption without the previous owner having exercised his right of redemption.
December 13, 1996
COVERAGE; TOURIST ZONE PURSUANT TO PROCLAMATION NOS. 1520 (1975) AND 1801 (S. 1978)
Are the Tourist Zones pursuant to Proclamation Nos. 1520 (1975) and 1801 (S. 1978) within the coverage of CARP?
- Proclamation No. 1520 and 1801, Series of 1975 and 1978, respectively, declaring certain areas as Tourist Zones, have the force and effect of law. However, effective 15 June 1988, R.A. No. 6657 placed all agricultural lands, public and private, regardless of tenurial arrangements and commodity produced, under the coverage of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
- As a consequence, Section 1 of E.O. No. 448 which amends E.O. No. 407 provides: "All lands or portions thereof reserved by virtue of Presidential Proclamations for specific public uses by the government, its agencies and its instrumentalities including government-owned or controlled corporations suitable for agriculture and no longer actually directly and exclusively used or necessary for the purposes for which they have been reserved as determined by the Department of Agrarian Reform in coordination with the government agency or instrumentality concerned in whose favor the reservation was established, shall be separated from the reservation and transferred to the Department of Agrarian Reform for distribution to qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
March 20, 1997
COVERAGE; UNDER E.O. NO. 407 AS AMENDED BY E.O. NO. 448
Are agricultural lands or portions thereof reserved by virtue of a Presidential Proclamation for public uses be segregated from the reservation and transferred to the DAR for distribution to qualified FBs?
- Malinaw ang mga sumusunod na isinasaad ng Executive Order No. 407 na may petsang Hunyo 14, 1990 na sinusugan ng Executive Order No. 448 na may petsa Pebrero 14, 1991:
"Sec. 1-A. All lands or portions thereof reserved by virtue of a Presidential Proclamation for specific public uses by the government, its agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations suitable for agriculture and no longer actually, directly and exclusively used or necessary for the purposes for which they have been reserved, as determined by the Department of Agrarian Reform in coordination with the government agency or instrumentality concerned in whose favor the reservation was established, shall be segregated from the reservation and transferred to the Department of Agrarian Reform for distribution to qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program." (underscoring and emphasis supplied)
- Kung mapapatunayan na ang mga lupang sinasaka ay tumutugon sa mga kadahilanang nabanggit sa itaas at magkakaroon ng "joint determination" ang DAR at Fil-Oil/PNOC tungkol dito, ang mga lupang ito ay maibubukod at maisasalin sa Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) upang maipamahagi sa mga qualified beneficiaries. Kung ang nasabing pagbubukod ay hindi maisasakatuparan, ang Kagawaran ng Repormang Pansakahan ay sumusuporta sa kahilingan na mapawalang-bisa o maamiyendahan ang Proclamation Nos. 971 at 1980 na nauukol sa mga lupaing nabanggit sa kadahilanan na ang mga ito ay mga "prime agricultural lands" na dapat lamang panatilihin bilang pansakahan upang tunay na mapangalagaan ang seguridad sa pagkain at ang kapakanan ng mga maliliit na magsasaka.
September 22, 1999
COVERAGE; UNDER PD 27
What lands are covered under P.D. 27?
- Only tenanted private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice/corn are covered by P.D. No. 27.
May 27, 1996
COVERAGE; UNDER P.D. NO. 27
What does P.D. No. 27 cover?
- P.D. No. 27 covers tenanted private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice/corn which fall outside of the landowners 7-hectare retention. However, if a landowner owns 24-hectares or more of tenanted rice/corn lands, the entire area is subject to Operation Land Transfer (OLT) coverage pursuant to P.D. No. 27.
- Moreover, tenanted rice/corn lands of 7 hectares or less shall be subject to redistribution to the tenants thereof if the same are owned by landowners who, as of the effectivity of LOI 474 on 21 October 1976, own other agricultural lands of more than 7 hectares of aggregate areas or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families. P.D. No. 27 does not set a limit to the number of hectares that a corporation can own but rather prescribes the conditions under which tenanted rice/corn lands shall be placed under the coverage of PD 27.
August 8, 1994
COVERAGE; UNTITLED A & D LANDS
Are untitled public A & D lands subject to CARP coverage?
- As a general rule, untitled public A & D lands are within the jurisdiction of DENR pursuant to C.A. No. 141 (Public Land Act). Item II.C of Joint DAR-DENR Memorandum Circular No. 14, Series of 1997 specifically provides that all agricultural A & D lands classified as such after April 16, 1960, as herein, shall be under the exclusive jurisdiction of the DENR. Moreover, Item II.D of Joint DAR-DENR M.C. 19, Series of 1997 provides that untitled A & D lands over which the land claimant lacks the required thirty (30) years or more continuous occupancy, whether tenanted or not, shall be under the jurisdiction of the DENR. It does not mean, however, that it is not coverable by CARP, specifically the applicable provisions of Republic Act No. 6657.
September 17, 1999
COVERAGE; WHEN COMMERCIAL FARMS COVERED UNDER CARP
When will commercial farms be covered under CARP?
- Under existing laws (Section 11 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended by Section 3 of R.A. No. 7881), commercial farms shall be subject to immediate compulsory acquisition and distribution after ten (10) years from effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Meanwhile, the Government (DAR) shall initiate steps necessary to acquire said lands and, upon payment of just compensation for the land and the improvements thereon, distribute them preferably in favor of organized cooperatives or associations which shall thereafter manage said lands for the worker-beneficiaries. For new farms, landowners were allowed the chance to recover their investments and insulate them from possible disruptions in operations and production by prescribing that the ten-year deferment period shall be made to commence only on their first year of commercial production and operation.
- All commercial farms whose deferment expired as of June 15, 1998, shall be subject to immediate acquisition and distribution under CARP pursuant to the aforecited laws and DAR Administrative Order No. 09, Series of 1998 (Rules and Regulations on the Acquisition, Valuation, Compensation and Distribution of Deferred Commercial Farms).
November 10, 1999
CULTIVATION; DEFINED
Is cultivation limited to the plowing and harrowing of the land?
- Cultivation is not limited to the plowing and harrowing of the land, but also the husbanding of the ground to forward the products of the earth by general industry, the taking care of the land and fruits growing thereon, fencing of certain areas, and the clearing thereof by gathering dried leaves and cutting of grasses. In coconut lands, cultivation includes the clearing of the landholding, the gathering of the coconuts, their piling, husking and handling as well as the processing thereof into copra, although at times with the aid of hired laborers.
May 17, 1994
May 28, 1996
D
DAMAGES; WHEN TENANTS ARE ENTITLED
When are tenants entitled to claim for damages?
- Tenants are by law entitled to claim for damages from the sale of lumber by the landowner. Under DAR Administrative Order No. 05, Series of 1993, the cutting of coconut trees shall be with the consent of the tenants which clearly implies that it affects the rights and interests of the latter over the subject landholding including the preservation of the land according to the use for which it has been intended.
- Likewise, under DAR Administrative Order No. 16, S. 1989, the indiscriminate cutting of coconut trees by the landowner is under regulation since this may lead to the unlawful ejectment or dispossession of the tenant-tillers and/or farmworkers. As to how much should the tenant claim, sound judgment dictates that the DAR Officer concerned should determine the same such as would be just and equitable under the circumstances with due regard to the tenants.
March 20, 1997
DAR CLEARANCE
Whether or not the Provincial Office can issue a DAR Certification pursuant to Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1989 taking into consideration that there is a legal question on the authority to do so especially that the property to be cleared was supposedly donated to the DAR?
- DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1989 is inapplicable considering that the certification sought to be issued by the PARO partakes of the nature of clearance for transfer of subject property to the DECS which only the DAR Secretary or his duly authorized representative may issue. By the donation, the property is now property of the Department.
April 5, 2000
DAR CLEARANCE
Is DAR clearance necessary in the acquisition of foreclosed properties?
- It is necessary that a DAR clearance be secured since the property that is to be acquired by the buyer from the bank is a foreclosed agricultural land coverable under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
May 19, 1998
DAR CLEARANCE
Is DAR Clearance still required in order to effect registration of the Deed of Absolute Sale with the Register of Deeds?
- DAR clearance is still required in order to effect registration of the Deed of Absolute Sale with the Register of Deeds. The DAR Clearance for the registration of the transaction signifies that the sale, transfer or conveyance covered thereby is not in contravention of R.A. No. 6657.
October 8, 1996
January 29, 1997
May a DAR Clearance be construed as a validation of any transaction affecting properties previously covered by CARP?
- A DAR Clearance is no longer necessary in landholdings not covered by CARP. DAR Clearance only signifies and guarantees that transaction (sale, transfer or conveyance) affecting properties previously covered by CARP were made not in circumvention of RA No. 6657. However, the DAR Clearance is not to be construed as a validation of any transaction affecting properties previously covered by the Program.
June 2, 1997
DAR CLEARANCE: EFFECT
Is DAR Clearance required for the registration of disposition or sale by the ROD.
- A DAR Clearance is required for the registration by the Register of Deeds of the disposition or sale. The DAR Clearance signifies that the transaction is not in circumvention of CARL and may therefore be registered.
May 27, 1996
DAR CLEARANCE; LANDS TO BE USED FOR CHURCH PURPOSES; LIMITATIONS
- The clearance of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer of the province is necessary and in the grant thereof, the PARO shall be guided on the criteria prescribed in A.O. No. 5, Series of 2007. The Administrative Order is explicit that the area to be devoted to churches and other places of worship should be reasonable, taking into consideration the need therefor, the custom of the place, the size of its congregation and other peculiarities of the place, once ascertained, it is further allowed half the size thereof for churchyard.
DAR OPINION NO. 25, s. 2008
October 9, 2008
DAR CLEARANCE; SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHEN VALID
- A sale of an agricultural land (a ricefield) is valid when the necessary DAR clearance as required under DAR A.O. No. 01, Series of 1989 (Rules and Procedures Governing Land Transactions), is obtained by the seller. An "alleged tenant" cannot validly dispose a property that does not belong to him. No one can give what he does not have. Further, a conversion of an agricultural land to non-agricultural use may be legally undertaken only after approval thereof by the Department of Agrarian Reform pursuant to RA No. 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988.
DAR OPINION NO. 05, s. 2008
February 19, 2008
DAR CLEARANCE; ACQUISITION BY THE GOVERNMENT THROUGH EMINENT DOMAIN; EXEMPTED
May NPC be exempted from DAR clearance?
- A careful reading of the aforequoted provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1989 and DAR Administrative Order No. 8, series of 1995 [Rules and Procedures Governing the Transferability of Lands Awarded to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 as amended by Executive Order No. 228 and Republic Act No. 6657] would still call/require for a DAR Clearance.
- Here, since the acquisition is by the government through expropriation for public use or national interest in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, your request for DAR clearance which is necessary for registration is hereby granted. However, it must be stressed that this clearance is solely for purposes of registration without prejudice to NPC still applying for conversion.
June 6, 2003
DAR CLEARANCE; CANNOT BE ISSUED WHEN THERE IS ILLEGAL TRANSFER
- Since the sale is considered an illegal transfer which is prohibited under Section 73 of R.A. No. 6657, the DAR Clearance cannot be granted. Section 6 of the same Act only allows the retention limit of the landowner of up to five (5) hectares. This means that the landowner is only allowed to dispose of his property within his retention limit and the excess of the five (5) hectares shall be covered by CARP for distribution to qualified farmer beneficiaries.
DAR OPINION NO. 25, s. 2006
August 29, 2006
DAR CLEARANCE; CARP COVERED NOT SUBJECT TO DAR CLEARANCE
Can CARP covered lands be the subject of application for DAR Clearance?
- DAR Clearance signifies that the transaction covered thereby is not in violation of RA 6657 and therefore, the registration of the landholding eventually follows. If the landholding falls under CARP coverage, the application for DAR Clearance shall be denied and the property shall be acquired and distributed to qualified tenant/beneficiaries pursuant to CARL.
March 6, 1996
DAR CLEARANCE; DAR's OBLIGATION TO ISSUE CLEARANCE
Is DAR Clearance necessary in the registration of agrilands disposed of by banks as a result of foreclosure of mortgage?
- The DAR may not decline the issuance of a clearance for the registration of agrilands disposed of by banks as a result of foreclosure of mortgage. This is in accord with the provision of R.A. No. 7881 which allows the bank to dispose of their foreclosed agricultural lands to third persons. It must be understood however that the subject property though allowed to be disposed of to third persons is still covered under the CARP, regardless of its area.
May 19, 1998
DAR CLEARANCE; EXEMPTED TRANSACTIONS
What are the transactions exempted from DAR Clearance?
- DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1989 (Rules and Procedures Governing Land Transactions), enumerates the transactions which may be registered by the Register of Deeds without prior clearance from DAR, to wit:
"II. RULES ON VALIDITY OF LAND TRANSACTIONS
(a) The following are not prohibited transactions and may be registered by the Register of Deeds without prior clearance from DAR:
a. Deed of extra-judicial partition of the property of deceased who died prior to June 15, 1988.
b. Deed of partition of property owned in common by co-owners prior to June 15, 1988.
c. Sub-division of title without change of ownership.
d. Deed of real (es)state mortgage executed by the original landowner or beneficiary."
August 25, 2003
DAR CLEARANCE; EXEMPTED TRANSACTIONS
What are the transactions exempted from DAR Clearance?
- DAR A.O. No. 01, series of 1989 enumerated the transactions that may be registed by the Register of Deeds even without clearance from the Department of Agrarian Reform, to wit:
1. Deed of extrajudicial partition of the property of a deceased who died prior to June 15, 1988.
2. Deed of partition of property owned in common by co-owners prior to June 15, 1988.
3. Sub-division of title without change of ownership.
4. Deed of real estate mortgage executed by the original landowner or beneficiary.
October 23, 1996
DAR CLEARANCE; ISSUANCE THEREOF
When should DAR clearance be issued?
- Provided there is no violation of the provisions of Sections 6, 70 and 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657 as regards the 5-hectare retention limit and landownership ceiling, DAR clearance may be issued pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1989 (Rules and Procedures Governing Land Transactions). However, the productivity of the land shall be maintained and any change in the nature of its use shall not be allowed except with approval of the DAR under its rules on conversion or exemption.
January 20, 2003
DAR CLEARANCE; ISSUANCE THEREOF
When should DAR clearance be issued?
- Notwithstanding the provision of Sec. 6 R.A. No. 6657 which provides that upon its effectivity on June 15, 1988, "any sale, xxx xxx transfer of possession of private agricultural land executed by the original landowner in violation of this act shall be null and void," any requested DAR clearance for the registration of the transfer and consolidation of ownership of parcels of farmlots be issued, without prejudice however, to CARP coverage of said parcels of farmlots.
December 13, 1996
Is DAR Clearance necessary in transfer of ownership?
- Compliance with the DAR Clearance requirement prior to registration with the Register of Deeds is compulsory for transactions involving transfer of ownership. Specifically, the issuance of DAR Clearance signifies and guarantees that the transaction does not violate agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. The issuance thereof is however not to be construed in itself as a validation of the transaction for it only serves as a safeguard against possible circumvention of agrarian laws.
September 17, 1997
DAR CLEARANCE; MANDATORY REQUIREMENT
Is DAR Clearance prior to registration a mandatory requirement?
The compliance of DAR Clearance prior to registration is a mandatory requirement that its compliance cannot be left to the discretion of the parties nor can it be dispensed with at their own volition considering that it serves as a safeguard against possible circumvention of RA 6657.
December 23, 1996
DAR CLEARANCE; MANDATORY REQUIREMENT FOR DISPOSITION OR ALIENATION OF AGRCIULTURAL LANDS LESS THAN 5 HECTARES
- The provision of Section 70 of R.A. No. 6657 implies that Retention Order and/or Certificate of Retention are not mandatorily required before a retained area could be sold or alienated. It is enough that the total landholdings that shall be owned by the transferee thereof inclusive of the land to be acquired shall not exceed the landholding ceilings provided for by CARL. It submitted that our Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PAROs) are intelligent, capable and trustworthy enough to arrive at a fair and honest finding as to what constitute the retention area from which finding he must necessarily base his decision on whether or not to issue the mandatorily required DAR Clearance to prevent circumvention of the Program. What is mandatory as far as the sale/alienation of agricultural lands less than five (5) hectares are concerned is the DAR Clearance and not the Retention Certificate or Order.
DAR OPINION NO. 10, s. 2007
February 13, 2007
DAR CLEARANCE; NO LONGER NEEDED FOR TRANSFER OF RESIDENTIAL LANDS
May residential lands be transferred without DAR Clearance?
- Only public and private lands suitable for agriculture are mandated for coverage under CARL to be redistributed to qualified farmer-beneficiaries. This means that the residential land may be transferred without the need for a DAR Clearance.
March 20, 1997
DAR CLEARANCE; NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH DAR CONVERSION ORDER
What is the difference between DAR Clearance and Conversion Order
- The issuance of a DAR clearance involving the disposition or transfer of agricultural lands coverable under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) merely signifies that the transaction is not in circumvention of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) and may therefore be registered. It is not synonymous with a DAR Conversion Order/Clearance which is issued only after determination on the merits of a duly filed application for conversion the effect of which is to change the current physical use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use.
February 4, 2004
DAR CLEARANCE; PERSON AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE DAR CLEARANCE
Who issues the DAR Clearance?
- It is explicit from the immediately aforequoted provision of said guideline that it is the PARO who is authorized to issue the DAR Clearance. It is worthy to note, moreover, that no appeal process to the DAR Regional Director was provided therein. The Regional Director may not, therefore, issue a DAR Clearance in case the applicant brings the case to the Regional Office on appeal.
October 14, 2003
DAR CLEARANCE; RELEVANCE
What is the relevance of a DAR clearance?
- DAR clearance is still necessary before the sale could be effected to foreclose possible circumvention of the CARL pursuant to Sections 6 (4th paragraph), 70 and 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657, as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989.
December 23, 1999
DAR CLEARANCE; REQUIRED IN TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING TRANSFER OR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND
- In all transactions involving the transfer or sale of agricultural land to another, the issuance of a DAR Clearance is an essential requisite in order that it may be considered a valid transfer. This is in view of the DAR's policy to protect the rights of tenants and other farmworkers who may be displaced therein.
DAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 2006
March 21, 2006
DAR CLEARANCE; REQUIREMENT BEFORE TRANSFER IS ALLOWED
- DAR Administrative Order No. 08, Series of 1995 [Rules and Procedures Governing the Transferability of Lands Awarded to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 as Amended by Executive Order No. 228 and Republic Act No. 6657], provides that the lands awarded to ARBs pursuant to either PD 27 or RA 6657 may be transferred and registered by the Register of Deeds only after the issuance of DAR Clearance. Corollary thereto, although the transfer of awarded land is allowed the productivity of the subject land be maintained and any change in the nature of its use shall not be allowed except with the approval of the DAR under its rules on conversion or exemption.
DAR OPINION NO. 11, s. 2009
June 2, 2009
DAR CLEARANCE; REQUIREMENT BEFORE TRANSFER IS ALLOWED
Is the transfer of awarded land allowed?
- DAR Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1995 provides that the lands awarded to ARBs pursuant to either PD 27 or RA 6657 may be transferred and registered by the Register of Deeds only after the issuance of DAR Clearance. Corollary thereto, although the transfer of awarded land is allowed, the productivity of the subject land be maintained and any change in the nature of its use shall not be allowed except with the approval of the DAR under its rules on conversion or exemption.
- While we welcome the suggestion that the titles should be indorsed directly to the Register of Deeds instead of passing it from MARO, PARO and then to Register of Deeds, we regret to inform that said suggestion cannot be considered because until said procedure are amended or abrogated the same will continue to be applied on matters dealing with the cancellation of titles.
January 21, 1997
DAR CLEARANCE; REQUIREMENTS
What are the requirements for DAR Clearance?
- The DAR Clearance for the registration of the transaction shall be issued only if the following documents are submitted:
1. Certificate of Full payment of Amortizations to be issued by the LBP on lands financed by the said bank or by DAR in the case of lands covered by the Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme (VLT/DPS);
2. Certification regarding Full Payment of Irrigation Fees (NIA);
3. Certification regarding Loans (equipment), production, etc. (DAR/LBP);
4. Tax Clearance (Treasurer's Office); and
5. Affidavit of the transferor stating that the subject property has no pending case at the DARAB or any of its Adjudicators, the DAR, the Courts or at the Office of the President.
July 2, 1996
DAR CLEARANCE; REQUIREMENTS
What documents are needed to support the application for DAR Clearance?
- The DAR Clearance signifies that the sale is not in violation of CARL, and may therefore be registered in the name of the vendee. To support the application for DAR Clearance, proof must be submitted to show that the property sold is within the retained area of the landowner and that the vendees agricultural lands do not exceed the five-hectare landownership ceiling, inclusive of the property acquired.
December 20, 1995
DAR CLEARANCE; REQUISITE AFFIDAVIT OF PROPERTY HOLDINGS WHEN NOT NECESSARY
When can we dispense with the Submission of an Affidavit attesting that the transferee's aggregate landholding does not exceed five (5) hectares?
- Normally, we require the submission of an affidavit attesting that transferee's aggregate landholding does not exceed five (5) hectares. However, in the case at hand, we are foregoing the said requirement, for the reason that Economic Zones like the CEZA, would naturally possess vast tracts of land exceeding five (5) hectares. Limiting acquisition of lands (particularly agricultural) would defeat the national interest and public purpose of their creation.
August 25, 2003
DAR CLEARANCE; REQUISITE BEFORE A VALID TRANSFER COULD BE EFFECTED
- Compliance with the required DAR clearance prior to registration with the Register of Deeds pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989 (Rules and Procedures Governing Land Transactions) is compulsory for transactions involving transfer of ownership. The issuance of DAR clearance signifies and guarantees that the transaction does not violate agrarian laws and its other related implementing rules and regulations.
DAR OPINION NO. 23, s. 2006
August 1, 2006
DAR CLEARANCE; REQUISITE BEFORE A VALID TRANSFER COULD BE EFFECTED
- Any change in the nature of the awarded lands' use shall not be allowed except with the approval of the DAR under its rules on conversion or exemption. Further, Item II.1 of DAR Administrative Order NO. 08, Series of 1995 clearly provides that lands awarded to agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) pursuant to either P.D. No. 27 or R.A. No. 6657 may be transferred and registered by the Register of Deeds only after the issuance of a DAR Clearance. The issuance of a DAR Clearance is therefore an essential requisite before a valid transfer could be effected, otherwise the sale or transfer is void.
DAR OPINION NO. 03, s. 2006
January 20, 2006
DAR CLEARANCE; SIGNIFICANCE
What is the significance of a DAR Clearance?
- A DAR Clearance for registration signifies that the transaction involved does not contravene the mandate under CARL to acquire and distribute agricultural land to qualified beneficiaries.
April 5, 1994
- The DAR Clearance signifies that the transaction covered thereby is not in violation of CARL and may therefore be registered in favor of the transferee.
October 19, 1995
DAR CLEARANCE; SIGNIFICANCE
What does the DAR Clearance signify?
- The DAR Clearance signifies that the transaction involved does not contravene R.A. 6657 and its implementing guidelines and therefore, registration follows as a matter of course.
May 28, 1996
- A DAR Clearance for the registration of the transaction signifies that the sale, transfer or conveyance covered thereby is not a circumvention of the CARL.
March 20, 1996
- DAR clearance serves as a safeguard against circumvention of RA 6657. Specifically, it signifies that the sale, transfer or conveyance covered thereby is not in contravention of RA 6657 and therefore, registration of the property follows as a matter of course.
October 23, 1996
DAR CLEARANCE; SIGNIFICANCE
What does the DAR Clearance signify?
- As stated in DAR Opinion No. 07, s. 2003, dated June 6, 2003, "please note that the issuance of a DAR clearance involving the disposition or transfer of agricultural lands coverable under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) merely signifies that the transaction is not in circumvention of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) and may therefore be registered. It is not synonymous with a DAR Conversion Order/Clearance which is issued only after determination on the merits of a duly filed application for conversion the effect of which is to change the current physical use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use."
August 25, 2003
DAR CLEARANCE; SIGNIFICANCE
What does the DAR clearance signify?
- DAR clearance involving the disposition or transfer of agricultural lands coverable under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) merely signifies that the transaction is not in circumvention of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) and may therefore be registered. It is not synonymous with a DAR Conversion Order/Clearance which is issued only after determination on the merits of a duly filed application for conversion the effect of which is to change the current physical use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use.
June 6, 2003
DAR CLEARANCE; SIGNIFICANCE
- DAR Clearance is not synonymous with DAR Exemption Clearance. A DAR Clearance for registration signifies that the transaction involved does not contravene the mandate under Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). It is only issued upon showing that the subject of the deed in the case of sale for example, is the retention area of the vendor and that the total landholding that shall be owned by the vendee inclusive of the land to be acquired shall not exceed the landownership ceiling provided in R.A. No. 6657.
DAR OPINION NO. 31, s. 2006
October 20, 2006
DAR CLEARANCE; SUCCESSION
Is DAR Clearance necessary in the transfer of property to the heirs of the landowner who died prior to 15 June 1988?
- No DAR Clearance is necessary to register the transfer of the properties to the heirs of the deceased landowner who died prior to the effectivity of RA 6657 on 15 June 1988.
February 8, 1996
DAR CLEARANCE; WHEN ISSUED
When shall the DAR Clearance for the registration of the transfer be issued?
- The DAR Clearance for the registration of the transfer shall be issued only if the following are presented as required under DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1989: The Affidavit of Retention by the Landowner/Mortgagor; Affidavit of the Buyer or Transferee (that his landholdings, including the new acquisition do not exceed 5 hectares) and the PARO Certificate of Retention. If the property is tenanted, the tenant shall continue to enjoy the rights granted to him under the Agrarian Reform Code, including his right to security of tenure, which means that he may not be ejected from his tillage unless authorized by the court for causes provided in said law.
August 5, 1994
DAR CLEARANCE; WHEN MAY BE ISSUED
- Provided there is no violation of the provisions of Sections 6, 70 and 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657 as regards the 5-hectare retention limit and landownership ceiling, DAR clearance may be issued pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1989 (Rules and Procedures Governing Land Transactions). However, the productivity of the land shall be maintained and any change in the nature of its use shall not be allowed except with approval of the DAR under its rules on conversion or exemption.
DAR OPINION NO. 02, s. 2003
January 20, 2003
DAR CLEARANCE; WHEN NECESSARY
When is DAR Clearance necessary?
- The DAR clearance would be necessary whether the land is originally owned by government, or acquired through expropriation, so long as the agency involved is an agent of the national government.
September 9, 2002
DAR LAWYER/PERSONNEL; ENTITLED TO A SPECIAL COUNSEL ALLOWANCE
- Section 50 of the General Appropriations Act readily suggests that a lawyer-personnel can automatically claim for a Special Counsel Allowance without being deputized by the Office of the Solicitor General. This is in view of the conjunction "and" as used in the provision which simply signifies the intent to include both the lawyer-personnel and those officials or employees who were deputized by the Solicitor General who may not be full-pledged lawyers, however, subject to the availability of funds of their respective offices.
- Said provision however, is silent as regards to the type of cases that should be handled under such circumstances. It is presumed that it includes both civil and criminal cases and irrespective of whether or not the party represented is the department, its personnel or a tenant, agricultural lessee, agricultural farmworker or agrarian reform beneficiary. It is settled under our jurisdiction that "when the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish".
DAR OPINION NO. 01, s. 2006
January 9, 2006
DAR LAWYERS; AUTHORITY OF DAR LAWYERS TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL
- DAR lawyers may render free legal assistance to tenants only in cases arising from or are connected with an agrarian dispute as defined under Section 3 (d) of R.A. 6657. It is necessarily followed that there is no tenancy relationship if the party ceases to be an alleged tenant as decided by the court. Further, DAR lawyers may only render legal assistance if the forcible entry arises from or are connected with an agrarian dispute.
- If the requirements set by law for the existence of tenancy relationship have been met, regardless of the location of the property, a DAR lawyer may represent the tenant but not a farm-owner.
DAR OPINION NO. 29, s. 2005
December 8, 2005
DAR LAWYERS; AUTHORITY TO NOTARIZE FREE OF CHARGE DEED OF TRANSFER OR DEED OF CONVEYANCE
Whether or not DAR lawyers in the BALA in Central Office may notarize free of charge the Deed of Transfer or Deed of Reconveyance?
- The general mandate of Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) to render legal assistance and services necessarily includes by implication notarization free of charge of said documents. Thus, DAR lawyers in the BALA in Central Office may also notarize free of charge the Deed of Transfer or Deed of Reconveyance like their counterparts in the DAR field offices provided they have applied for commission. This is implied in DAR Special Order No. 597 and the aforequoted provisions of law. Moreover, it can be inferred that BALA being the legal arm of the Department can and should perform said task.
January 20, 2004
DAR LAWYERS; DEPUTIZED AS SPECIAL ATTORNEYS OF THE OSG
Are DAR lawyers duly deputized as special Attorneys of the Office of the Solicitor General to represent the DAR Secretary?
- DAR lawyers duly deputized as Special Attorneys of the Office of the Solicitor General may represent the DAR Secretary, in all cases where the Secretary is impleaded as a party in his official capacity and must continue representing the Secretary even if a new person is appointed to the said Office, for the following reasons:
1. the DAR lawyers concerned are not representing the individual holding the Office of DAR Secretary in the latter's private capacity;
2. the lawyer-client relationship is not personally between the DAR lawyer and the DAR Secretary in a way that whenever the person occupying the post of DAR Secretary is replaced, the attorney-client relationship is severed; and
3. the party impleaded in these cases is actually the Office of the DAR Secretary as occupied by the incumbent Official duly appointed and exercising the functions and powers of said Office, the exercise of which is necessarily continuous and uninterrupted no matter who is presently appointed as Secretary.
March 25, 1999
DAR LAWYERS; NOT AUTHORIZE TO PERFORM NOTARIZATION OUTSIDE DAR'S OFFICE
Is a DAR lawyer authorized to notarize outside DAR's Office?
- The commission issued to DAR lawyers for them to notarize a document does not by itself confer them an unbridled right to perform notarization even outside DAR's Office. For them to legally and validly perform the functions of a notary public, clearance from the DAR Secretary and court official concerned is necessary. Since a notarial acknowledgment attaches not only full faith and credit to the document concerned but also vests upon the document the presumption of regularity unless it is impugned by strong, complete and conclusive proof (Severo Sales vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-40145, July 29, 1992), public policy dictates that the same should be duly regulated and authorized accordingly.
October 28, 1999
DAR PARA-LEGAL OFFICERS; NOT AUTHORIZED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE RTC
Can DAR Para-Legal Officers appear before the RTC?
- Persons not entitled to practice law, i.e. Para-Legal Officers, are not authorized to appear in Court (RTC), only members of the Bar are authorized to appear in the RTC.
December 13, 1996
DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR AS SUBORDINATE OFFICIALS DO NOT HAVE THE POWER OF REVIEW OVER OFFICIAL ACTS OF THE PRESIDENT
- The issue on whether or not a DAR Regional Director can defy a Presidential Proclamation (i.e., P.P. No. 128), the answer is in the negative. The DAR RDs, as subordinate officials, do not have the power of review over official acts of the President. Article VII, Section 17 of the Constitution explicitly provides, quote: "The President shall have control of all the executive departments, bureaus, and offices. He shall ensure that the laws be faithfully executed".
DAR OPINION NO. 20, s. 2009
October 16, 2009
DAR SECRETARY; AUTHORITY TO SIGN/EXECUTE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
Who has the authority to sign the Memorandum of Agreement that will benefit the agrarian reform beneficiaries?
- It is only the Secretary who is clothed with authority to sign or execute documents relative to the implementation or in furtherance of the agrarian reform program, such as execution of Memorandum of Agreement that will benefit the agrarian reform beneficiaries.
September 4, 1996
DAR; AUTHORITY TO ADMINISTER ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE AGRICULTURAL LAND
Does the said property fall within the domain of the DAR for administration purposes?
- The authority of the DAR to administer as provided for in Sec. 4 (b) of E.O. No. 129-A applies only to all cultivable portion of the public domain declared as alienable and disposable for agricultural purposes transferred to it by the DENR. Since the property does not fall within the category provided for, it goes without saying that said property is not within the domain of the DAR for administration purposes. The provision of Sec. 4 (e) of the same E.O. provides that once the DAR has acquired agricultural land, the administration is for the purpose of distributing said land to qualified beneficiaries set forth in Sec. 22 of R.A. 6657.
December 23, 1996
DECISION; DECISION OF DAR SECRETARY
Is the Decision of the DAR Secretary on administrative matters final and executory?
- The Decision of the DAR Secretary on administrative matters is not the end of the litigation because parties adversely affected by the decision can elevate the same to the Office of the President, Court of Appeals and even to the Supreme Court for proper review.
December 13, 1996
DECISION; DECISION OF THE DARAB; IMMEDIATELY EXECUTORY
Is the decision of the DARAB immediately executory notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals?
- Section 1, Rule XIV (Judicial Review) of the Revised New Rules of Procedure of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) pertinently provides that "notwithstanding an appeal to the Court of Appeals, the decision of the Board appealed from shall be immediately executory pursuant to Section 50, R.A. No. 6657. Undoubtedly, said procedure is intended to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or right to possession of tenants. To require Entry of Judgment and Certificate of Finality as conditions sine qua non before the DAR can issue EPs is to defeat the very purpose of the law requiring immediate execution.
March 11, 1997
DEED OF DACION
Can the transaction be considered as within the scope of Section 71 of R.A. No. 6657?
- Although the final result of the Deed of Dacion is the payment of the loan to the bank, the transaction cannot be considered as within the scope of Section 71 because the properties over which banks are allowed to acquire title under Section 71 of CARL are those landholding used to secure loans, whereas, in the instant case the loan is unsecured.
May 28, 1996
DEED OF DONATION; DENIAL
Is the DAR's action to deny the Deed of Donation consistent with agrarian reform laws?
- The DAR's action to deny the Deed of Donation is consistent with Section 1 item (d) of MC 54 which reaffirms that agricultural lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law shall not be covered by said classification.
September 23, 1996
DEEDS OF DONATION; EXECUTION IN FAVOR OF THE MUNICIPALITIES OF CABADBARAN AND TUBAY:
Are the Deeds of Donations executed in favor of Municipalities of Cabadbaran and Tubay valid?
- No registration of the donation can be legally effected, nor can title to said properties be legally transferred in favor of the Municipalities of Cabadburan and Tubay since the Deeds of Donation executed by JC Agri-Development, Inc. cover an aggregate area of 52.9351. They are clearly in violation of the mandate under CARL to redistribute the landholdings involved in favor of qualified beneficiaries, hence, are null and void.
November 27, 1995
DEFERMENT; RECKONING DATE, RATIONALE, PURPOSE
What is the reckoning date of the ten (10) year deferment period?
- Section 11 of R.A. No. 6657 (as amended by Section 3 of R.A. No. 7881) provides in part: "Commercial farms, which are private agricultural lands devoted to . . . . . shall be subject to immediate compulsory acquisition and distribution after ten (10) years from effectivity of this Act. In the case of new farms, the ten-year period shall begin from the first year of commercial production and operation, as determined by the DAR." DAR Administrative Order No. 16, Series of 1988, which serves as the implementing guidelines of Section 11, R.A. No. 6657, specifically Section 5 thereof, provides for the following:
"Sec. 5. DETERMINATION OF DEFERMENT PERIOD — Deferment period for qualified commercial farms shall be as follows:
A. For commercial farms already in commercial production and operation as of June 15, 1988, the deferment period immediately begins as of that date and ends on June 15, 1998. The farm shall then be subject to compulsory land acquisition and distribution by DAR after June 15, 1998.
B. For commercial farms established before June 15, 1988, but which are not yet in commercial production and operation, the deferment starts from the first year of commercial production and operation, or at the end of the gestation periods for that crop or commodity. The allowable gestation period for specific commercial crops/commodities are listed in Annex A.
C. In case of multi-crop farms (i.e., one large farm divided into several areas, each planted or devoted to different crops), the area which are already in commercial production and operation shall follow the deferment period prescribed in Section 5.A above, while areas which are not yet in commercial production and operation shall follow Section 5.B above.
D. Where a commercial crop is intercropped with another commercial crop, the ten (10) year period shall be based on the main crop or the crop most prevalent in that farm area.
E. In case of areas with varying crop ages, the ten (10) year period shall be based on the most prevalent age group in that area."
October 29, 1999
October 26, 1998
June 5, 1997
December 24, 1996
DE-LISTING AND LISTING OF AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES (ARBs); UNDER COLLECTIVE CLOA
- The PARO shall file petitions for delisting and listing of ARBs with either the PARAD or the RARAD after a list of proposed qualified and disqualified ARBs are submitted by the Board of Directors of the Cooperative. The PARAD/RARAD shall then hear and decide on the petition for de-listing and listing of agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) involving members of cooperatives, farmworker’s associations and co-owners under a collective CLOA, as well as those issued individual CLOAs.
DAR OPINION NO. 20, s. 2008
July 17, 2008
DEVOLUTION OF POWERS (E.O. NO. 482) AUTHORITY TO SIGN AND ISSUE CLOAS VESTED ON THE ARMM GOVERNOR
- Executive Order No. 482 (Devolving to the Autonomous Regional Government of the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao and the Powers and Functions of the Department of Agrarian Reform [DAR] and the Control and Supervision of it Offices within the Region) and a Memorandum of Agreement dated 15 June 1993 executed by and between the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Autonomous Regional Government of the Autonomous Region for Muslim Mindanao in order to effect the transfer of the DAR Provincial and Municipal Offices.
Section 1 (f) of the aforecited E.O. states:
Section 1. Transfer of Powers and Functions. — All powers and functions of the Department of Agrarian Reform under Section 5 of Executive Order No. 129-A and as enumerated hereunder are hereby transferred to the Autonomous Regional Government (ARG) in the implementation of the CARP in the four (4) provinces covered by the ARMM.
xxx xxx xxx
f. Issue emancipation patents to farmers and farmworkers covered by agrarian reform or both private and public lands and when necessary, make administrative corrections of the same; Provide free legal service to agrarian reform beneficiaries and resolve agrarian conflicts and land tenure related problems as may be provided for by law.
Also noteworthy is Section 2, Article IV of RA. No. 6734:
Section 2. The powers devolved to the Autonomous Region shall be exercised through the Regional Assembly, the Regional Governor, and the special courts as provided in this Act.
- As can be gleaned from the above quoted provisions, the authority to sign and issue CLOAS is vested on the ARMM Governor in line with the devolution of powers from National Government to the Autonomous Regional Government.
DAR OPINION NO. 24, s. 2009
December 22, 2009
DEVOLUTION OF POWERS TO THE ARMM; IMPLICATION
- Executive Order No. 482 mandates the transfer of all the powers and functions of the Department of Agrarian Reform to the Autonomous Regional Government (ARG) in the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) in the DAR Provincial and Municipal Offices of the four (4) provinces covered by the ARMM. Relating thereto, a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) dated 15 June 1993 was executed by and between the DAR and the ARG in order to effect the orderly transfer of the DAR Provincial and Municipal Offices concerned.
- Thus, on the basis of the aforementioned Executive Order and MOA, it is our view that the requisition for Judicial Forms may no longer be properly forwarded to the DLR Central Office since the powers and functions of the DLR insofar as said provinces and municipalities are concerned had already been devolved to the Autonomous Regional Government in Muslim Mindanao.
DAR OPINION NO. 10, s. 2005
March 2, 2005
DIRECT PAYMENT SCHEME
Can a deed of Direct Sale under R.A. No. 6657 be executed to would-be buyers?
- The Policy Statement of Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1995 provides that a landowner whose land is subject to acquisition under R.A. No. 6657 may, with the concurrence of his qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs), voluntarily transfer his land directly to them. Negotiations for VLT/DPS between the landowner and his qualified beneficiaries must be completed and the agreement arrived at must be submitted within one (1) year from date of receipt by the DAR of the Notice or Application for VLT/DPS. Otherwise, the land shall be acquired by the government and transferred to qualified ARBs pursuant to R.A. No. 6657.
- The procedures under the Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme are outlined under the operating procedures of DAR A.O. No. 02, Series of 1995 as amended by A.O. No. 08, Series of 1997.
December 14, 1999
DIRECT PAYMENT SCHEME; APPLICATION THEREOF, REQUISITES
What are the requisites of a Direct Payment Scheme?
- Sec. 21 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that: "direct payment in cash or in kind may be made by the farmer-beneficiary to the landowner under terms to be mutually agreed upon by both parties, which shall be binding upon them, upon registration with the approval by the DAR". Furthermore, DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1995 otherwise known as the Supplemental Guidelines to Administrative Order no. 7, Series of 1994, Re: New Implementing Guidelines Strengthening the Formation, Organization and Operation of the PARCCOM pursuant to R.A. No. 7905 provides for the adoption of the Direct Payment Scheme between the landowner and the farmer and/or farm worker-beneficiary provided that the following provisions shall be followed:
1. amount and terms of payment are not more burdensome to the agrarian reform beneficiary than under the compulsory acquisition coverage provision of the CARP;
2. the ARBs agree to the amount and the terms of payment;
3. the DAR shall act as mediator in cases of disagreement between the landowner and the farmer;
4. the farmer and/or farm worker-beneficiary shall be eligible to borrow from the Land Bank of the Philippines an amount equal to eighty-five (85%) of the selling price of the land they have acquired pursuant to the said bank's credit loan assistance program.
May 20, 1997
DIRECT PAYMENT SCHEME; INCLUDES IMMEDIATE TRANSFER OF POSSESSION AND OWNERSHIP
What does the direct payment scheme include?
- Under existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations, the terms and conditions of the Direct Payment Scheme should include the immediate transfer of possession and ownership of the land in favor of the identified beneficiaries.
May 20, 1997
DIRECT PAYMENT SCHEME; NOT ABSOLUTE
Is Direct Payment Scheme between tenant and a mortgagee bank valid and not violative of agrarian laws?
- Although Sections 20 and 21 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) allow VLT/DPS scheme as valid and legal, the same is not absolute. Specifically, DAR Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1997 categorically provides that lands mortgaged with banking and/or financial may not be the subject of VLT/DPS (Item II.L). This prohibition was incomparable by the DAR to simplify VLT/DPS transactions particularly to facilitate the immediate transfer of title to the Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs). Without this safeguard, tenants might enter into VLT/DPS agreements with banks which might sell agricultural lands foreclosed by them under a selling price or terms and conditions grossly disadvantageous and prejudicial to the tenants, which is violative of Section 20 (b) of R.A. No. 6657.
December 24, 1998
DISTRIBUTION; SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION
Is the ten-year period of implementation under Section 5 of R.A. No. 6657 mandatory?
- The 10-year time frame provided in Section 5 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) is not mandatory. Well accepted is the rule that provisions as to time are generally construed as directory if there are, as herein, no negative words restraining the doing of the act afterwards (Philippine Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Sec. of Labor, 27 SCRA 40). Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 9, Series of 1997 had already put this issue to rest declaring that the schedule of CARP implementation is merely directory rather than mandatory.
December 23, 1999
DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION
Are tenants entitled to Disturbance Compensation in cases of conversion?
- The provision of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by R.A. No. 6389, prescribes payment of disturbance compensation to agricultural lessee in cases of conversion in land use of tenanted land to non-agricultural.
Section 7 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, it provides:
"Sec. 7. Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation — The agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes herein provided."
- It is, thus, clear that a landowner-lessor cannot eject or demand his lessee to vacate his property, unless authorized by the Court (now, DAR Adjudication Board), after due hearing, for causes as provided for in Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended.
November 27, 2000
Is the tenant entitled to disturbance compensation?
- Section 36, paragraph 1 of R.A. No. 3844 as amended by Sec. 7 of R.A. No. 6389 states that disturbance compensation is mandated to be given to the tenant only if the said tenant will be dispossessed of the land because the land is converted or is declared by DAR to be suited for purposes other than agricultural (e.g., residential, commercial or industrial). A tenant is entitled to disturbance compensation only if the land is legally converted to non-agricultural use wherein in the process he is dispossessed thereby. If said land is intended to be sold to a third person but the tenant opts to buy the same, logically, there is no disturbance compensation to speak of since, clearly, there is no conversion and he is not at all dispossessed of the land.
March 31, 1998
When is the tenant entitled to a disturbance compensation?
- Should the tenant decide to leave the landholding on their own choice, they are no longer obligated to give any disturbance compensation to them. The payment of disturbance compensation as provided for in Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended by R.A. 6389, pertains to the compensation given to the affected agricultural lessee in cases of legal conversion, that is, in cases where the use of the land for purposes other than agricultural is approved by DAR upon the application of the landowner. Otherwise stated, the payment of disturbance compensation only covers cases of legal conversion undertaken at the instance of the landowner (Pagtalunan vs. Tamayo, G.R. No. 54281, March 19, 1990). Since the tenants acted on their own volition, it is a clear indication that they no longer wanted to be tenants of said landholding commensurate compensation as may be deemed just and reasonable, may however still be due and demanded as a token of fairness and gesture of goodwill.
February 4, 1998
Who are entitled to the payment of disturbance compensation?
- Only recognized and qualified tenant-farmers are entitled to payment of disturbance compensation. The payment of disturbance compensation as provided and contemplated under Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844 pertains to the compensation given to the agricultural lessee in cases of legal conversion, that is, in cases where the use of the land for purposes other than agricultural is approved by DAR upon the application of the landowner. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Pagtalunan vs. Tamayo, G.R. No. 54281, March 19, 1990, payment of disturbance compensation only covers legal conversion undertaken at the instance of the landowner. The award of disturbance compensation is designed to provide qualified tenant farmers with the wherewithal during the period that they are looking for another employment.
February 9, 1998
Who has the authority to determine the payment of disturbance compensation?
- The jurisdiction to determine the payment of disturbance compensation is lodged with the PARAD in the exercise of his adjudicatory function. This is so because it is classified as an agrarian dispute or case which the PARAD alone could determine as provided for by law.
February 9, 1998
Does the PARO have the authority to determine the payment of disturbance compensation?
- The PARO who assumes jurisdiction over the payment of disturbance compensation clearly encroaches on matters which do not belong to him. In other words, he shall be overstepping in the exercise of his authority.
February 9, 1998
DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION; BASIS IN CASE OF LEGAL CONVERSION
- It is clear under Section 16 (a) DAR A.O. No. 1, S. 1999 (Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-Agricultural Uses) that disturbance compensation is based on terms as may be mutually agreed upon between the affected tenants, farmworkers or occupants and the landowner or the developer covering the actual tillage of the former but it should not be less than five (5) times the average of the gross harvests on their landholding during the last five (5) preceding calendar years. Any agreement for the payment between them shall be subject to DAR's approval and compliance monitoring.
- Payment of disturbance compensation as provided and contemplated under Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended by Section 7 of R.A. No. 6389, pertains to the compensation given to the agricultural lessee who is dispossessed of the land he tills in cases of legal conversion, that is, in cases where the use of the land for purposes other than agricultural is approved by DAR upon application of the landowner.
DAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 2008
June 13, 2008
DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION; AGRICULTURAL LESSEES RIGHT TO PAYMENT OF DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION
- The existing arrangement appears to be a "share-tenancy". Hence, your cousin as tenant must be given the rights provided for under Section 7 of R.A. 6389 (An Act Amending R.A. No. 3844, as amended, otherwise known as The Agricultural Land Reform Code and For Other Purposes) which expressly provides that "the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to disturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average of the gross harvests on his landholding during the last five preceding calendar years". The said law clearly suggests that it is only in cases of land use conversion that displaced tenants are entitled to the payment of the disturbance compensation.
DAR OPINION NO. 02, s. 2007
January 19, 2007
DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION; AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 36 (1) OF R.A. NO. 3844
Is the tenant entitled to disturbance compensation when the land is subjected to expropriation?
- It is well-settled that disturbance compensation provided in Section 36 (1) of R.A. No. 3844, as amended covers cases of legal conversion undertaken at the instance of the landowner, i.e., cases where the use of the land for purposes other than agricultural is approved by the Department of Agrarian Reform. Based on the foregoing premise, it is clear that one can/could not be entitled to a disturbance compensation since there is actually no legal conversion rather, there is an expropriation presumably undertaken at the instance of the government in the exercise of its power of eminent domain.
April 30, 1998
DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION; AT THE INSTANCE OF THE LANDOWNER
Is an agricultural lessee entitled to disturbance compensation in case of conversion?
- Under Section 36 (1) of RA 3844, as amended, in case of conversion of an agricultural land, the agricultural lessee is entitled to disturbance compensation. The claim for compensation, under said provision is based on the claimants being a tenant/agricultural lessee of the converted land.
September 7, 1995
Can the State be held liable for disturbance compensation in legal conversion undertaken at instance of the landowner?
- The disturbance compensation provided in Section 36 (1) of RA 3844 covers cases of legal conversion undertaken at the instance of the landowner. This is anchored on the decision in the case entitled "Pagtalunan versus Tamayo" (G.R. No. 54281, March 19, 1990), where the Supreme Court ruled: "Sec. 36 (1) of Rep. Act No. 3844, as amended by Rep. Act No. 6389, cannot be invoked to hold the State liable for disturbance compensation (see Campos v. CA, G.R. No. 51904, October 1, 1980) where this Court by resolution denied for lack of merit therein petitioners claim that, as agricultural lessee or tenant, he was entitled to disturbance compensation against the State. It refers to situations where the peaceful enjoyment and possession by the agricultural tenants or lessees of the land is disturbed or interrupted by the owner/lessor thereof.
June 23, 1995
DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION; BASIS OF ENTITLEMENT
What is the basis of computation of disturbance compensation?
- Section 7 of RA 6389 expressly provides that "the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to disturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average of the gross harvest on his landholdings during the last five preceding calendar years."
December 13, 1996
December 23, 1996
DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION; FARMWORKERS ENTITLED A SHARE TO THE FRUITS
Are farmworkers entitled to disturbance compensation?
- In conversion cases resulting to ejectment of tenants from their landholdings, Section 7 of R.A. No. 6389 amending R.A. No. 3844 (otherwise known as the Code of Agrarian Reform of the Philippines) provides that the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to disturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average of the gross harvests on his landholding during the last five preceding calendar years. In case, however, of other farmworkers, they are entitled to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. (Sec. 2, R.A. No. 6657 and Sec. 4, Art. XIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution).
March 20, 1997
DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION; HOW MUCH A TENANT ENTITLED
- The case of Ernesto Bunye vs. Lourdes Aquino, et al. (Oct. 9, 2000, G.R. No. 138979), contemplates that in the event that the tenanted land is converted pursuant to Sec. 36 of RA No. 3844, a disturbance compensation shall be given to the tenants. This is equivalent to five times the average of the gross harvest on his landholding during the last five (5) preceding calendar years.
DAR OPINION NO. 08, s. 2008
April 14, 2008
DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION; IN THE EXERCISE OF THE GOVERNMENT'S POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
Are agricultural lessees entitled to disturbance compensation when the property is taken at instance of the government?
- Section 36 (1) of RA 3844, providing for disturbance compensation to the agricultural lessee, is given to affected agricultural lessees in cases of legal conversion, i.e. cases where the use of the land for purposes other than agricultural is approved by DAR upon the application of the landowner. Otherwise stated, the disturbance compensation provided in Section 36 (1) of RA 3844 covers cases of legal conversion undertaken at the instance of the landowner. Since expropriation is undertaken at the instance of the government in exercise of its power of eminent domain, it is not covered by said Section 36 (1) of RA 3844.
February 8, 1994
Does Section 36(1) of R.A. No. 3844 cover cases of legal conversion undertaken at the instance of the government?
- The disturbance compensation provided in Section 36 (1) of RA 3844 covers cases of legal conversion undertaken at the instance of the landowner. Since expropriation is undertaken at the instance of the government in exercise of its power of eminent domain, it is not covered by said Section 36 (1) of RA 3844.
January 11, 1995
DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION; LIMITED ONLY TO TENANTS OF LANDHOLDING
Is the award of Disturbance Compensation limited only in favor of tenant-lessees of the subject landholding.
- An assidous examination of DAR Administrative Order No. 15, S. 1988 and DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1990 readily reveals that in all cases of land use conversion that will involve the displacement of tenant-lessees, such lessees shall be entitled to a disturbance compensation equivalent to five (5) times the average of the gross harvests on their landholding during the last five (5) preceding calendar years, pursuant to Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended by Section 7 of R.A. No. 6389. The aforesaid implementing rules and regulations dealing on the payment of disturbance compensation unmistakably mandate and provide that the award of disturbance compensation thereunder is confined and limited only in favor of tenant-lessees of the subject landholding.
May 7, 1997
DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION; WHEN AVAILABLE
Are mere tillers within the declared non-agricultural zone entitled to disturbance compensation.
- As elucidated by the Supreme Court in the case of "Pagtalunan vs. Tamayo", 138 SCRA 252, Section 36 (1) of R.A. 3844, as amended, is applicable only when it is the owner/lessor who voluntarily opts for the conversion of his land into non-agricultural use. The said law clearly suggests that it is only in cases of land use conversion that displaced tenants are entitled to the payment of disturbance compensation. Such being the case, mere tillers within the declared non-agricultural zone does not ipso facto entitle them to the payment of disturbance compensation unless a land use conversion is taking place. The reason for this is the fact that reclassification is not synonymous with conversion under Section 65 of RA 6657 for while the authority to reclassify is lodged with the local government units, the authority to convert remains with the DAR. Again, it is only in land use conversion that displaced tenants are entitled to disturbance compensation and not by a mere reclassification effected through an ordinance.
March 11, 1997
When are displaced tenants entitled to payment of disturbance compensation?
- Section 7 of R.A. 6389 (An Act Amending R.A. No. 3844, as amended, otherwise known as The Agricultural Land Reform Code and For Other Purposes) expressly provides that "the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to disturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average of the gross harvests on his landholding during the last five preceding calendar years". The said law clearly suggests that it is only in cases of land use conversion that displaced tenants are entitled to the payment of the disturbance compensation.
January 9, 1997
DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION; WHEN GIVEN TO TENANTS
- The payment of disturbance compensation as provided for in Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended by R.A. 6389, pertains to the compensation given to the affected agricultural lessee in cases of legal conversion, that is, in cases where the use of the land for purposes other than agricultural is approved by DAR upon the application of the landowner. Otherwise stated, the payment of disturbance compensation only covers cases of legal conversion undertaken at the instance of the landowner (Pagtalunan vs. Tamayo, G.R. No. 54281, March 19, 1990).
DAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 2009
June 29, 2009
DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION; WHEN IS IT GIVEN
- Payment of disturbance compensation as provided and contemplated under Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended by Section 7 of R.A. No. 6389, pertains to the compensation given to the agricultural lessee who is dispossessed of the land he tills in cases of legal conversion, that is, in cases where the use of the land for purposes other than agricultural is approved by DAR upon application of the landowner. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Pagtalunan vs. Tamayo, G.R. No. 54281, March 19, 1990, payment of disturbance compensation only covers legal conversion undertaken at the instance of the landowner.
DAR OPINION NO. 04, s. 2001
May 2, 2001
DONATION; IN EXCESS OF THE RETENTION LIMIT NOT VALID
Is donation in excess of the retention limit valid?
- Since the excess area of 1,138 square meters is already beyond the legally allowed retention limit or landownership ceiling, the entire property cannot be the subject of a valid donation for it would violate Section 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657 making it a prohibited act and omission the ownership or possession, for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of said Act, of agricultural lands in excess of the total retention limits or award ceilings by any person, natural or juridical, except those under collective ownership by farmer beneficiaries.
- The proposed donation of the entire area of 5.1138 hectares cannot be registered with the Register of Deeds since it contravenes Sections 6 and 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657 on retention limits and ownership ceilings. Thus, to thwart possible circumvention of said law, DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1989 compulsorily requires that the transferees of agricultural lands shall furnish the appropriate Register of Deeds and the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) an affidavit attesting that their respective total landholdings as a result of the said acquisition do not exceed the landholding ceiling. The Register of Deeds shall not register the transfer of any agricultural land without the submission of such sworn statement together with proof of service of a copy thereof to the BARC.
September 4, 1998
DONATION; WHEN ALLOWED
May lands acquired by beneficiary under CARP be the object of a donation?
- Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that lands acquired by beneficiaries under said Act "may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the LBP, or to the other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years. From the said legal provision, it is clear that the donation of the property may be legally done only after the lapse of 10 years from the award of the land involved.
September 13, 1994
DUE PROCESS; WHAT IT INCLUDES
May lands be distributed without due process of law.
- In covering lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, due process must be observed, and this includes the sending of notices to landowners as required in DAR Administrative Order No. 1, S. 1993. Indeed, the non-observance of procedural due process in the redistribution of lands under CARL constitutes a ground for the cancellation of the CLOAs covering said properties.
January 17, 1995
E
EASEMENT; LEGAL EASEMENT, COMPENSABLE
Is legal easement compensable?
- To subscribe to the view of DAR and the Bureau of Lands that the value of the property occupied by legal easement be deducted from the total value due the landowner would not only substantially reduce the total value of the property, but above all will cause injustice to the landowner concerned. Hence, payment should speedily be effected without deduction as to the value of the property occupied by the legal easement.
January 29, 1997
EASEMENT; RIGHT OF WAY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE CONVERSION; SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS
Is Conversion Order required in an easement of right of way?
- Building a road to be used for the conveyance of construction materials and laborers on the site and ultimately for the use by students to access the school is only incidental and an imperative component of the overall operation of the school, thus, it does not constitute conversion that would require prior DAR Conversion Order. This is without prejudice, however, to the rights of farmer-beneficiaries or farmer occupants, if any, who will be affected or displaced thereby, pursuant to existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations.
In addition, said right of way shall likewise be subject to the following conditions:
a) there must be consent in writing by the owners of the affected areas;
b) there must be compensation or indemnity which includes the value of the land occupied and the amount of damage caused to the servient estates;
c) there must be no adequate outlet to a public highway;
d) the right of way must be established at a point least prejudicial to the servient estates; and
e) the construction of right of way should be specifically limited in area to the purpose intended and subject to the provisions of the Civil Code.
May 19, 1998
EASEMENT; RIGHT OF WAY: WHEN TO AVAIL
When may the easement of right of way be demanded?
- The easement claimed is the easement of right of way under Article 649 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, pursuant to which one may be entitled to demand a right of way should it be established that there is no adequate outlet to a public highway.
June 15, 1994
EJECMENT: ITS CAUSES
- The security of tenure of an agricultural lessee once established is supreme and he cannot be ejected from his landholding without authority from the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), for causes provided for by law. Dispossession to be validly carried out requires proofs of existence of a cause for ejectment and court authority is necessary. Under Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844 it provides that notwithstanding any agreement as to the period or future surrender of the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that there is valid ground to dispossess or order the ejectment of the tenant. Ejectment is premised on an offense committed by the lessee or the exercise of the lessor of his superior right over the use of the land, and in either case, the lessee is entitled to be heard before he is dispossessed.
DAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 2009
June 29, 2009
EJECTMENT: ITS CAUSES
When may the tenants be ejected?
- The security of tenure of an agricultural lessee once established is supreme and he cannot be ejected from his landholding without authority from the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), for causes provided for by law. Simply stated, dispossession to be validly carried out requires proofs of existence of a cause for ejectment and court authority is necessary. Under Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844 it provides that notwithstanding any agreement as to the period or future surrender, of the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that there is valid ground to dispossess or order the ejectment of the tenant. Ejectment is premised on an offense committed by the lessee or the exercise of the lessor of his superior right over the use of the land, and in either case, the lessee is entitled to be heard before he is dispossessed.
October 29, 1997
EJECTMENT; GROUNDS FOR EJECTMENT
- He/she failed to substantially comply with the terms and conditions of the leasehold contract or with laws governing leasehold relations, unless the failure is caused by fortuitous event or force majeure;
- He/she planted crops or used the land for a purpose other than what had been previously agreed upon. DAR Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1993 (Rules and Procedures Governing Agricultural Leasehold and the Determination of Lease Rental for Tenanted Lands), however, now allows the lessee to intercrop or plant secondary crops after the rental has been fixed, provided he/she shoulders the expenses;
- He/she failed to adopt proven farm practices necessary to conserve the land, improve its fertility, and increase its productivity (with due consideration of his/her financial capacity and the credit facilities available to him/her);
- His/her fault or negligence resulted in the substantial damage, destruction, or unreasonable deterioration of the land or any permanent improvement thereon;
- He/she does not pay the lease rental when it falls due except when such non-payment is due to crop failure to the extent of 75 percent as a result of a fortuitous event; or
- He/she employed a sublessee (Section 36, R.A. No. 3844, as amended).
- Considering, however, that an agricultural lessee is entitled to security of tenure, he/she cannot be rejected unless authorized by the court (now, DAR Adjudication Board) for the abovementioned causes, in a judgment that is final and executory after due hearing (Sections 7 and 36, R.A. No. 3844, as amended).
- Where a tenant has allegedly failed to substantially comply with the terms and conditions of the leasehold contract or with laws governing leasehold relation, the landowner may file an ejectment case before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board where the property is located.
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 2002
February 21, 2002
ELECTIVE OFFICIALS; APPOINTMENT OF REGIONAL DIRECTORS, LEGALITY THEREOF
What is the legality in the appointment of Regional Directors in areas where their spouses and/or relatives are incumbent elective officials?
- The proposal to prevent the appointment and assignment of Regional Directors or Provincial Directors in areas where their spouses and/or relatives within the fourth degree of affinity or consanguinity are incumbent elective officials is without legal basis and contrary to the civil service rule that promotions and/or appointment to a position should be based on merit and fitness and not on their being "unrelated" to an elective government official in their locality.
- There are existing laws, e.g., Omnibus Election Code of the Philippines, which can properly address the issue raised in the Resolution – that some Regional Directors or Provincial Directors, using their power and influence, have helped the election or re-election of their relatives in their areas of jurisdiction. If there are sufficient evidence, these officials can be charged for violation of the provisions of the Omnibus Election Code, particularly Section 261 thereof.
December 21, 1998
EMANCIPATION PATENT; AS A COLLATERAL FOR LOAN
Can an EP be used as collateral for loan?
- If the Emancipation Patent covers a fully paid farmlot then the same can be legally used as collateral for loan, otherwise, it is not allowed. This is so because EPs are proofs of ownership which can be the subject of a contract of sale or mortgage.
- Although transfer of awarded lands under Presidential Decree No. 27, as amended by Executive Order No. 228 and Republic Act No. 6657 may be allowed if their amortization has been fully paid, DAR Administrative Order No. 08, Series of 1995 provides certain conditions that must be met in order that valid transfer thereof can be made, to wit:
a. that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
b. that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landownership ceiling provided by law; and
c. that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall be imposed.
- Clearly, therefore, if an EP is made as security for loan and consequently foreclosed by the mortgagee, the aforesaid conditions must first be complied with before ownership over the awarded land is parted with.
September 15, 1998
EMANCIPATION PATENT; AS A PROOF OF OWNERSHIP
Is it legal for a son to take the place of his sick/incapacitated parent as beneficiary of the land granted by the government?
- If the parent-beneficiary is sick or is incapacitated to work on the land it is but right and proper for his children, not necessarily a son, to personally cultivate or work on the land in his behalf. Ownership of the land should, however, still remain with the parent-beneficiary to whom the Emancipation Patent was awarded. It would be different if the parent is merely a tenant wherein the following provision of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended will be applied:
September 15, 1998
EMANCIPATION PATENT; EFFECT OF ISSUANCE
What is the effect of the issuance of an Emancipation Patent?
- An Emancipation Patent (EP) is awarded pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 dated 21 October 1972. Under said Decree, the farmer is deemed full owner of the land awarded to him as evidenced by the EP thus issued which, as such, is considered as full and legal title to the land. Accordingly, the award can only be cancelled for cause as provided for by law.
July 1, 1998
- The issuance of EPs/CLOAs pertains to the Department of Agrarian Reform, being the agency tasked to implement the Agrarian Reform Program of the government. The issuance of said titles creates a presumption which yields only to clear and cogent evidence that the awardee is the qualified and lawful owner thereof. The burden of proving the ineligibility or disqualification of the awardee is on him who avers it through clear and satisfactory proof. Corollarily, pursuant to Joint DAR-LRA Memorandum Circular No. 20, Series of 1997 in relation with Joint DAR-LRA Memo Circular No. 09, Series of 1996, the DAR shall ensure that all CARP transactions for registration with the Registry of Deeds shall be supported with documents required under the Joint DAR-LRA Operations Manual on Land, Tilling, Registration and Distribution under R.A. No. 6657. Such being the case, the authority to convert the EPs into CLOAs if warranted, pursuant to existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations, is likewise lodged with the DAR and not with any person, agency or corporation.
April 08, 1998
EMANCIPATION PATENT; EFFECT OF ISSUANCE
Is an Emancipation Patent issued a conclusive proof of ownership?
- As elucidated by the Supreme Court in the case of Engracia Vinzons-Magana vs. Hon. Conrado Estrella, et al., 201 SCRA 536, the issuance of Emancipation Patent confers on the farmer-grantee a vested right of absolute ownership in the landholding a right which has become fixed and established and is no longer open to doubt and controversy. Thus, Emancipation Patent is a proof of ownership which can be the subject of a contract of sale in the exercise of one's right of ownership without violating the prohibitions embodied in Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) relative to sale or disposition of awarded lands for a period of ten (10) years from their award because said provision of law solely applied to awarded lands under R.A. No. 6657 covered by Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and not to PD 27 lands covered by EPs.
July 1, 1997
EMANCIPATION PATENT; INCAPACITY OF FARMER BENEFICIARY
Is ownership of the awarded land automatically transferred to a child who assumed the loan obligation of the incapacitated parent-beneficiary?
- Whether the son can assume the loan, we see no legal impediment for a child to assume the loan obligation of his parent when the latter is incapacitated to fulfill his obligation. It has to be reiterated, however, that ownership of the subject land shall remain with the still living incapacitated parent-beneficiary who shall personally owe and is now indebted to his child by implication of law of the amount paid for the loan. Ownership of the land will not automatically be transferred to the child who assumed the mortgage obligation of his incapacitated parent-beneficiary for if such will be the case, it will in effect unduly prejudice the legitime or inheritance of the other children who likewise have rights to the succession in case of death of their parent-beneficiary pursuant to the provisions of the Civil Code, Ministry Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1978, Ministry Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1984 and DAR Administrative Order No. 14, Series of 1988.
DAR OPINION NO. 95, s. 1998
September 15, 1998
EMANCIPATION PATENT; MAY BE CANCELLED FOR CAUSE
When may emancipation patents be cancelled?
- Emancipation Patents are awarded pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 dated 21 October 1972 and not under CARP (pursuant to RA 6657). Under said Decree, the tenants private agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice/corn are deemed full owners of a family-size farm of five (5) hectares if unirrigated and three (3) hectares if irrigated, with a maximum allowable 10% additional area pursuant to MAR Administrative Order No. 3-85 (that is a maximum award of 5.5 hectares if unirrigated and 3.3 hectares if irrigated). The award in favor of a tenant may be cancelled for cause, in which case the farmlot is reallocated in favor of another person who must be landless and willing to assume the responsibilities of a beneficiary under said law.
September 6, 1994
EMANCIPATION PATENT; SUSPENSION OF THE PROCESSING
Can the PARO suspend the processing of an Emancipation patent pending resolution/disposition by the courts as to the merits of the case?
- A PARO can suspend the processing of an Emancipation Patent pending resolution/disposition by the courts as to the merits of the case. The suspension is predicated on the theory that premature processing of EPs in the name of a tenant is an implied determination of the issue of ownership as EPs represents ownership.
December 13, 1996
EMANCIPATION PATENT; TRANSFER BY ORIGINAL TENANT TO HEIRS
May the transfer of awarded lands by the original tenant or his heirs be allowed?
- The original transfer of awarded lands from the government through the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) shall be evidenced by Emancipation Patent. This is clear from Policy Statement (No. 4) of DAR Administrative Order No. 08, Series of 1995 which expressly provides that : If awardee was identified as tenant as of 21 October 1972 and amortizations were fully paid, transfer of awarded lands by the original tenant or his heirs may be allowed, regardless of date of issuance of Emancipation Patent (EP) (P.D. No. 27, as amended by E.O. No. 228).
March 10, 1997
EMANCIPATION PATENT; USED AS PROPERTY BAIL BOND
Can an EP be used as property bail bond?
- As regards farmlots covered by EPs which are fully-paid, we submit that they may now be used as property bail bonds. This can be deduced from Sec. 6 of Executive Order No. 228 which allows the transfer of ownership of lands acquired by farmer beneficiaries under P.D. No. 27 after full payment of amortization and even if the transfer is made within the ten (10) year prohibitory period. However, this provision does not operate as a blanket authority for the indiscriminate transfer of awarded lands, and certain criteria which are set forth under DAR Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1995 (Item II.3) must be satisfied in order that transfer over awarded lands can be effected. On the other hand, if the land has not yet been fully paid, the rights to the land may be transferred or conveyed, only with prior approval of the DAR, to a qualified beneficiary who shall cultivate the same.
- While it is true that the above provision of law speaks only of sale or transfer of awarded lands, the same may relatively apply by analogy to your request considering that if the property bond is confiscated, ownership over the property may now be parted with and the same may be subjected to DAR guidelines on the transfer of awarded lands.
March 5, 1998
EMANCIPATION PATENTS/CETIFICATES OF LANDOWNERSHIP AWARD; ANNOTATION OF LIEN
Can the annotation of lien at the back of the Emancipation Patents/Certificates of Land Ownership Award issued to farmer-beneficiaries be dispensed with?
- Sec. 62 of PD 1529 and LRA Circular No. 54 requires that the liens or encumbrances be carried over to the EP/CLOA presented for registration, unless the appropriate instrument for its cancellation is likewise presented.
- While it is admitted that the annotation of such lien/encumbrance for the titles issued to farmer-beneficiaries is unfair as they are not privies to the previous transaction of the mortgagor and mortgagee yet this does not mean that they will have to repay the balance of the mortgage loan.
November 19, 1996
EMINENT DOMAIN: DAR CLEARANCE NO LONGER NECESSARY
May a local government unit exercise the power of eminent domain without serving a DAR clearance.
- A local government unit such as Toledo City may exercise the power of eminent domain, expropriation of the property will be more expedient under the circumstances. There would then be no longer any need for the requested DAR Clearance.
September 16, 1994
ENCUMBRANCE; MEANING; EFFECT; HOW DISCHARGED
- An encumbrance is a burden or lien against the property that lessens its value. Once the property is encumbered with the bank, the latter has a lien by way of mortgage on the land to secure full payment of its value. Please note, that encumbrance of a property shall be carried over to the title until cancelled by an appropriate authority. Land Registration Authority (LRA) Memorandum Circular No. 54 requires that the liens or encumbrances shall be carried over to the EP/CLOA presented for registration, unless the appropriate instrument for its cancellation is likewise presented. Likewise, Section 62 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 (The Property Registration Decree) provides, quote:
"A mortgage or lease on registered land may be discharged or cancelled by means of an instrument executed by the mortgage (sic) or lessee in a form sufficient in law, which shall be filed with the Register of Deeds who shall make the appropriate memorandum upon the certificate of title."
DAR OPINION NO. 03, s. 2007
January 19, 2007
E.O. NO. 447; LANDS USED AND ADMINISTERED BY KKK-NLSF
- Those lands used and/or administered by the KKK-NLSF and actually classified as agricultural land, as mandated, shall have to be turned over to the farmer beneficiaries in accordance with Executive Order No. 407 and if it involves lands belonging to the second kind of lands, the same should be for the disposition by the DAR after a joint determination has been undertaken of the areas reclassified as alienable and disposable agricultural land. Nothing in said order would show that said agricultural land and those that were reclassified as alienable and disposable agricultural lands are for lease purposes only and/or for any other mode of disposition by the DAR or by the DENR.
DAR OPINION NO. 04, s. 2008
January 29, 2008
ESTATE TAX: NOT EXEMPTED UNDER SEC. 66 OF R.A. No. 6657
What transactions are exempt from payment of taxes?
- Only transactions involving transfer of ownership under R.A. No. 6657 is tax exempt. Strictly speaking, "estate tax is not among the taxes included as exempt under Section 66 of R.A. No. 6657. Considering, however, that since estate tax is mandated by law to be levied on the transmission of the properties of the decedent to his heirs by reason of the former's death, the same is of the same class or nature as that of a real property tax as contemplated under the abovequoted proviso.
October 7, 1997
EXCLUSION/EXEMPTION; MEANING
- The term "exclusion and exemption", both meaning that the land involved is not within the scope of CARP. If the landholding ceases to be agricultural and the requirements have been met as determined by DAR upon an application for exemption/exclusion, the land is exempt, therefore, there is no longer any need to apply for conversion.
- If the subject property had been reclassified in 1977 as residential/church site the same may not be a proper subject of an application under Administrative Order No. 05, Series of 2007.
DAR OPINION NO. 25, s. 2008
October 9, 2008
EXCLUSION/EXEMPTION; EXEMPT LANDHOLDING NOT CONSIDERED IN THE DETERMINATION OF TOTAL LANDHOLDING
Are exempt landholdings considered in the determination of total landholdings?
- Exempt landholdings are not considered in the determination of total landholdings since only lands suitable for agriculture are covered under CARP. This is clear from Section 4 of RA 6657 which provides that the CARL of 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and EO No. 229, including the lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.
December 13, 1996
EXCLUSION: PROPERTY SUBJECT OF A PETITION FOR REVIEW ON CERTIORARI
Is a property subject of a petition for review on certiorari excluded from CARP coverage?
- While Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) in particular mandates the acquisition of private agricultural lands for distribution to qualified-beneficiaries, the same is not encompassing so as to include properties the very basis of their exemption from CARP coverage is currently the subject of a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the Supreme Court.
July 3, 1997
EXCLUSION: RESIDENTIAL LOT NOT SUBJECT TO CARP
Are residential lots included in CARP coverage?
- Section 4 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) provides for the scope thereof wherein only public and private agricultural lands including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture are covered. Hence, only agricultural lands may be put under the coverage of the CARP. Since your lot is residential, the same is excluded from CARP coverage.
DAR OPINION NO. 66(A), s. 1997
June 5, 1997
EXCLUSION; CATTLE RAISING; SUBSTITUTION
- DAR Administrative Order No. 03, Series of 2003 (2003 Rules for Agrarian Law Implementation Cases), provides for the rules and procedures of application for exclusion from CARP coverage of agricultural land used for livestock, swine, and poultry raising. Rule II, Section 7 thereof provides that the Regional Director shall exercise primary jurisdiction over all agrarian law implementation cases except when a separate special rule vests primary jurisdiction in a different DAR office.
- It is within the discretion of the Regional Director to decide if the proposed substitution is tenable, subject to the necessary field investigation/ocular inspection and payment of corresponding fees and submission of requirements under existing rules and regulations particularly Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 2004 (2004 Rules and Regulations Governing the Exclusion of Agricultural Lands Used for Cattle Raising from the Coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program).
DAR OPINION NO. 16, s. 2008
June 30, 2008
EXCLUSION; COMMERCIAL FARM NOT AUTOMATICALLY EXCLUDED FROM CARP
Are agricultural lands devoted to livestock poultry and swine raising excluded from CARP coverage?
- All agricultural lands devoted to livestock, poultry and swine raising are not automatically deemed excluded from CARP coverage. In order to qualify for exclusion, there are requirements that must be met, to wit:
1. The land or portions thereof must have been exclusively, directly and actually used for livestock, poultry and swine raising as of 15 June 1988; and
2. The farm devoted to the above purposes must satisfy the animal/land ratio, as well as animal/infrastructure ratio as provided for in Section III-B of DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993 entitled, "Rules and Regulations Governing the Exclusion of Agricultural Lands Used for Livestock, Poultry and Swine Raising from the Coverage of CARP".
- An application for exemption/exclusion must first be filed and the same shall be adjudicated on the merits thereof pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993.
September 4, 1998
- Even if said lot or a portion thereof is indeed exempt from CARP coverage, still the exemption is not automatic as the law requires that an application for exemption clearance is to be filed pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 06, Series of 1994 or DAR Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1990, as the case may be. However, the agricultural portions of said lot shall still be covered under CARP.
December 14, 1999
- Even if the subject properties are indeed exempt from CARP coverage, still the exemption is not automatic as the law further requires that an application for exemption clearance has to be filed pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 06, Series of 1994 or Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1990, as the case may be. The presumption is that subject properties are agricultural as per tax declaration.
October 27, 1999
EXCLUSION; EXCLUSION OF LANDS DEVOTED TO COMMERCIAL LIVESTOCK
Are all lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising excluded from the coverage of CARP?
- DAR Administrative Order No. 09, Series of 1998 defines Commercial Farms as private agricultural lands devoted to salt beds, fruit farms, orchard, vegetables and cut-flower farms, cacao, coffee and rubber plantations (Section 11, R.A. No. 6657, as amended by Section 3, R.A. No. 7881). This definition is limited to these commodities produced. In other words, other farms although commercial in nature are not covered by the definition. Actually, lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising used to be included in the list. However, the Supreme Court in the landmark case of Luz Farms vs. The Secretary of Agrarian Reform (128 SCRA 568) has removed these farms from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
- Following said ruling, DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993 came into effect purposely to provide rules and regulations governing the exclusion of agricultural lands used for livestock, poultry and swine raising from the coverage of CARP.
March 22, 1999
EXCLUSION; HOMESTEAD LAND
What are the conditions for the exclusion of a homestead land from CARP coverage?
- The law imposes two conditions for the exclusion of a homestead land from CARP coverage, namely: 1) the original homestead grantee or direct compulsory heir was still the owner of the original homestead at the time of the approval of R.A. No. 6657 (otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL) on 15 June 1988; and 2) the grantee or heir was cultivating the homestead as of 15 June 1988 and continues to cultivate the same.
June 22, 1994
EXCLUSION; LANDS DEVOTED TO LIVESTOCK, POULTRY AND SWINE RAISING
What are deemed excluded from the coverage of CARP?
- The parcel of land devoted to piggery although under the Tax Declaration of Real Property they are classified as agricultural, DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993 qualifies that only private agricultural lands or portions thereof exclusively, directly and actually use for livestock, poultry and swine raising as of June 15, 1988 shall be excluded from the coverage of the CARP. Thereafter, any act of the landowner to change or convert his agricultural land to livestock, poultry and swine raising after 15 June 1988, with intent to avoid the application of R.A. No. 6657 to his landholding, shall be considered invalid and illegal and shall not effect the coverage of his landholding under CARP. The abovementioned pronouncement is in line with the Supreme Court decision in the case of "Luz Farms vs. Hon. Secretary of the DAR (G.R. No. 86889, 04 December 1990) which excludes livestock, poultry and swine raising from CARP coverage on the ground that these activities are no longer agricultural. In this regard, an application for exemption shall be filed and must be duly approved by DAR pursuant to the aforesaid guideline before the subject landholdings could be legally considered exempt from CARP coverage.
March 10, 1998
EXCLUSION; PROCEDURE FOR ISSUANCE OF ORDER OF EXCLUSION
How is an Order of Exclusion issued?
- DAR Administrative Order No. 09, Series of 1993 expressly declares that landowners whose private agricultural lands or portions thereof are exclusively, directly and actually used for livestock, poultry and swine raising as of 15 June 1988 should file an Application for Exclusion together with the documentary requirements with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of the place where the property is situated. Upon receipt of the application, the PARO with the assistance of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC), the MARO, the Municipal Livestock Inspector, and a livestock/poultry and swine specialist of the Department of Agriculture (DA), shall conduct an investigation of the land to determine, among others, the ownership, legal status, type and area of the land sought to be excluded, and to ascertain whether the property has been devoted to livestock, poultry and swine as of 15 June 1988 (i.e., effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 – CARL). Should a landowner change or convert his agricultural land to livestock, poultry and swine raising after 15 June 1988, with the intent to avoid the application of Republic Act No. 6657 to his landholdings, the same shall be considered invalid and illegal and shall not affect the coverage of his landholding under CARP.
- Thus, if the subject landholding is indeed devoted to livestock, poultry and swine raising prior to the effectivity of the CARL and all the documentary requirements are complied with, the Regional Director (RD) shall issue an Order of Exclusion and the Notice of Coverage shall perforce be lifted, otherwise, it shall issue an Order of Denial and shall subject said property to CARP coverage.
October 9, 1998
EXCLUSION; REQUIREMENT
What are the requirements for the application for exemption/exclusion under DAR A.O. No. 09, series of 1993?
- The Supreme Court has made a pronouncement in the landmark case of Luz Farms vs. The Honorable Secretary of Agrarian Reform (G.R. No. 86339, 4 December 1990) that those lands which are devoted to poultry, swine and livestock farms are not included within the scope of the agrarian reform program. To qualify for exclusion from CARP coverage, however, the following requirements must be met upon proper application for exemption/exclusion pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993:
1. The land or portions thereof must have been exclusively, directly and actually used for livestock, poultry and swine raising as of 15 June 1988 (i.e., effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law); and
2. The farm devoted to the above purposes must satisfy the animal/land ratio, as well as animal/infrastructure ratio, as provided for in Section III-B of Administrative Order No. 09, Series of 1993 entitled, "Rules and Regulations Governing the Exclusion of Agricultural Lands Used for Livestock, Poultry and Swine Raising from the Coverage of CARP".
- If the requirements stated above have been met as determined by DAR upon an application for exemption/exclusion, the land is exempt, therefore, there is no longer any need to apply for conversion. In other words, if there is already an Exemption Order, application for conversion shall no longer be required. Instead, the applicant may proceed to the Local Government Unit concerned for the issuance of a Development Clearance. Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the DENR must likewise be secured.
March 22, 1999
October 12, 1998
EXCLUSION; UNDER SECTION 2 OF R.A. No. 7881
What are those lands exempted and excluded from CARP coverage?
- The terms "exclusion" and "exemption" are used interchangeably, both meaning that the land involved is not within the scope of CARP. They are: those falling under Section 2 of R.A. No. 7881, amending Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) which, insofar as pertinent, reads:
"Section 2. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657 is hereby amended to read as follows:
SECTION 10. Exemptions and Exclusions. —
a) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.
b) Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act: Provided, That said prawn farms and fishponds have not been distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
xxx xxx xxx
c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for national defense, school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research and pilot production center, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and quarantine centers and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act."
September 8, 1999
EXECUTION; MTC'S ORDER OF EXECUTION CANNOT BE STAYED BY THE ORDER OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
Can an MTC order be stayed by the Order of an Administrative Officer?
- Execution of the MTC's order directing the ejectment of farmer-occupants cannot as a matter of good policy and in deference to the principle of jurisdictional independence be stayed by the order of an administrative office like the PARO; the rationale is that they perform their function independently. Specifically, a Court of Justice like the MTC exercises its judicial functions , whereas the PARO is limited to the exercise of his administrative function.
February 9, 1998
EXEMPTION
When may an exemption from CARP coverage be deemed to partake of the nature of a conversion?
- Exemption from CARP coverage pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990 as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994 may be deemed to partake, in effect, of the nature of a conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural use since said lands reclassified as non-agricultural prior to 15 June 1988 are no longer deemed agricultural and covered by CARP pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990 and Sections 3 (c) and 4 of R.A. No. 6657. In both instances, said exemption and conversion exempt or remove the lands subject thereof from CARP coverage except that in the case of conversion, if a conversion order is revoked or withdrawn, the lands subject thereof shall revert to the status of agricultural lands and shall be subject to CARP coverage as circumstances may warrant (Section 49, DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2002).
- It should be stressed, however, that in order that an exemption clearance/order may be deemed as of the same nature and effect as a conversion clearance/order, said exemption order or clearance should have been issued on the basis of a duly filed application for exemption and approved on the merits by the DAR Secretary pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994, since exemption is not automatic.
March 19, 2003
EXEMPTION CLEARANCE
- The 400 square meters lots intended for cell sites within agricultural lands need not go through the conversion process. What is needed is just an Exemption Clearance to be issued by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) upon submission of duly notarized Lease Contract.
DAR OPINION NO. 03-A, s. 2009
March 6, 2009
EXEMPTION FROM OLT COVERAGE; SIGNIFICANCE OF MARO/PARO CERTIFICATION
What does the certification from the MARO/PARO signify?
- Certification from the MARO/PARO signifies that the exemption of the subject landholding from OLT coverage does not contravene P.D. 27 and its implementing guidelines. Briefly stated, it is a safeguard against possible circumvention of the said law to the prejudice of the tenants affected.
March 14, 1996
EXEMPTION ORDER
Is application for exemption necessary if there is no valid order of exemption?
- If there is no valid order of exemption yet from DAR pursuant to existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations, there is still a need to apply for exemption and the application shall be accordingly resolved on the merits thereof pursuant to the provisions and legal requirements of DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994, DAR Memorandum Circular No. 09, Series of 1997.
April 15, 1998
EXEMPTION ORDER; EFFECT
- The grant of exemption of an agricultural land from coverage pursuant to R.A. No. 6657 has an effect of merely removing it from possible acquisition and distribution under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). This does not render a total exemption from the application of Agrarian Reform Laws and other applicable laws. However, it is incumbent upon the landowner to prove that his land is exempted from CARP coverage. An exemption order or clearance must be issued on the basis of a duly filed application for exemption and is thereby approved pursuant to existing applicable laws on the matter since exemption is not automatic.
DAR OPINION NO. 31, s. 2006
October 20, 2006
EXEMPTION ORDER; EFFECT
- The effect of an exemption granted pursuant to the said provision of R.A. No. 6657 is merely to remove the land from its possible acquisition and distribution under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). This does not render a total exemption from the application of Agrarian Reform laws and their implementing rules and regulations. The DAR may still implement the other components of the program, i.e., leasehold and the Integrated Social Forestry Program, where applicable. In this case, a DAR Order of Exemption must be secured because the exemption referred hereto is not automatic. It is incumbent upon the landowner to prove that his land is exempted from CARP coverage.
- A DAR Order of Exemption does not operate as a sanction for the landowner to modify the actual use of the land. When the land is removed from CARP coverage, it does not follow that conversion of the land into other uses is authorized. If the intention of the landowner is to convert the agricultural land into residential, commercial or industrial, thereby changing the agricultural use of the land into non-agricultural use, a DAR Order of Exemption will not suffice. Instead, a DAR Order of Conversion must still be obtained.
DAR OPINION NO. 16, s. 2001
September 10, 2001
EXEMPTION ORDER; EFFECT
What is the effect of a DAR Order of Exemption?
- A DAR Order of Exemption signifies that the parcel of land cannot be acquired and distributed under CARP. However, this does not render total exemption from the application of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. DAR A.O. No. 1, series of 1990 provides that "DAR has exclusive authority to approve or disapprove application for conversion of agricultural lands for residential, commercial, industrial and other land uses as may be provided for by law.
December 23, 1996
EXEMPTION ORDER; NEEDED ON THE PROPERTIES BEING USED FOR RELIGIOUS ACTIVITIES
- A DAR Clearance involving transfer of the subject land may not be issued if the same is in violation of CARP. On the issue of the subject property being used for religious activities, there must be a DAR Order of Exemption from CARL coverage issued that is final and executory pursuant to the applicable guidelines on the basis of a duly filed application thereof.
DAR OPINION NO. 31, s. 2006
October 20, 2006
EXEMPTION ORDER; NOT ABSOLUTE
Is an Order of Exemption absolute?
- While it is admitted that a DAR Order of Exemption signifies that a landholding may not be acquired and distributed under CARP, this does not render, total and absolute, the exemption from the application of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). DAR Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1990 provides that "in all cases, the DAR shall conduct a continuing review and verification of exempted lands to ascertain which of the areas declared exempt or which portions thereof are no longer, actually, directly and exclusively used and found necessary for said purpose. If the purpose for the grant of exemption no longer exists, the area or portion involved shall be covered under CARP pursuant to the guidelines on land acquisition and distribution." Accordingly, lands which have already been declared exempt pursuant to a DAR Order may, nonetheless, not be freely acquired or disposed of without a DAR Clearance.
September 1, 2000
EXEMPTION ORDER; WHAT IT SIGNIFIES UNDER CARP AND A.O. NO. 2, SERIES OF 2006
- The coverage of Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2006 extends only to landholdings which are not yet covered by either exemption/exclusion or conversion order. However, while it is admitted that a DAR Order of Exemption signifies that a landholding may not be acquired and distributed under CARP, this does not render total and absolute the exemption from the application of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). DAR Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1990 provides that in all cases, the DAR shall conduct a continuing review and verification of exempted lands to ascertain which of the areas declared exempt or which portions thereof that no longer actually, directly and exclusively used and found necessary for said purpose. If the purpose for the grant of exemption no longer exists, the area or portion involved shall be covered under CARP pursuant to the guidelines on land acquisition and distribution. Accordingly, lands which have already been declared exempt pursuant to a DAR order may, nonetheless, be subjected to Leasehold Contract, if the same remains agricultural.
DAR OPINION NO. 01, s. 2007
January 16, 2007
EXEMPTION; EXCEPTION; FISHPOND
- It can be gleaned that the said exemption still admits an exception. A fishpond may be subject of CARP coverage by Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) when made before the effectivity of the Act which is March 12, 1995
DAR OPINION NO. 10, s. 2010
February 1, 2010
EXEMPTION; PROPERTY CLASSIFIED AS RESIDENTIAL
- All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture in excess of the 5-hectare retention limit shall be acquired under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) for distribution to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries. Clearly, only agricultural lands in excess of the 5 hectare retention limit are coverable under CARP. Thus, properties classified as residential are exempt from the coverage of CARP. In addition, nothing under CARP Law that provides an instance or by way of exemption that residential land may be covered under CARP.
DAR OPINION NO. 12, s. 2008
May 29, 2008
EXEMPTION; PUBLIC FOREST
- Considering that the subject land has been categorized as public forest and part of the public domain, it shall therefore be exempt from CARP coverage. This conclusion is in conformity with Joint DENR-DAR Memorandum Circular No. 2003-1, Series of 2003, specifically, sub-paragraph II-B thereof.
DAR OPINION NO. 26, s. 2010
October 21, 2010
EXEMPTION; REQUIREMENTS
- When a landholding is applied for Exemption from the coverage of CARP there is a requirement for the submission of ownership documents and other muniments of title, and that incomplete documentary requirements is a ground for non-acceptance of an application for exemption. In short, it would not be possible to process and evaluate any application in the absence of any ownership documents and other muniments of title. It follows therefore that an Order of Finality may not be issued in the absence of any muniments of title to prove ownership. nevertheless, please be informed that the aforesaid guidelines did not impose that a landholding applied for exemption/exclusion necessarily be registered with the Register of Deeds. It is essential that the landowner applicant, must comply with the requirements, documents laid down under A.O. No. 13,m Series of 1990 to justify the application for exemption on the ground that the subject landholding has a slope of 18% over and undeveloped.
DAR OPINION NO. 12, s. 2010
February 16, 2010
EXEMPTION; AGRICULTURAL LAND WITH EIGHTEEN PERCENT (18%) SLOPE
Are lands with 18% slope and over exempt from CARP?
- It must be noted, however, that under Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) on exemptions and exclusions, it is expressly provided therein that lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed, shall be exempt from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). This clear and unequivocal declaration is a manifestation that uplands with a slope gradient exceeding 18% as defined in the proposed Executive Order is not exempt from CARP coverage if the same is developed and suitable for agricultural production.
April 15, 1998
EXEMPTION; AGRICULTURAL LAND WITH EIGHTEEN PERCENT (18%) SLOPE
What are the documentary requirements needed to justify exemption on the ground that the land has eighteen percent (18%) slope?
- DAR Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1990 laid down the requirements/documents needed to justify the exemption on the ground that the subject landholding has a slope of 18% and over and undeveloped. Under the aforesaid implementing rules and regulations, it is imperative that a written application for exemption pursuant to Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 should be filed with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) of the place where the subject property is situated. Said written application shall be accompanied by the following:
a) ownership documents and other muniments of title; and
b) Evidence to support application and convince DAR that the area qualifies for exemption under Sec. 10 of R.A. No. 6657, such as: copy of proclamation topographic map, sketch map, area development plan, affidavit, certification from relevant government agency, etc.
- Compliance with Administrative Order No. 20 of the Office of the President is not however a requirement for the exemption of landholdings with a slope of 18% and over and undeveloped. The said implementing guidelines specifically deal with agricultural land use conversion mandating that all irrigated and irrigable lands are non-negotiable for conversion. Said expressed prohibition has nothing to do with the exemption of landholdings pursuant to Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657.
April 15, 1998
EXEMPTION; AGRICULTURAL LANDS CLASSIFIED AS NON-AGRICULTURAL PRIOR TO CARL
Are agricultural lands classified as non-agricultural prior to CARL excluded from CARP?
- Pursuant to Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, agricultural lands that have been classified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of CARL on 15 June 1988 shall be excluded from CARP coverage upon proper application for exemption and approval thereof by DAR. It is essential, however, that said classification of an agricultural land into non-agricultural use must have been validly made by the courts or proper government agency concerned legally authorized for that purpose and not by private individuals themselves. In this regard, we submit that the mere annotation stating that "The property shall be used for residential purposes only and for no other purpose or purposes" is not sufficient to form a belief that the same is indeed classified as such by proper authority or upon lawful order of a court.
- A careful scrutiny of the records does not show under what authority the above restriction was made since there might be the possibility that said restriction was unwittingly or matter of factly annotated by the Register of Deeds merely upon the request of the private parties to reflect the terms and conditions unilaterally set forth by said private parties in the sales or alienations that transpired without the requisite authorization or approval by the proper court or government agency concerned. Hence, in the absence of clear and conclusive proof by what authority the restriction in the annotation was made, the subject landholding could be deemed as not validly and legally classified as residential within the contemplation of Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657, thus, DOJ Opinion No. 44 is not applicable, and, accordingly the same is still an agricultural land as it really is. It has to be stressed here, as gleaned from the records, that the landholding in issue was formerly and actually an agricultural public land awarded pursuant to a Free Patent covered under TCT No. T-30597.
November 17, 1998
EXEMPTION; AGRICULTURAL LANDS CLASSIFIED AS RESIDENTIAL ZONE
Is there a need to file an application for exemption of an agricultural lands classified as residential zone?
- Pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994 (Guidelines for the Issuance of Exemption Clearance Based on Section 3 (c) of Republic Act No. 6657 and Department of Justice (DOJ) Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990), there is still a need to file an application for a DAR exemption clearance as regards the subject landholdings and the same must be adjudicated on the merits thereof. The requirements are detailed under the aforesaid guidelines.
November 3, 1998
EXEMPTION; AGRICULTURAL LANDS DEVOTED TO COMMERCIAL LIVESTOCK RAISING
Are pasture lands exempt from CARP coverage based on the Luz Farm doctrine?
- From the facts presented and evaluation of the records on file, the subject property is actually devoted to commercial livestock raising. Under the clear pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Luz Farms vs. the Honorable Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 86889, Dec. 4, 1990, Sec. 11 of R.A. No. 6657, which includes private agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising in the definition of commercial farm, is invalid to the extent that the aforecited agro-industrial activities are made to be covered by the agrarian reform program of the State. Said Supreme Court Ruling excludes livestock and poultry lands from the coverage of agrarian reform. Accordingly, in the light of said Ruling and DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993, the subject landholding upon proper application and due issuance of a DAR exemption clearance could be considered as outside the ambit of the agrarian reform program.
September 8, 1999
EXEMPTION; AGRICULTURAL LANDS WHICH HAD LOST THEIR AGRICULTURAL CHARACTER
Are lands which had lost their agricultural character by reason of force majeure still covered by CARP?
- Lands which had lost their agricultural character by reason of force majeure are perforce taken out of the purview of CARP coverage. To rule otherwise will be to defeat the very purpose for which the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform program (CARP) has been conceived and envisioned since the subject landholdings are no longer agriculturally productive and viable.
July 3, 1997
EXEMPTION; AGRICULTURAL LANDS WITH 18% SLOPE AND UNDEVELOPED
Are lands with more than 18% slope and undeveloped be permanently ceased to fall within the ambit of the term agricultural lands.
- Rejection by DAR to cover landholdings with more than 18% slope and undeveloped does not necessarily mean that said landholdings shall permanently cease to fall within the ambit of the term agricultural lands for purposes of the CARP. The exemption of said landholdings is based on the Forestry Code which provides that such lands should not be disposed of and developed for agriculture because this type of land is highly susceptible to soil erosion. However, in the light of cultural practices which could anyhow make said landholdings economically productive and the preservation of the ecological balance in said areas feasible, the same may still be considered as agricultural. Nonetheless, until and unless the laws are changed, such lands are not covered by CARP.
DAR OPINION NO. 59, s. 1997
June 2, 1997
EXEMPTION; BEACH/SHORE AREAS
Are beach/shore areas exempted from the coverage of CARP?
- Section 51 of Presidential Decree No. 1067 (The Water Code of the Philippines provides, quote: "The banks of rivers and streams and the shores of the seas and lakes throughout their entire length and within a zone of three (3) meters in urban areas, twenty (20) meters in agricultural areas and forty (40) meters in forest areas, along their margins, are subject to the easement of public use in the interest of recreation, navigation, flotage, fishing and salvage. No person shall be allowed to stay in this zone longer than what is necessary for recreation, navigation, floatage, fishing or salvage or to build structures of any kind.
- From the foregoing, beach/shore areas within the aforesaid limits may be deemed exempt from the coverage of CARP.
DAR OPINION NO. 119, s. 1997
October 28, 1997
EXEMPTION; CONDITIONS FOR EXEMPTION OF FISHPONDS AND PRAWN FARMS FROM CARP COVERAGE
What are the conditions for exemption from CARP coverage of fishponds and prawn farms?
- The conditions for exemption expressly provided in Section 2 of RA 7881, are:
1. That said prawn farms and fishponds should not have been distributed and no CLOA shall have been issued to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries under CARP; and
2. That the provisions of Section 32-A of the same law on incentives should apply. Said Section 32-A mandates individuals or entities owning or operating fishponds and prawn farm to execute, within 6 months from the effectivity of RA 7881, an incentive plan with their regular fishpond or prawn farm workers or fishpond or prawn organizations, if any, in accordance with the conditions therein specified.
September 8, 1995
EXEMPTION; CONDITIONS FOR EXEMPTION OF FISHPONDS FROM CARP COVERAGE
What are the conditions needed to exempt fishponds and prawn farm from CARP?
- Please be informed that pursuant to Section 2 of R.A. No. 7881, which amends Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for fishponds as of 12 March 1995 are exempt from CARP coverage, provided that said lands have not been distributed and no Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) have been issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs).
- However, applications for exemption/exclusion should still be filed with the DAR to determine on the merits whether landholdings subject of applications are indeed exempt/excluded from CARP coverage pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 03, series of 1995 (Rules and Regulations Governing the Exemption/Exclusion of Fishponds and Prawn Farms from the Coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), Pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, as Amended by R.A. No 7881).
February 21, 2002
EXEMPTION; CONDITIONS FOR EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10 OF R.A. NO. 6657
- Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 requires that the subject landholding must be actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for church sites and convents appurtenant thereto.
- DAR OPINION NO. 25, s. 2006
August 29, 2006
EXEMPTION; DAR CLEARANCE AS A CONDITION PRECEDENT
Is DAR Clearance still necessary before the Municipal Council can act on the location clearance application
- If the subject landholding was already reclassified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) on 15 June 1988, an application for exemption by the landowner shall be required pursuant to the provisions and requirements of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994. On the other hand, if said landholding had been reclassified as non-agricultural after 15 June 1988, an application for conversion shall be required pursuant to the provisions and requirements of DAR Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1997.
December 2, 1998
EXEMPTION; DEADLINE FOR FILING APPLICATION
Is there a deadline for filing an application for exemption of fishpond farms?
- Pertinent agrarian laws and regulations do not provide for a deadline for filing of the application for exemption of fishpond farms and of the application for exemption clearance pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990.
May 25, 1998
EXEMPTION; DISTINCTION BETWEEN EXEMPTION ORDER AND CONVERSION ORDER
What is the difference between Exemption Order and Conversion Order?
- Exemption clearance/order issued pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990 differs from a conversion order/clearance. Said exemption clearance or order stems from a petition/application filed pursuant to the requirements, rules, conditions and procedures laid down under DAR Administrative Order No. 06, series of 1994, while a conversion clearance or order is based on an application filed pursuant to the requirements, rules, conditions and procedures detailed under DAR Administrative Order No. 01, series of 2002. Section 23 of DAR Administrative Order No. 01, series of 2002 enumerates the effects of approval of Conversion which are not necessarily the effects of an approval of Exemption pursuant to DOJ 44 or Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657.
March 19, 2003
EXEMPTION; DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS FOR EXEMPTION CLEARANCE
What are the requirements for exemption clearance?
- The requirements for exemption clearance under DAR Administrative Order No. 06, Series of 1994 are the following:
1. Certification from the Deputized Zoning Administrator that the land has been reclassified to residential, industrial or commercial use prior to June 15, 1988; and
2. Certification from the HLURB that the pertinent zoning ordinance has been approved by the Board prior to June 15, 1988.
Both certifications are required in order for an application for exemption clearance to be proceeded.
March 9, 1995
EXEMPTION; DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS NEEDED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER OF EXEMPTION
What are the documentary requirements under DAR A.O. No. 13, s. 1990?
DAR Administrative Order No. 13 Series of 1990, as amended by Administrative Order No. 10, Series of 1994 (copies herewith attached) clearly provides that the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) of the place where the property is situated shall accept written application for exemption from CARP coverage which shall be accompanied by the following: Ownership documents and other muniments of title
Evidence to support application and convince DAR that the area qualifies for exemption under Section 10, R.A. No. 6657 such as: copy of proclamation, topographic map, sketch map, area development plan, affidavit, certification from relevant government agency, etc.
Upon receipt of the application for exemption, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) shall conduct, with the assistance of the Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC), an investigation of the land to determine, among others, the ownership, legal status and type of area of the land sought to be exempted. The MARO shall likewise ascertain whether or not the land is actually, directly and exclusively used or necessary for the purpose stated in the application pursuant to Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657. Thereafter, the Application for Land Exemption Folder (ALEF) shall be transmitted to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO), who shall review and evaluate the ALEF and indicate his comments, findings and recommendations. If ALEF documentation is found in order, he shall forward the same to the DAR Regional Director, otherwise, he shall return the ALEF to the MARO for further action. The Regional Director shall then approve or disapprove the subject application for exemption based on the merits thereof.
October 12, 1998
EXEMPTION; EFFECT
What is the effect of exemption pursuant to Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657?
- The effect of an exemption granted pursuant to the said provision of R.A. No. 6657 is merely to remove the land from its possible acquisition and distribution under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). This does not render a total exemption from the application of Agrarian Reform laws and their implementing rules and regulations. The DAR may still implement the other components of the program, i.e., leasehold and the Integrated Social Forestry Program, where applicable. In this case, a DAR Order of Exemption must be secured because the exemption referred hereto is not automatic. It is incumbent upon the landowner to prove that his land is exempted from CARP coverage.
- A DAR Order of Exemption does not operate as a sanction for the landowner to modify the actual use of the land. When the land is removed from CARP coverage, it does not follow that conversion of the land into other uses is authorized. If the intention of the landowner is to convert the agricultural land into residential, commercial or industrial, thereby changing the agricultural use of the land into non-agricultural use, a DAR Order of Exemption will not suffice. Instead, a DAR Order of Conversion must still be obtained.
September 10, 2001
EXEMPTION; EFFECT
What is the effect of a DAR Order of Exemption?
- While it is admitted that a DAR Order of Exemption signifies that a landholding may not be acquired and distributed under CARP, this does not render, total and absolute, the exemption from the application of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). DAR Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1990 provides that "in all cases, the DAR shall conduct a continuing review and verification of exempted lands to ascertain which of the areas declared exempt or which portions thereof are no longer actually, directly and exclusively used and found necessary for said purpose. If the purpose for the grant of exemption no longer exists, the area or portion involved shall be covered under CARP pursuant to the guidelines on land acquisition and distribution." Accordingly, lands which have already been declared exempt pursuant to a DAR Order may, nonetheless, not be freely acquired or disposed of without a DAR Clearance.
December 14, 1999
EXEMPTION; EFFECT OF EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO DOJ OPINION NO. 44, SERIES OF 1990
What is the effect of exemption under DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990?
- DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990 rules that all lands already classified as commercial, industrial or residential before June 15, 1988 pursuant to a Municipal/City Ordinance or zoning plan duly approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) before June 15, 1988 is exempted from CARP coverage. However, the landowner or his duly authorized representative of the properties falling under this category must still apply for an Exemption Clearance from the DAR before any change in its actual use may be introduced.
September 10, 2001
EXEMPTION; EFFECT OF ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER OF EXEMPTION
What is the effect of the issuance of an Order of Exemption/Exclusion?
- The Order of Exemption/Exclusion issued by the DAR pursuant to Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 is an affirmation that the subject property is beyond the purview of CARP coverage over which the DAR has no jurisdiction. It is an administrative declaration that the property in question is not suitable for agricultural purposes which can be compulsorily acquired and distributed by the government thru DAR to qualified-beneficiaries.
- Pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 10, Series of 1994, the Order of Exemption/Exclusion has already become final and executory since, presumably, no appeal has been made to the DAR Secretary within 15 days from receipt thereof. Thus, the same can no longer be reopened for reason of public policy. Equity and justice demands that every controversy must come to an end at some future time. Having been declared as exempt by virtue of an Order of Exemption/Exclusion, the property covered thereby can now be devoted to other purposes.
- In all cases, however, the DAR shall conduct a continuing review and verification of exempted lands to ascertain which of the areas declared exempt or which portions thereof are no longer actually, directly and exclusively used and found necessary for said purpose. If the purpose for the grant of exemption no longer exists, the area or portion involved shall be covered under CARP pursuant to the guidelines on land acquisition and distribution (Item II. F, DAR Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1990).
February 9, 1999
EXEMPTION; EFFECT OF THE APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION FROM CARP COVERAGE
What are the effects of the supervening application for exemption from CARP coverage?
- While DAR, not LBP, is the one legally mandated to determine and recommend whether a particular landholding is covered by P.D. No. 27 or R.A. No. 6657 and to issue the corresponding EP or CLOA, as the case may be, the supervening applications for exemption on the subject landholdings have perforce interposed on the previous issue such that there is likewise of necessity the need to resolve said applications for exemption before all the other attendant issues could properly be addressed. In view thereof, we are constrained to wait for the final resolution of the subject applications for exemption, afterwhich, we could then act accordingly.
September 25, 1998
EXEMPTION; EFFECT OF THE ORDER OF EXEMPTION
What is the effect of an order of exemption issued by DAR?
- The Order of Exemption issued by the Dar produces the same force and effect as an Order of Conversion for it perforce already dispenses with the requirement of conversion clearance. Thus, upon issuance of an Order of Exemption, any other requirement that add nothing but rather demands unnecessarily more sets of requisites shall be deemed as entirely superfluous, hence, the same must accordingly be disregarded.
March 24, 1998
EXEMPTION; EXEMPTION OF FISHPONDS
Are fishponds exempt from CARP coverage?
- DAR Memorandum Circular No. 32, Series of 1997 has now officially lifted the suspension relative to the implementation of R.A. No. 7881 and its implementing rules (DAR A.O. 3, Series of 1995). The legal effect of such lifting is that fishponds shall be exempt from CARP coverage under certain conditions and, therefore, may be the subject of disposition in favor of third parties. However, before it could be disposed, application for exemption/exclusion is still necessary to prove that the same are indeed fishponds, actually, directly and exclusively used as such prior to 12 March 1995, pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 3, Series of 1995. It bears stressing here that what is contemplated as permissible for sale, transfer or conveyance under Sec. 6 of R.A. 7881 (i.e., Section 73-A of R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. 7881), are those agricultural lands foreclosed by government financial institution (e.g., DBP) on or after 12 March 1995 and not before said date, as in the instant case (DAR Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1996).
February 09, 1998
EXEMPTION; EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT OF RETENTION
How will the issue on whether or not a landholding is exempt/excluded from CARP coverage by reason of the exercise of the right of retention be resolved?
- The issue on whether or not the landholding of your client is exempt/excluded from CARP coverage by reason of the exercise of the right of retention and the issue on whether or not it may be compulsorily acquired is to be resolved not by way of rendering legal opinion on the matter but by following the procedure laid down under DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1994 (Authorizing All Regional Directors to hear and Decide all Protest Involving Coverage Under R.A. 6657 or P.D. No. 27 and Defining the Appeal Process from the Regional Director to the Secretary).
January 14, 1998
EXEMPTION; FISHPOND AND PRAWN FARMS ARE EXEMPTED FROM CARP COVERAGE
Are fishponds and prawnfarms excluded from CARP?
- With the enactment of Republic Act No. 7881 which took effect on 12 March 1995, fishponds and prawn farms were exempt/excluded from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law. However, for it to be exempt or excluded from the coverage of CARP, owners thereof should still have to file an Application for Land Exemption/Exclusion with the DAR Provincial Office where the property is situated, and shall state and prove that their lands have been actually, directly and exclusively used for fishpond and prawn farms purposes even prior to the effectivity date of R.A. No. 7881 on 12 March 1995. The consequential effect of the latter law is that guidelines for valuation of lands used as fishponds and prawn farms are no longer necessary since said lands are already exempt or excluded from the coverage of CARP.
December 24, 1998
What are the conditions needed to exempt fishponds and prawnfarm from CARP?
- For fishponds and prawn farms to be exempt from the coverage of CARP, they must be actually, directly and exclusively used for such purpose as of 12 March 1995, the date when R.A. 7881 took effect. However, compliance with this requirement does not automatically exempt fishponds and prawn farms from CARP coverage. The owners are still required to apply for Exemption or Exclusion from the coverage of CARP with the DAR and comply with all the requirements set forth in the cited Administrative Order.
- On the other hand, agricultural lands which are not yet actually, directly and exclusively used as fishponds or prawn farms as of March 12, 1995, prior DAR Conversion Clearance is necessary. The owners concerned must first apply with the appropriate DAR Office and comply with the requirements for conversion pursuant to Administrative Order NO. 03, Series of 1995.
October 26, 1998
EXEMPTION; FISHPONDS AND PRAWNFARMS
Are fishponds and prawn farms exempted from CARP coverage?
- R.A. No. 7881 which amends RA 6657 declares that fishponds and prawn farms which satisfy the conditions specified in said law are exempt from CARL coverage. It is DAR that determines whether or not the conditions for said exemption have been met, on the basis of the guidelines specified in DAR A.O. No. 03, Series of 1995. A DAR Order of Exemption from CARL coverage that is final and executory pursuant to said guidelines may be used to support thereof, registration of a transaction involving the property subject thereof, hence, there would no longer be any need for a PARO Clearance for said registration.
October 16, 1995
September 8, 1995
EXEMPTION; FISHPONDS/PRAWN FARMS
Are fishponds/prawn farms exempted from CARP coverage?
- The enactment of RA 7881 brought some amendments to RA 6657, to be specific, exempting fishponds/prawn farms from the coverage of the CARP. However, pursuant to the subject Supreme Court Resolution, specific provisions of RA 7881 and its implementing guideline have been suspended. As a result of which the DAR issued Memorandum Circular No. 27, Series of 1995 to hold in abeyance the implementation of said provisions of RA 7881 together with its implementing guideline (i.e., A.O. No. 3, S. 1995).
March 11, 1997
EXEMPTION; INCOMPLETE DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS, A GROUND FOR NON ACEPTANCE OF AN APPLICATION
- When a landholding is applied for Exemption from the coverage of CARP there is a requirement for the submission of ownership documents and other muniments of title, and that incomplete documentary requirements is a ground for non- acceptance of an application for exemption. In short, it would not be possible to process and evaluate any application in the absence of any ownership document and other muniments of title. It follows therefore that an Order of Finality may not be issued in the absence of any muniments of title to prove ownership. Nevertheless, please be informed that the aforesaid guidelines did not impose that a landholding applied for exemption/exclusion necessarily be registered with the Registered of Deeds. It is essential that the landowner applicant, must comply with the requirements, documents laid down under A.O. No. 13, Series of 1990 to justify the application for exemption on the ground that the subject landholding has a slope of 18% over and undeveloped.
DAR OPINION NO. 12, s. 2010
February 16, 2010
EXEMPTION; ISSUANCE OF THE ORDER OF EXEMPTION
When will the Order of Exemption be issued?
- Exemption of agricultural lands from CARP coverage pursuant to Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL) is not automatic, and it cannot be granted simply on the bare allegations that the subject property could well be accordingly subdivided by the sisters to meet the legal requirements, or is intended for some inchoate agricultural or religious purposes. The rule is that all agricultural lands are covered under R.A. No. 6657 pursuant to Section 4 of said law which provides that the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture. Thus, the burden is on the claimant or landowner to prove by clear and convincing evidence that the landholding is exempt from CARP coverage pursuant to Section 10 of said law. Otherwise, the same shall be covered subject to the maximum retention limit or landownership ceiling of five (5) hectares as provided for under Sections 6 and 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657.
October 12, 1998
EXEMPTION; LAND RECLASSIFIED AS NON-AGRICULTURAL BEFORE 15 JUNE 1988
Are lands reclassified as non-agricultural prior to 15 June 1988 exempt from Conversion Clearance?
- On the assumption that said lands were classified as residential and non-agricultural before 15 June 1988, the date of effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), no further conversion order or clearance may be necessary. However, there is still the need to apply for exemption clearance pursuant to the aforequoted provisions of the DAR guidelines abovementioned to ascertain that said lands are indeed exempt from CARP coverage and no agrarian laws, rules and regulations are violated. The provisions of P.D. No. 1474 do not warrant automatic exemption of subject landholdings from the requirement of DAR exemption clearance.
August 29, 2001
EXEMPTION; LAND RECLASSIFIED AS NON-AGRICULTURAL BEFORE 15 JUNE 1988
Are lands reclassified as non-agricultural before 15 June 1988 still need conversion clearance?
- Pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, all lands which have been reclassified as commercial, industrial or residential before 15 June 1988 (effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) no longer need any conversion clearance. This unmistakable conclusion is further reiterated in DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994, which provides that the authority of the DAR to approve conversion of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses commences only from the date of effectivity of said law. Consequently, any landowner or his duly authorized representative whose lands are covered by DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, and desires an exemption clearance from DAR, should file an application for exemption.
March 24, 1998
EXEMPTION; LAND THAT ARE EXEMPTED FROM CARP
What lands are not covered by CARP?
- The following lands are not covered by CARP:
a) those which are not suitable for agriculture, and those which are classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land;
b) those which have been classified and approved as non-agricultural prior to 15 June 1988 as ruled under Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990;
c) those which are devoted to poultry, swine, or livestock raising as of June 15, 1988 pursuant to the Supreme Court ruling in Luz Farms vs. The Honorable Secretary of Agrarian Reform (G.R. No. 86339, 4 December 1990); and
d) those which are retained by the landowner (not covered insofar as land acquisition and distribution but covered with respect to other provisions of agrarian laws, particularly leasehold).
In view of the foregoing, landholdings which fall under the category of any of the above-enumerated lands may be declared exempt from CARP coverage upon proper application thereof and determination by the DAR, on the merits, pursuant to existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations.
September 8, 1999
EXEMPTION; LANDHOLDING EXCLUSIVELY DEVOTED TO LIVESTOCK
- In light of the substantial evidences presented and the applicable laws and jurisprudence, this Office opines, as it hereby confirms, that the subject landholdings of Highbreed Livestock Corporation, consisting of 21 parcels with total area of 121.8542 hectares, located at Barangays Magmarale, Pulong Bayabas, Biclat and Tibagan, San Miguel Bulacan, as enumerated above, are exempt or excluded from CARP coverage for being exclusively devoted to livestock raising prior to the effectivity of CARL (RA6657) on June 15, 1988 up to the present. The fact that the DAR has not placed the subject landholdings under CARP since 1988 (or for 19 years) is recognition of its exempt or excluded status.
DAR OPINION NO. 29, s. 2007
October 24, 2007
EXEMPTION; LANDHOLDING WITH A SLOPE OF 18% AND UNDEVELOPED
Is a landholding having a slope of 18% or more and undeveloped exempt from CARP coverage?
- The law is categorically clear that a landholding having a slope of 18% or more and undeveloped is not within the coverage of CARP. However, an application for exemption and a DAR Clearance are required pursuant to Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 and DAR A.O. No. 13, Series of 1990.
October 6, 1999
EXEMPTION; LANDS CLASSIFIED AS COMMERCIAL BEFORE JUNE 15, 1988
Are lands classified as commercial before 15 June 1988 exempt from securing exemption clearance?
- Since the land in issue has in effect been previously classified as commercial (i.e., tourist zone) before 15 June 1988, the date of effectivity of CARL, there is still the need to apply for exemption clearance. The provisions of DOJ Opinion No. 44, in relation to DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994 could still be relatively applied in the instant case. Accordingly, notwithstanding the provisions of P.D. No. 1801, the same do not afford automatic exemption of the landholding in issue.
September 17, 1997
EXEMPTION; LANDS CLASSIFIED AS INDUSTRIAL ZONE PRIOR TO CARL
Can the development of an area proceed pending submission of the required exemption clearance from DAR?
- As regards your query on whether the development of an area can proceed pending submission of the required exemption clearance from the DAR, it is submitted that though the area subject matter of your query had allegedly been classified as Industrial Zone prior to effectivity of CARL, a DAR Exemption Clearance must first be secured pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990 to foreclose possible circumvention of existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations.
September 4, 1998
EXEMPTION ; LANDS COVERED BY FREE PATENTS
Are properties covered by Free Patent exempted from CARP coverage?
- The broad and encompassing scope of R.A. No. 6657 so provides that it shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public or private agricultural lands, as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229 including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture (Section 4, R.A. No. 6657). The only exemptions therein, and no other, are those lands mentioned under Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 7881; those which are devoted to poultry, swine and livestock pursuant to the Supreme Court Ruling in the Luz Farms case; those which have been classified and approved as non-agricultural prior to 15 June 1988 (effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 – CARL) as ruled under Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990; those which are officially and duly declared as not suitable for agriculture; and those which are classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land as provided for under Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657.
- To extend or expand the aforesaid exemptions/exclusions, and to further apply by analogy the provisions of R.A. No. 6657, specifically Section 6 thereof as regards Homestead lands vis-à-vis Commonwealth Act No. 141 on Free Patent lands would therefore constitute a violation of the well-entrenched and time-honored principle in our jurisprudence, viz: "Exclusio Unios est Exclusio Alterios" (what the law does not include it excludes). Accordingly, what is not specifically exempted is covered by CARP.
September 15, 1998
EXEMPTION; LANDS COVERED UNDER DOJ NO. 44
Is there an ambiguity between DAR A.O. No. 06, series of 1994 and DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990?
- No ambiguity exists between the two and that the former was issued in consonance with the latter for the purpose of streamlining the issuance of exemption clearances based thereon.
- It should be stressed that DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990 upholds DAR's general authority under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) to approve or disapprove applications for conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses from and after the effectivity of CARL on June 15, 1988. Thus, it should be made clear that before any conversion of said agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses may be undertaken, the same must first be cleared or approved by DAR through an Order of Conversion. The application for a DAR Exemption Clearance, on the other hand, for lands reclassified to non-agricultural uses prior to June 15, 1988, is likewise not optional and does not depend upon the desire of the landowner or his duly authorized representatives.
September 4, 1998
EXEMPTION; LANDS DEVOTED TO POULTRY, SWINE OR LIVESTOCK RAISING
Are lands devoted to poultry, swine or livestock raising exempt from CARP coverage?
- Pursuant to the SC ruling on Luz Farms vs. The Honorable Secretary of Agrarian Reform (192 SCRA 51, December 4, 1990), what are exempted or deemed excluded from CARP coverage are those lands which are devoted to poultry, swine or livestock raising as of 15 June 1988 (date of the effectivity of RA 6657 or CARL).
August 28, 1996
EXEMPTION; LANDS DIRECTLY AND EXCLUSIVELY USED FOR FISHPOND AND PRAWNFARMS
Are lands directly and exclusively used for fishponds and prawn farms exempt from CARP coverage?
- Lands directly and exclusively used for fishponds and prawn farms as of 12 March 1995 are by operation of RA 7881 exempt from CARP coverage. Indeed, this exemption is clearly provided in Section 2 of RA 7881 which amends Section 10 of RA 6657.
September 8, 1995
EXEMPTION; LANDS THAT ARE EXEMPTED FROM CARP COVERAGE
- Exclusion/Exemption of lands from CARP coverage shall apply only to the following, to wit:
1) those which are not suitable for agriculture, and those which are classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land;
2) those which have been classified and approved as non-agricultural prior to 15 June 1988 as ruled under Department of Justice Opinion No. 44 , Series of 1990;
3) those which are exempt pursuant to Section 10, R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 7881;
4) those which are devoted to poultry, swine or livestock raising as of June 15, 1988, pursuant to Supreme Court ruling on Luz Farms vs. The Honorable Secretary of Agrarian Reform (G.R. No. 86339, 4 December 1990); and
5) those which are retained by the landowner (not covered insofar as acquisition and distribution but covered with respect to other provisions of agrarian laws, particularly leasehold).
- The Exclusion Clearance based on Nos. 1 and 2 above shall be governed by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994 (Guidelines for the Issuance of Exemption Clearances Based on Sec. 3 (c), R.A. 6657 and Department of Justice Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990). The procedures for the issuance of exemption/exclusion clearance are detailed under said Administrative Order.
DAR OPINION NO. 33, s. 2006
November 10, 2006
EXEMPTION; LANDS UTILIZED AS SCHOOL SITE
Is a lot utilized as school site exempt from CARP coverage?
- Since the lot has, since 1930, been utilized as a school site, it is exempted from CARP coverage as clearly provided in Section 10 of R.A. 6657. As such, it is believed that the matter of acquisition of the property by DECS is between said Department and PNB.
February 11, 1994
EXEMPTION; LANDS UTILIZED AS SCHOOL SITES AND CAMPUSES AND EXPERIMENTAL FARM
Are lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for school sites and campuses including experimental farm exempt from CARP coverage?
- Under Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657, lands actually directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for "school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes" are exempt from the coverage of said Act.
February 10, 1994
EXEMPTION; LAW GOVERNING EXEMPTION
What law governs the exemption and exclusion from CARP coverage?
- The exemption and exclusion from CARP coverage are found in Section 10 of CARL, which is quoted as follows:
"SECTION 10. Exemptions and Exclusion. — Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves, national defense, school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes, seeds and seedlings research and pilot production centers church sites and convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates, government and private research and quarantine centers and all lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over, except those already developed shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act.
August 22, 1994
EXEMPTION; NOT AUTOMATIC
Are exempt properties automatically excluded from CARP coverage?
- Even the subject properties are indeed exempt from CARP coverage, still the exemption is not automatic as the law further requires that an application for exemption clearance is to be filed pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 06, Series of 1994.
September 23, 1996
EXEMPTION; NOT AUTOMATIC FOR LAND RECLASSIFIED AS NON-AGRICULTURAL BEFORE 15 JUNE 1988
- On the assumption that said lands were classified as residential and non-agricultural before 15 June 1988, the date of effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), no further conversion order or clearance may be necessary. However, there is still the need to apply for exemption clearance pursuant to the aforequoted provisions of the DAR guidelines abovementioned to ascertain that said lands are indeed exempt from CARP coverage and no agrarian laws, rules and regulations are violated. The provisions of P.D. No. 1474 do not warrant automatic exemption of subject landholdings from the requirement of DAR exemption clearance.
DAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 2001
August 29, 2001
EXEMPTION; NOT IN PURSUANCE OF DOJ OPINION NO. 44
What is the effect of exemption orders or clearances issued not in pursuance of DOJ 44 or Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657/When may an exempted landholding revert to its original agricultural state?
- It bears noting that aforesaid exemption does not include or contemplate exemption orders or clearances issued not in pursuance of DOJ 44 or Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657 in relation to DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994 such as those exempted pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1990 (Section 10, R.A. No. 6657 as amended), DAR Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1993 (Livestock, Poultry and Swine) and DAR Administrative Order No. 3, series of 1995 (Fishponds and Prawn Farms). The lands under the latter-enumerated exemptions may revert to agricultural if they are no longer actually, directly and exclusively used for the purpose for which they were exempted. Thus, they would still necessitate a conversion clearance should they later be converted to other non-agricultural uses such as residential, commercial or industrial.
March 19, 2003
EXEMPTION; PENDENCY OF APPLICATION FOR EXEMPTION; EFFECT THEREOF
What is the effect of pendency of application for exemption?
- After a careful evaluation of the consequences that may arise therefrom, it is deemed wise and prudent to resolve first the pending petition for exemption filed by Rizal Cement Corporation, Inc. 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. In order not to unduly prejudice the members of the Pag-asa Samahang Nayon, however, the resolution of the subject application should be directed and rendered the soonest.
January 7, 1999
EXEMPTION; PENDING APPLICATIONS; COVERAGE PROCESS HELD IN ABEYANCE
Can there be documentation and coverage process pending applications for exemption or conversion or protests on coverage with the DAR?
- In cases where there are pending applications for exemption or conversion or protests on coverage, the documentation and coverage process shall be held in abeyance until such time that said applications or protests are resolved with finality. However, insofar as the applications for exemption and conversion and protests involving CARP coverage which are pending with the DAR, it behooves and it is incumbent upon us that the resolution thereof should be directed and rendered the soonest in order that the implementation of the Program shall not be unduly delayed or derailed. Earnest efforts and representations shall likewise be accordingly exerted and made by the Department in cases where said applications or protests are already with the Office of the President or the courts in order that the same shall likewise be resolved the soonest time possible.
October 27, 1999
EXEMPTION; PURSUANT TO DOJ OPINION No. 44, SERIES OF 1990
When is a parcel of land considered non-agricultural?
- Under DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, a parcel of land is considered non-agricultural, if it has been classified as residential, commercial or industrial in the City or Municipal Land Use Plan or Zoning Ordinance approved by the HLURB before 15 June 1988, date of effectivity of the CARL, and therefore beyond the coverage of the CARP.
- Exemption clearance, on non-agricultural land - The landowner is no longer required to file an application for conversion with the DAR, but he must have to apply for an exemption clearance with the DAR regional office where the land is located.
December 23, 1996
Are lands reclassified as non-agricultural prior to 15 June 1988 exempt from CARP coverage?
- In the case of reclassified lands duly exempted pursuant to DOJ 44, series of 1990 and Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657 in relation to DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994, it is explicit in the abovequoted provisions of DAR rules and regulations on exemption/conversion that they no longer need any conversion clearance. An exemption order to that effect suffices.
March 19, 2003
- If, indeed, subject properties fall within the purview of the aforesaid DOJ Opinion, the landowner may no longer be required to secure conversion clearance. What he/she or his/her duly authorized representative basically needs, however, is an exemption clearance from the DAR pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 06, series of 1994 as amended.
July 9, 2001
- The aforesaid Opinion sets forth that agricultural lands reclassified to non-agricultural uses prior to 15 June 1988 are exempted from the coverage of CARP.
October 6, 1999
EXEMPTION; PURSUANT TO DOJ OPINION NO. 44, SERIES OF 1990
- Exemption from CARP coverage pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990 as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994 may be deemed to partake, in effect, of the nature of a conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural use since said lands reclassified as non-agricultural prior to 15 June 1988 are no longer deemed agricultural and covered by CARP pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990 and Sections 3 (c) and 4 of R.A. No. 6657. In both instances, said exemption and conversion exempt or remove the lands subject thereof from CARP coverage except that in the case of conversion, if a conversion order is revoked or withdrawn, the lands subject thereof shall revert to the status of agricultural lands and shall be subject to CARP coverage as circumstances may warrant (Section 49, DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2002).
- It should be stressed, however, that in order that an exemption clearance/order may be deemed as of the same nature and effect as a conversion clearance/order, said exemption order or clearance should have been issued on the basis of a duly filed application for exemption and approved on the merits by the DAR Secretary pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994, since exemption is not automatic.
DAR OPINION NO. 03, s. 2003
March 19, 2003
EXEMPTION; PURSUANT TO DOJ OPINION NO. 44, SERIES OF 1990
- In the case of reclassified lands duly exempted pursuant to DOJ 44, series of 1990 and Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657 in relation to DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994, it is explicit in the abovequoted provisions of DAR rules and regulations on exemption/conversion that they no longer need any conversion clearance. An exemption order to that effect suffices.
DAR OPINION NO. 03, s. 2003
March 19, 2003
- If, indeed, subject properties fall within the purview of the aforesaid DOJ Opinion, the landowner may no longer be required to secure conversion clearance. What he/she or his/her duly authorized representative basically needs, however, is an exemption clearance from the DAR pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 06, series of 1994 as amended.
DAR OPINION NO. 07, s. 2001
July 9, 2001
EXEMPTION; PURSUANT TO SECTION 10 OF R.A. NO. 6657 INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL AGRICULTURAL LANDHOLDINGS OF THE LANDOWNER
Are lands with slope of 18% or over included in the determination of total agricultural landholdings of a landowner?
- Even if a parcel of land is exempted from CARP pursuant to Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657, for having a slope of 18% or over and undeveloped, said exempted land, though not to be subjected to acquisition and distribution under CARP, may nevertheless be included in determining the total agricultural landholdings of the landowner. This is in consonance with the social justice provision of the Constitution to reduce social and economic inequalities by equitably diffusing wealth for the common good and regulating the acquisition, ownership, use and disposition of property and its increments (Section 1, Article XIII of the Philippine Constitution). Please note that your exempted land has not ceased to be agricultural.
December 14, 1999
EXEMPTION; REQUIREMENTS FOR LANDHOLDING CLASSIFIED AS MINERAL LAND
- Paragraphs 2.4.1, 2.4.2 and 2.4.3 of DAR A.O. No. 4, Series of 2003 provide:
"II. REQUIREMENTS
2.4. Land Classification certification:
Certification from the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) Regional Officer on the actual zoning or classification of the subject land in the approved comprehensive land use plan, citing the municipal or city zoning ordinance number, resolution number, and date of its approval by the HLURB or its corresponding board resolution number.
- Likewise, we also agree that paragraph 2.4.2 may apply in your case, but there must be a certification issued by the DENR Mines and Geosciences Bureau that your landholding is classified as mineral. Considering that there is no certification as yet issued in this regard, you are therefore required to secure it first from the Office of the DENR.
DAR OPINION NO. 22, s. 2006
August 1, 2006
EXEMPTION; SIGNIFICANCE OF A DAR ORDER OF EXEMPTION
What is the significance of a DAR Order of Exemption?
- While it is admitted that a DAR Order of Exemption pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44 signifies that a landholding may not be acquired and distributed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), this does not render, total and absolute, the exemption from the application of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) and other applicable existing laws, rules, regulations, agreements and practices.
May 6, 2003
EXEMPTION; UNLIMITED AS TO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF LANDHOLDINGS
What is the required number of landholdings that must be exempt from CARP coverage?
- R.A. No. 6657 appears not to impose any limitation insofar as the total number of landholdings that may be exempted from CARP coverage is concerned. However, all exemptions presuppose due determination thereof on the merits upon proper application for exemption pursuant to existing laws, rules and regulations.
December 14, 1999
EXEMPTION; VALID CLASSIFICATION OF LAND INTO RESIDENTIAL
Is a clear and conclusive proof of valid classification needed to exclude an agricultural land from CARP?
- The transfer of the property to the DAR may be given due course pursuant to the provisions of Section 4 of R.A. 6657, unless clear and conclusive proof of valid classification into residential land as authorized and approved by legitimate authority is presented. In the absence of said proof, proper petition should be made by DAR before the proper forum to nullify and/or cancel the subject restrictions annotated at the back of the titles, and, forthwith, the coverage and documentation process shall immediately proceed even pending the formal nullification or cancellation of the same so as not to further delay the implementation of the CARP over the landholdings in issue, in line with the legal mandate of the need to distribute lands to the tillers at the earliest practicable time (5th paragraph, Section 7, R.A. No. 6657).
November 17, 1998
EXEMPTION; WHEN LANDS CONSIDERED NON-AGRICULTURAL
When is a parcel of land considered non-agricultural and therefore, beyond the coverage of CARP?
- Under DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990, a parcel of land is considered non-agricultural and therefore, beyond the coverage of CARP if it has been classified as residential, commercial or industrial in the city or municipality land use plan or zoning ordinance approved by the HLURB before 15 June 1988, the date of effectivity of CARL. However, the landowner falling under this category no longer need any conversion clearance but application for an Exemption Clearance should be filed with the Regional Office of the DAR where the land is located. The procedures and requirements are detailed in A.O. No. 08, Series of 1994.
May 8, 1997
EXPROPRIATION OF LGUs
- The power of expropriation or eminent domain admits certain limitations and procedures provided for by law. This fundamental power of the State is essentially a legislative function exercised by Congress which may be delegated to the President, Administrative Bodies, Local Government Units (LGUs) and even private enterprises performing public services.
- The grant of the power of eminent domain to LGUs under R.A. No. 7160 (An Act Providing for a Local Government Code of 1991) cannot be understood as equal to the pervasive and all encompassing power vested in the legislative branch of government (Republic vs. CA G.R. No. 146887 July 2, 2002).
DAR OPINION NO. 11, s. 2008
April 28, 2008
EXPROPRIATION; ONLY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE IS GIVEN, NOT DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION
- We speak only of disturbance compensation in cases of land use conversion duly approved by the Department of Agrarian Reform and only at the instance of the landowner. There is no disturbance compensation to speak of but only financial assistance, in expropriation duly undertaken by the government pursuant to its power of eminent domain. Pertinent is Section 18 of Executive Order No. 1035 (Providing the procedures and guidelines for the expeditious acquisition by the government of private real properties or rights thereon for infrastructure and other government development projects), which provides that payment of financial assistance shall be made at the time of relocation of the tenants/farmers.
- In cases where private properties are acquired by the government for infrastructure or other government development projects, the implementing agency shall be responsible in giving financial assistance to the displaced tenants.
DAR OPINION NO. 31, s. 2008
November 28, 2008
EXPROPRIATION; POWER OF LGU ON EMINENT DOMAIN
- A local government unit such as the province of Zamboanga del Norte may expropriate lands pursuant to its power of eminent domain.
DAR OPINION NO. 02, s. 2008
January 11, 2008
EXPROPRIATION; AUTHORITY OF PRIVATE PARTIES TO ACQUIRE LANDHOLDINGS INTENDED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE
May private parties compulsory acquire landholdings intended for public purposes?
- Though the subject landholdings are covered under the agrarian program it is believed that there is no obstacle for the Pampanga Delta Development project to compulsory acquire the affected landholdings as the intended purpose is for public welfare which is paramount over and above the interest of the few. The acquisition can be done either by tendering to the landowner the value of the subject property or by instituting expropriation proceedings should the landowner refuse to part their landholdings or being willing but cannot agree to the conditions of the transfer. However, the payment of the purchase price provided under Section 14 of Executive Order No. 1035 should only be extended to bona fide farmer-beneficiary owning such land by virtue of an Emancipation Patent issued by the DAR, free from all liens and encumbrances. If the land is not yet covered by an Emancipation Patent but the farmer-beneficiary is still amortizing the same with the Land Bank, payment shall be made by the government, implementing agency/instrumentality to the landowner, or the Land Bank, as the case may be: Provided, further, that the farmer-beneficiary shall be entitled to the financial assistance provided for under Section 18 thereof.
January 21, 1997
EXPROPRIATION; AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT UNDER CA NO. 539
Is the President of the Philippine authorized to acquire private lands for resale to bona fide tenants or private individual?
- Section 1 of CA No. 539 provides:
"Section 1. The President of the Philippines is authorized to acquire private lands or any interest therein, through purchase or expropriation, and to subdivide the same into home lots or small farms for resale at reasonable prices and under such conditions as he may fix to their bona fide tenants or occupants or to private individual who will work the lands themselves and who are qualified to acquire and own lands in the Philippines.
May 8, 1996
EXPROPRIATION; PROCEDURES AND GUIDELINES
- Executive Order No. 1035 provides the procedure and guidelines for the expedition acquisition by the government of private real properties or right thereon for infrastructure and other government development project. Section 6 thereof states:
"Section 6. Acquisition Through Negotiated Sale. — As an initial step, the government agency/instrumentality concerned shall negotiate with the owner of the land that is needed for the project for the purchase of said land, including improvements thereon. In the determination of the purchase price to be paid, the Ministry of Finance and Provincial/City/Municipal Assessors shall extend full assistance and coordinate with personnel of the government implementing agency concerned in the valuation of lands and improvements thereon taking into consideration the current and fair market value declared by the owner or administrator of the land, or such current market value as determined by the assessor, whichever is lower, prior to the negotiation."
DAR OPINION NO. 32, s. 2006
November 3, 2006
EXPROPRIATION; PROPERTY COVERED BY OPERATION LAND TRANSFER
- Section 14 thereof provides that in case the land acquired is covered by the Operation Land Transfer of the Ministry of Agrarian Reform under P.D. No. 26, payment of the purchase price shall be made by the implementing agency/instrumentality concerned to the farmer-beneficiary owning such land by virtue of an emancipation patent issued by the Ministry of Agrarian Reform, free from all liens and encumbrances. If the land is not covered by an emancipation patent, or even if covered by an emancipation patent by the farmer-beneficiary is still amortizing the same with the Land Bank, payment shall be made by the government implementing agency/instrumentality to the landowner, or the Land Bank, as the case may be: Provided, That any amortization payments made by the farmer-beneficiary to the landowner, or the Land Bank, as the case may be, shall be deducted by the government implementing agency/instrumentality from the purchase price and shall be paid to the farmer-beneficiary: Provided, further, That the farmer-beneficiary shall be entitled to the financial assistance provided for under Section 18 hereof.
DAR OPINION NO. 32, s. 2006
November 3, 2006
EXPROPRIATION; PURPOSE IS FOR PUBLIC USE
- Pursuant to the Supreme Court ruling in the Province of Camarines Sur vs. CA (222 SCRA 173, 17 May 1993), a local government unit, a municipality in this case, can expropriate agricultural lands under the power of eminent domain, for public use or public purposes. It must be stressed, however, that the expropriation would indeed satisfy the constitutional requirement of public use or public purpose, and that the subject agricultural lands are not to be owned by the municipality in its proprietary capacity actually and primarily intended for profit or pecuniary purposes, otherwise, it would partake of the nature of a private endeavor where the provisions of DAR rules on conversion will apply.
DAR OPINION NO. 19, s. 2009
October 8, 2009
EXPROPRIATION; PURPOSE IS FOR PUBLIC USE OR WELFARE
- The government can, nonetheless, expropriate agricultural lands if the intended purpose is for public use or welfare as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals (222 SCRA 173) and in accordance with Presidential Administrative Order No. 50, series of 1999 (Guidelines for the Acquisition of Certain Parcels of Private Land Intended For Public Use Including the Right-Of-Way Easement of Several Public Infrastructure Projects). It should, however, be limited to such area actually needed for the purpose and there must be a showing that the entire area proposed to be transferred is necessary for use of the AFCS in order for DAR Approval to be granted.
DAR OPINION NO. 17, s. 2006
June 13, 2006
EXPRORIATION; JUST COMPENSATION, INDESPENSABLE
- This Office is of the view that just compensation must still be paid even if the ARBs have not yet fully paid the amortization with the proper agency because of the principle under the Constitution that "private property shall not be taken for public use without payment of just compensation." Thus, just compensation is indispensable in an expropriation of the property for public purpose.
DAR OPINION NO. 32, s. 2006
November 3, 2006
F
FARMER'S ASSISTANCE; EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 1035, SECTION 18 — FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE TO DISPLACED TENANTS/OCCUPANTS
What is the mandate of E.O. No. 1035, Section 16?
- Section 18, E.O. No. 1035 – Financial Assistance to Displaced Tenants/Occupants. The Amount of financial assistance to be given to tenants/farmers of agricultural lands which is to be determined by the implementing agency concerned in consultation with appropriate agencies, shall be equivalent to the value of the gross harvest for one year on the principal and secondary crops of the area acquired, based on the average annual gross harvest for the last three preceding crop years. Provided, that in no case shall the financial assistance be less than P15,000.00 per hectare.
- Thus, applying the above provision of law, a displaced tenant/farmworkers affected by the expropriation of a portion of agricultural land subject of a proposed construction of Diversion Road shall accordingly be given financial assistance as set forth therein.
April 30, 1998
FARMLOT; AUTHORITY OF LGU TO AWARD FARMLOT
Does the local government unit have the authority to expropriate farmlot?
- Although we cannot prevent the local government unit from filing a case for expropriation, we believe that the award of the farmlots in favor of the beneficiaries, having been made pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the government holds precedence over the expropriation thereof for purposes of deer farming by the local government. Besides, local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain and can exercise it only when expressly authorized by the legislature. Such power being merely delegated must be clearly expressed, either in the law conferring the power or in other legislations (Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 173).
February 23, 1998
FARMWORKERS; AS BENEFICIARIES OF CARP
Can farmworkers qualify as beneficiaries?
- Farmworkers can qualify as beneficiaries if they are found to be directly working on the land, whether as regular, seasonal or other farmworkers at the time the field implementors conduct actual investigation and documentation and they meet the basic qualifications under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657. As a general rule, acquired commercial farms shall be distributed to qualified beneficiaries based on the order of priority prescribed under Section 22. Those who have worked longest on the land shall be given preference.
July 23, 1999
FARMWORKERS; FARMWORKER WHO BECOMES TENANT OF THE LAND HE TILLS
Is it prejudicial to the overseer in the event farmworker becomes tenants?
- In Nipolo vs. Jancian, CA-G.R. No. 04605-R, September 22, 1976, the Court of Appeals had an occasion to rule that the overseer is an extension of the personality and authority of the owner. Therefore, as such, there will be no prejudice to the overseer in the event that the farmworker becomes a tenant of the land he tills since the contract of an overseer is different from the contract of a tenant. This rule is without prejudice, however, if it could be duly established that aside from being an overseer, he himself is a tenant in his own right based on the foregoing premises and requisites as declared by competent authority.
April 23, 1998
FEES AND CHARGES; COURT CERTIFICATION EXEMPT
Is court certification included in the exemption provided under Section 66 of R.A. No. 6657?
- Section 66 of R.A. No. 6657 includes and contemplates exemptions from payment of court certification considering that such court certification as a requirement in Claim Compensation Folders documentation is a necessary preliminary step in the transfer of lands acquired by the government for distribution to qualified beneficiaries.
DAR OPINION NO. 66 (b), s. 1997
June 26, 1997
FEES; EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF TAXES
Is exemption from payment of taxes also include payment of registration fees and all other fees for the conveyance or transfer thereof?
- Section 66 of CARL provides: "Transaction under this Act involving a transfer of ownership, whether from natural or juridical persons, shall be exempted from taxes arising from capital gains. These transactions shall also be exempted from the payment of registration fees, and all other taxes and fees for the conveyance or transfer thereof; Provided, that all arrearages in real property taxes, without penalty or interest shall be deductible from the compensation to which the owner may be entitled.
October 25, 1994
FEES; EXEMPTION FROM TAXES AND FEES; INTENT OF CARL
What is the intent of the law in providing for exemptions from taxes and fees of Land Transfers under CARP?
- The intent of the law in providing for said exemption is to free the beneficiaries of CARL from the burden of paying the same prior to the transfer of their awarded lots in their names.
June 7, 1996
What does Section 66 of CARL provides?
- Section 66 of CARL exempts from taxes and fees all documents and certifications issued by all government agencies and instrumentalities which are required for the processing of the land transfer claim and strictly for CARP implementation.
November 28, 1995
FEES; PAYMENT OF REGISTRATION FEES
Does exemption from payment of taxes also include payment of registration fees and all other fees for the conveyance or transfer thereof?
- Section 66 of RA 6657 clearly provides that "Transactions under this Act involving a transfer of ownership, whether from natural or juridical person, shall be exempted from taxes arising from capital gains. These transactions shall also be exempted from the payment of registration fees, and all other taxes and fees for the conveyance or transfer thereof; Provided, that all arrearages in real property taxes without penalty or interest shall be deductible from the compensation to which the owner may be entitled."
December 13, 1996
July 6, 1994
FINAL AND EXECUTORY ORDER ISSUED BY THE DAR SECRETARY; IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF
Is the Regional Director tasked to implement final and executory DAR Orders involving cases within his Region?
- Executive Order No. 129-A provides that the Regional Office within its administrative region is responsible for the implementation of laws, policies, plans, programs, projects, rules and regulations of the Department. Moreover, Department M.C. No. 10, series of 1994 provides that the Order/Resolution of cases arising from the Administrative Implementation of Agrarian Reform Law issued by the Secretary shall be sent to the field office for purposes of implementation. It is therefore clear that the Regional Director is tasked to implement final and executory DAR Orders/Resolutions involving cases within his region.
December 11, 1995
FORECLOSED AGRICULTURAL LANDS; MAY BE DISPOSED OF TO THIRD PERSONS; TO BE EVENTUALLY COVERED UNDER CARP
May foreclosed agricultural lands be disposed of to third persons?
- Under DAR M.C. No. 05, Series of 1996, DBP can directly dispose of their foreclosed assets to third persons, anyway, subject property is still within the coverage of CARP.
- R.A. No. 7881 was enacted to afford GFIs the right to dispose of their foreclosed agrilands to third persons. Such being the case, we are of the view that DAR has to respect the transaction to be undertaken by the GFIs and the qualified buyer/bidder by issuing, without unduly imposing any condition or qualification, a DAR Clearance for its registration, after all, the same regardless of area is still within the coverage of CARP.
- A GFI could sell its foreclosed agricultural lands to third persons pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. No. 7881 with the corresponding DAR clearance and registration thereof to be allowed and accorded as a matter of course subject, however, to the eventual coverage of said landholdings under CARP irrespective of the aggregate agricultural landholdings of the winning bidder/buyer after the transaction (i.e., whether it be less or more than 5 (five) hectares).
May 22, 1998
FORECLOSED ASSET; PUBLIC BIDDING OVER FORECLOSED AGRICULTURAL LAND?
Is public bidding necessary over foreclosed agricultural land?
- It is submitted that all the aforesaid provisions of law when taken together would obviously connote that any financial institution, such as the DBP, may validly conduct a public bidding over their foreclosed agricultural land. However, since said properties fall under CARP coverage, the same shall still be acquired by the government through DAR for distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries pursuant to the provisions of R.A. 6657 (Sec. 16 and 71), DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1997 and Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1996.
January 14, 1998
FORECLOSED ASSETS; COMPULSORY TRANSFER AND ACQUISITION THEREOF
Are foreclosed assets subject of compulsory acquisition under CARL?
- A mere administrative order could not prevail over a substantive law. However, pertinent to the issue you brought before us are the provisions of Section 25 of Republic Act No. 337 (General Banking Act) which provides that acquired assets and mortgaged properties foreclosed by the mortgagee banks shall be disposed of within a period of five (5) years after foreclosure; and Section 71 of R.A. No. 6657 which provides that "Banks and other financial institutions allowed by law to hold mortgage rights or security interest in agricultural lands to secure loans and other obligations of borrowers, may acquire title to these mortgaged properties, regardless of area, subject to existing laws on compulsory transfer of foreclosed assets and acquisition as prescribed under Section 16 of this Act." The aforecited provisions of laws were only clarified by DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1997 which provides in its Policy Statement (III.B and D) the following, quote:
"The Creditor is considered a lien-holder and/or mortgagee if as of the date the land transfer claim was received by the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR):
1. The mortgage on the property is still existing; or
2. The mortgage on the property has been foreclosed and the period of redemption has not yet expired; or
3. When there is as yet no consolidation of title of the mortgaged property even if the redemption has expired.
March 25, 1999
FORECLOSED ASSETS; FORECLOSING BANK AS A LIEN-HOLDER
When can a foreclosing bank considered a lien-holder?
- Considering that a Certificate of Deposit had already been issued on 06 April 1998, it is this Department's position that as a foreclosing bank, the Rural Bank of Isulan is still considered as a lien-holder and/or mortgagee, thus, the property subject of the mortgage cannot be the subject of a DAR clearance since the property is already covered under CARP.
March 25, 1999
FORECLOSED LAND; ACQUISITION THEREOF
May the government through DAR acquire foreclosed assets of the GFI's?
- Executive Order No. 407 is very explicit by providing that the government through the DAR shall accelerate the acquisition and distribution of agricultural lands, agro-forestry lands and other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture. Corollarily, Section 7 of R.A. No. 6657 mandates, among others, that all lands foreclosed by government financial institutions, all lands acquired by the Presidential Commission on Good Government, and all other lands owned by the government devoted to or suitable for agriculture, shall be acquired and distributed immediately upon the
- effectivity of the said Act on 15 June 1988. Moreover, Executive Order No. 360, Series of 1989, enjoins all government financial institutions and government-owned or controlled corporations to grant the Department of Agrarian Reform the right of first refusal in the sale or disposition of all lands owned by them which are suitable for agriculture.
December 24, 1998
FORECLOSED LAND; CREDITOR MAY BE CONSIDERED AS LANDOWNER
- The provisions of DAR A.O. No. 02, Series of 1997 (Rules and Regulations Governing the Acquisition of Private Agricultural Lands Subject of Mortgage or Foreclosure of Mortgage), provides, quote:
"III. POLICY STATEMENT
B. For purpose of covering the properties under the agrarian reform program, a Creditor shall be considered as the landowner, under the following circumstances:
1. When the title to the property is in the name of the Creditor; or
2. When the affidavit of consolidation of ownership or affidavit of non-redemption of the property has been annotated on the title.
C. The Creditor is considered a lien-holder and/or mortgagee if as of the date the land transfer claim was received by the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) from the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR):
1. The mortgage on the property is still existing; or
2. The mortgage on the property has been foreclosed and the period of redemption has not yet expired; or
3. When there is as yet no consolidation of title of the mortgaged property even if the redemption has expired.
xxx xxx xxx
- A creditor is considered as the landowner for failure of debtor to exercise his right of redemption and the former has successfully consolidated in its name the title over the property. The creditor, having gained absolute ownership of the property is entitled to the land compensation.
DAR OPINION NO. 07, s. 2007
February 7, 2007
FORECLOSED LANDS
May private banks sell to third parties their foreclosed assets?
- As regards private banks, Section 71 of RA 6657 provides that said foreclosed assets are subject to existing laws on their compulsory transfer (that is under the General Banking Act) and acquisition under Section 16 of said Act. This means that private banks may sell to third parties their foreclosed assets but still subject to acquisition under Section 16 of RA 6657.
May 28, 1996
December 13, 1996
December 23, 1996
FORECLOSED LANDS; COMPULSORY TRANSFER
May banks acquire title to mortgaged properties?
- Section 71 of RA 6657 provides that banks may acquire title to mortgaged properties, subject to existing laws on compulsory transfer of foreclosed assets and acquisition as prescribed under Section 16 of said Act.
September 28, 1994
FORECLOSED LANDS; GFIs RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF THEIR FORECLOSED AGRILANDS TO THIRD PERSONS
May the GFI's dispose of their foreclosed agrilands to third persons?
- R.A. No. 7881 was enacted to afford GFIs the right to dispose of their foreclosed agrilands to third persons. In clarification to this, the DAR issued M.C. No. 05, Series of 1996. The proper interpretation of Section 6 of R.A. No. 7881 which is the pertinent provision clarified by DAR M.C. No. 5, Series of 1996, would be that agrilands already foreclosed by GFIs on or after the effectivity of said law (12 March 1995, the effectivity of R.A. No. 78781) are permitted to be disposed to third persons. It should be noted, however, that while Section 6 of R.A. No. 7881 has the effect of allowing the GFIs to dispose of their agrilands, the provision does not exclude such lands from the CARP.
May 22, 1998
May 28, 1996
July 2, 1996
October 19, 1995
FORECLOSED LANDS; ISSUANCE OF DAR CLEARANCE
What is the effect of Section 6, R.A. No. 7881 on purchase of foreclosed agricultural lands?
- Issuance of DAR Clearance will be in order pursuant to Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7881 as implemented by Memorandum Circular No. 05, Series of 1996. We hereby quote the pertinent provision of M.C. No. 05, Series of 1996:
"2. Section 6 of R.A. No. 7881 provides the following:
SEC. 6. There shall be incorporated after Section 73 of Republic Act No. 6657 a new section to read as follows:
"SECTION 73-A. Exception. — The provisions of Section 73, paragraph (E), to the contrary notwithstanding, the sale and/or transfer of agricultural land in cases where such sale, transfer or conveyance is made necessary as a result of a bank's foreclosure of the mortgaged land is hereby permitted.
The net effect of the aforequoted provision is to allow government financial institutions to dispose to third parties their properties which were foreclosed on or after the effectivity of R.A. No. 7881, i.e., March 12, 1995, under the General Banking Act. However, since said properties fall under CARP coverage, the same shall still be acquired by the government through the DAR for distribution to qualified farmer beneficiaries as mandated under R.A. No. 6657.
As regards private banks, Section 71 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that said foreclosed assets are subject to existing laws on their compulsory transfer (that is, under the General Banking Act) and acquisition under Section 16 of said Act. This means that private banks may sell to third parties their foreclosed assets but still subject to acquisition under Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657." (underscoring and emphasis supplied)
October 5, 1999
FORECLOSED LANDS; PRIOR TO RA 7881; EFFECT
Should foreclosed assets of GFIs prior to RA 7881 be immediately transferred to the government?
- If foreclosure took place before the effectivity of R.A. 7881 by the GFI the effect would be for the latter to immediately transfer their foreclosed assets to the government through DAR under EO 407, Series of 1990. As clearly stated under M.C. No. 5, Series of 1995, the cut-off period for GFIs to be allowed to dispose their foreclosed assets to third parties is "on or after March 12, 1995 (that is the effectivity of RA 7881), contrary to your observation that GFIs are allowed to dispose their foreclosed asset "on or before" the effectivity of R.A. 7881. It goes without saying that if the foreclosure took place prior to March 12, 1995 no sale to third parties of foreclosed assets by the GFI shall be made, such properties shall be immediately transferred to the government through the DAR, whereas foreclosed properties of private bank is subject to Section 71 of R.A. 6657.
January 28, 1997
Are GFIs and private banks allowed to sell their foreclosed assets?
- GFIs and private banks are now allowed to sell their foreclosed assets. In such a case, however, it is submitted that the DAR Certification Clearance required under A.O. No. 01, Series of 1989, is no longer necessary as the buyer cannot legally exercise any retention right on the land purchased.
January 28, 1997
May private banks acquire title to mortgaged properties?
- As regards the foreclosed assets of private banking institutions, Section 71 of RA 6657 provides that banks may acquire title to mortgaged properties, subject to existing laws on compulsory transfer of foreclosed assets and acquisition as prescribed under Section 16 of said Act.
January 22, 1996
FORECLOSED LANDS; SUBJECT OF ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION
- Agricultural lands foreclosed by government financial institutions are one of the priorities that the DAR shall acquire and distribute pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). It bears stressing that if the subject properties were foreclosed prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 7881 amending R.A. No. 6657, the same should be surrendered to the government through the DAR for coverage and distribution to qualified beneficiaries under R.A. No. 6657 pursuant to E.O. No. 407, Series of 1990, and the necessary DOT shall be executed by the LBP. However, , if foreclosure took place after the effectivity of R.A. No. 7881, the LBP being a government financial institution is permitted by said law to dispose of its foreclosed properties to third parties. This means that a Notice of Coverage may be issued for the compulsory acquisition of said properties.
DAR OPINION NO. 23, s. 2007
June 20, 2007
FORECLOSED LANDS; SUBJECT TO ACQUISITION
Are foreclosed assets of banks subject to acquisition under CARP?
- Section 71 of RA 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL) provides that foreclosed assets of banks are subject to acquisition as prescribed under Section 16 of said Act.
September 16, 1994
- Section 7 paragraph 2 of CARL includes in Phase 1 of CARP implementation all lands foreclosed by government financial institutions.
May 25, 1995
FORECLOSED LANDS; VALIDITY OF THE SALE OR TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND
Is the sale or transfer of agricultural land subject of the foreclosure valid?
- DAR submits that the sale or transfer of agricultural land by DBP's foreclosure of the mortgaged land, on or after 12 March 1995, is in accordance with law and therefore can be considered as valid. Section 71 of R.A. 6657 provides that banks may acquire title to mortgaged properties, subject to existing laws on compulsory transfer of foreclosed assets and acquisition as prescribed under Sec. 16 of said Act. Section 25 of R.A. 337 (General Banking Act) provides that no bank shall hold the possession of any real estate under mortgage or trust, deed or the title or possession of any real estate purchased to secure any debt due to it, for a longer period than five (5) years. Moreover, Section 6 of R.A. 7881 provides that the transfer by banks of such foreclosed assets is permitted. The aforesaid provisions of pertinent laws clearly manifest the legislative intent to allow banks and other financial institutions to dispose of their properties under the General Banking Act.
January 14, 1998
FORECLOSED LANDS; WITH CLTs/EPs NOT REVERTED TO THE LAND BANK
Do lands covered by CLT or EP subject of foreclosure revert to the Land Bank?
- CLT or EP lands subject of foreclosure are not reverted to the Land Bank but are reallocated to qualified beneficiaries, if said lots have not yet been fully-paid and the 10-year period mentioned in A.O. 8 have not yet lapsed.
August 14, 1996
FORECLOSED PROPERTIES OF PRIVATE BANKS; SUBJECT TO ACQUISITION
- Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7881, amending certain provisions of R.A. No. 6657, which took effect on 12 March 1995, provides that the transfer and/or sale by banks of agricultural lands in cases where such sale, transfer or conveyance is made necessary as a result of a bank’s foreclosure of the mortgaged land is permitted. It can be clearly gleaned that the legislative intent is to allow banks and other financial institutions to dispose of their property under the General Banking Act, especially those assets which are agricultural lands. However, it must be emphasized that although banks can dispose of their foreclosed agricultural assets, they are still subject to the aforequoted provisions of existing laws and guidelines on their eventual compulsory transfer and acquisition under CARP.
- DAR Memorandum Circular No. 05, Series of 1996 was issued contemplating that the asset involved is an agricultural land foreclosed on or after 12 March 1995. It must be noted, likewise, that although private banks may sell to third parties their foreclosed agricultural assets, the same are still subject to acquisition under Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657 (CARL), if warranted.
DAR OPINION NO. 13, s. 2008
June 4, 2008
FORECLOSED PROPERTIES; CONDITIONS FOR ITS TRANSFER
Can GFIs transfer their foreclosed properties under VLT/DPS?
- GFIs as juridical persons may transfer their foreclosed properties under VLT/DPS provided that the purchasers are determined by DAR to be the same individuals who would be eligible to purchase the land in case the government through Compulsory Acquisition (CA) or Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS); acquired the land for sale; that the area of land to be transferred to the ARBs should not be less than the area which the government through CA would otherwise acquire for redistribution; and that the terms and conditions of the VLT/DPS should not place the ARBs in disadvantageous position.
December 13, 1996
FORECLOSED PROPERTIES; DISPOSITION THEREOF OF GFIs
May foreclosed assets of private banks be disposed to third parties even though they are CARP covered?
- As gleaned from Section 6 of R.A. 7881 government financial institutions are permitted to dispose of their properties pursuant to the General Banking Act. However, since said properties fall under CARP coverage, the same shall be acquired by the government through the DAR for distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries, as mandated under R.A. 6657.
September 27, 1995
FORECLOSURE BY PRIVATE BANK PLACED UNDER RECEIVERSHIP/LIQUIDATION STILL UNDER ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION TO QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES
- Private bank's foreclosed assets, regardless of the area, are subject to existing laws on their compulsory transfer under the General Banking Act as a consequence of foreclosure and acquisition under Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657. As long as the subject property is agricultural, the same shall still be subjected to acquisition and redistribution to qualified beneficiaries pursuant to the provisions of the CARL. Private bank may sell to third parties their foreclosed asset, as a consequence of foreclosure but still subject to acquisition under CARP.
- Even if the subject foreclosed property was placed under receivership or liquidation by the BSP, the same shall still be subjected to acquisition under CARL. In case said foreclosed property was sold or will be sold as a consequence of liquidation or receivership by the BSP, the same will still be subjected to acquisition and eventual distribution to agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to CARL.
DAR OPINION NO. 24, s. 2008
October 9, 2008
FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE; COVERAGE
Can CLOA be subject of mortgage without the consent of the DAR?
- DAR Memorandum Circular No. 05, s. 1996 allows private banks to foreclose assets mortgaged to them subject to existing laws on their compulsory transfer (that is, under the General Banking Act) and acquisition under Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657.
March 20, 1997
FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE; EXISTENCE OF THE REDEMPTION RIGHT OF MORTGAGOR
Is the mortgagor's certificate of title cancelled after the foreclosure proceeding?
- Section 63 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 enumerates the procedures on foreclosure of mortgage, that is, judicial and extrajudicial foreclosures. In both cases, the certificate of title of the mortgagor shall not automatically be cancelled if there exists a redemption right of the mortgagor.
September 25, 1998
FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE; OWNERSHIP NOT PARTED WITH
Is ownership parted with if property is mortgaged?
- As held by the Supreme Court in the case entitled, "Eleazar and Elena Adlawan vs. Hon. Judge Ramon Torres" (G.R. Nos. 65957-58; July 5, 1994), by mortgaging a piece of property, a debtor merely subjects it to a lien, but ownership is not parted with. Such being the case, a mortgage is not the transaction referred to under the aforequoted provision (Section 27, R.A. No. 6657). Moreover, since one of the exceptions to the aforecited prohibition against transfer is that made to other qualified beneficiaries, the DAR sees no legal impediment in the event the bank forecloses on the mortgage, provided the mortgage deed contains a provision that in the event of foreclosure, the lot shall be transferred to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries.
December 28, 1995
FOREIGN CORPORATION; DISQUALIFIED TO OWN LARGE TRACT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND
May foreign corporations or associations hold alienable lands of the public domain?
- The disqualification of a foreign corporation to own agricultural lands is anchored on Section 7 of Art. XII (National Economy and Patrimony) of the 1987 Constitution which expressly provides that: "save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain." Furthermore, Section 3 of the same Article of the 1987 Constitutions provides that corporations or associations may not hold alienable lands of the public domain except by lease.
June 5, 1997
G
GARNISHMENT; PUBLIC FUNDS NOT EXEMPT THEREOF
Are public funds exempted from garnishment?
- It could be legally inferred under Secs. 63 and 64 of R.A. No. 6657 and the Supreme Court ruling in the case of Philippine National Bank vs. Pabalan (83 SCRA 595, June 15, 1978) wherein it was declared that government-owned and controlled corporations have a personality of their own, separate and distinct from the government, thus, their funds although considered to be public in character are not exempt from garnishment. Furthermore, the High Court likewise ruled that garnishment is the appropriate remedy for the prevailing party which could proceed against the funds of a corporation entity even if owned or controlled by the government. (PNB vs. CID, 81 SCRA 314).
February 09, 1998
GOVERNMENT; TECHNICAL DEFINITION UNDER SECTION 27, R.A. NO. 6657
Whether or not a Local Government Unit (LGU) is considered "government" by technical definition under Section 27, R.A. No. 6657?
- Pursuant to the aforequoted provisions of Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 in relation to Item II.1.d of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989, it is clear that the government (which includes LGUs) falls under the exceptions and should not be interpreted in the light of those falling under the 10-year prohibitory period. However, under the aforequoted provisions of DAR Administrative order No. 08, Series of 1995, the transfer contemplated is that which will maintain the use of the land for agricultural production or purposes where the buyer should not exceed the aggregate landownership ceiling of five (5) hectares. This is to preclude possible violation and/or circumvention of agrarian laws, rules and regulations.
- Thus, since the transfer of awarded lands to the government may be allowed provided the productivity of the land be maintained, and, considering that the transfer of said lands appears to be through a private transaction and not through expropriation, DAR land transfer clearance may be issued but only up to the maximum/aggregate 5-hectare landownership ceiling pursuant to Sections 6 and 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657 and the abovequoted provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 08, Series of 1995.
February 4, 2004
GOVERNMENT; THE PHRASE "TO THE GOVERNMENT" DEFINED
What is meant by the phrase "to the Government"?
- The phrase "to the Government" refers to the Republic of the Philippines through the DAR, and said exception allowing transfer to the Government is to enable it to reallocate the farmlot to another beneficiary for the purpose of production in case the need arises.
September 5, 1994
How is term "Government" interpreted in relation with Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657?
- Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 on transferability of awarded lands readily reveals that the term "Government" is not to be accorded a narrow or restrictive interpretation so as to confine its application solely to the national government through the Department of Agrarian Reform.
July 3, 1997
H
HARVEST NOTIFICATION; NO LONGER REQUIRED
Is pre-reaping and pre-threshing without notice to landholder an offense?
- The responsibility to notify is no longer required. By virtue of R.A. No. 3844 (Code of Agrarian Reforms) which took effect on 8 August 1963, agricultural share tenancy was declared to be contrary to public policy and was, thereby, abolished. This was further strengthened in Section 4 of R.A. 6389 which provided that agricultural share tenancy throughout the country shall be automatically converted to agricultural leasehold. Under the leasehold system, the prohibition against pre-threshing has no more raison' d' etre because the lessee is obligated to pay a fixed rental as prescribed in section 34 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended by R.A. No. 6389, Thus, the legal maxim, cessante ratione legis cessat ipsa lex (the reason for the law ceasing, the law itself also ceases), applies to this case (People vs. Almuete, G.R. No. L-26551, Feb. 27, 1976).
- As further ruled by the Supreme Court in People vs. Adillo, L-23785, November 17, 1975, the act of pre-reaping and pre-threshing without notice to the landlord, which is an offense under the Agricultural Tenancy Law (R.A. No. 1199), had ceased to be an offense under the subsequent law, the Code of Agrarian Reforms (R.A. No. 3844). To prosecute it as an offense when the Code of Agrarian Reforms is already in force would be repugnant or abhorrent to the policy and spirit of that Code and would subvert the manifest legislative intent not to punish anymore pre-reaping and pre-threshing without notice to landholder.
October 23, 2000
HAZARD DUTY PAY; EMPLOYEES WHO ARE ENTITLED THEREOF
Who are entitled to hazard duty pay?
- Item 2 of National Budget Circular No. 451 dated 14 March 1996 (copy likewise attached) expressly provides:
"Hazard duty pay is a compensation premium or allowance which is generally paid to officials and employees who, because of the nature and/or location of their work are exposed to hazards."
- Thus, the payment of said hazard duty pay may only be granted to officials and employees who are exposed to physical, health, weather and/or environmental hazards in hazardous work areas as defined/contemplated in Item 5 of NBC No. 451 and as declared/duly certified by the agency officials concerned mentioned therein.
November 28, 2003
HOMELOT; DEFINED UNDER DAR M.C. NO. 23, S. 1998
How is homelot defined under Memorandum Circular No. 23, series of 1998?
- A homelot has been defined as a contiguous area where the tenant-farmer beneficiary has established his permanent dwelling with the consent of the landowner, including the area utilized for raising vegetables, poultry, pigs and other animals or for engaging in minor home industries (DAR Memorandum Circular No. 23, series of 1978). Said guideline further provides that the homelot actually occupied by the tenant-farmer beneficiary, whether located inside or outside the farmlot, shall be transferred to him, provided that the area to be transferred shall not exceed one thousand (1,000) square meters. If the area actually occupied exceeds the maximum area fixed herein, the acquisition of such excess area shall be the subject of a separate private transaction between the landowner and the tenant-farmer beneficiary.
April 24, 2000
HOMELOT; DEFINED UNDER R.A. 6657
How is homelot defined under Republic Act No. 6657?
- Homelot under Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) is similarly defined as a parcel of agricultural land used by the agrarian reform beneficiary (ARB) as the site of his permanent dwelling, including the area utilized for raising vegetables, poultry, pigs and other animals and engaging in minor industries. The area of the homelot may not exceed 1,000 square meters (DAR Administrative Order No. 12, series of 1991).
April 24, 2000
HOMELOT; DEFINITION
- A homelot is defined as a parcel of land used by an agrarian reform beneficiary (ARB) as the site of his permanent dwelling, including the area utilized for raising vegetables, poultry, pigs and other animals. The area of the homelot that may be awarded to agrarian reform beneficiaries may not exceed 1,000 square meters [Item II.A. of DAR Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1991 (Rules and Procedures to Govern the Acquisition and Distribution of Homelots Under the CARP)]. Thus, your first query is answered in the affirmative.
DAR OPINION NO. 06, s. 2005
February 11, 2005
HOMELOT; REASONS FOR PROHIBITION; EXCEPTION
May a tenant be entitled to more than one homelot?
- A tenant, together with his immediate farm household, is entitled to just one homelot. Thus, strictly speaking, the privilege of having a homelot may not be extended to any member of his family considering that the law apparently allows only one homelot for each tenant.
- The reason for the prohibition is that the construction of separate houses by the child/children of the ARB-tenant may substantially reduce the area of the landowner's landholding. This practice is not sanctioned under R.A. No. 3844, as amended, P.D. No. 27 and R.A. No. 6657, for it would be prejudicial to the landowner who would be facing the realities in the future where the children and relatives of the ARB-tenant may settle and establish their permanent dwellings on the landholdings of the landowner.
- The only possible exception here is when the dwelling to be established by the member of the immediate household of the tenant-beneficiary is within the 1,000 meter area as provided by law, and, the establishment thereof is with the consent of the landowner.
April 24, 2000
HOMELOT; RIGHT OF TENANT TO DEMAND HOMELOT
Has the tenant the right to demand a homelot?
- The basic rule is that a tenant-farmer is entitled to a homelot actually occupied by him, whether located inside or outside the farmlot. The pertinent legal provisions read:
Sec. 22(3), R.A. No. 1199
"The tenant shall have the right to demand for a homelot suitable for dwelling with an area of not more than 3 percent of the area of his landholding provided it does not exceed one thousand square meters and that it shall be located at a convenient and suitable place within the land of the landholder to be designated by the latter where the tenant shall construct his dwellings and may raise vegetables, poultry, pigs and other animals and engage in minor industries, the product of which shall accrue to the tenant exclusively. Xxx"
- Ministry Memo Circular No. 23, Series of 1978 (Implementing Guidelines of LOI No. 705, entitled: Transferring of Homelot to Tenant-Tillers who are Beneficiaries of P.D. No. 27). Par. III, 1.C
- "For this purpose, "vicinity" or "reasonable distance" shall mean a distance of not more than three (3) kilometers reckoned from homelot to farmlot."
- A tenant-farmer who was awarded an agricultural lot under P.D. No. 27 may be entitled to acquire a homelot outside the agricultural lot that he brought or awarded to him.
March 19, 1998
HOMELOT; RIGHT TO A HOMELOT
Is an agricultural lessee entitled to a homelot?
- One of the rights of a lessee is to have peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land. The construction of a cottage which is incident to his right to a homelot and enjoyment of the land is allowed even without the consent of the lessor, provided it will not result in the substantial damage or destruction of the land or any permanent improvement thereon.
November 27, 2000
- Section 24 of R.A. No. 3844 expressly provides that "the agricultural lessee shall have the right to continue in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of any homelot he may have occupied upon the effectivity of this Code, which shall be considered as included in the leasehold." A homelot is an integral part of the farm and an indispensable factor in farm operations used by a lessee as the site of his permanent dwelling including the area utilized for raising vegetables, poultry, pigs and other animals and engaging in minor industries which area may not exceed 1,000 square meters. The tenant, including her children, are legally entitled thereto and they cannot be ejected therefrom except for cause as provided for by law.
February 9, 1999
What is the tenant's right to a homelot?
- Isinasaad din po sa Seksyon 24 ng B.R. Blg. 3844 na ang isang magsasaka ay may karapatan na ipagpatuloy ang eksklusibong posisyon sa bahagi ng lupaing sinasaka na kinatatayuan ng kanyang tahanan simula pa noong pinagtibay ang B.R. Blg. 3844 (Agosto 8, 1963). Seksyon bilang 24 ng B.R. Blg. 3844, na sinusugan ng Batas Republika Blg. 6389 ay nagsasaad ng sumusunod:
"Sek. 24. Karapatan sa isang Loteng Pamahayan.. — Magkakaroon ng karapatan ang namumuwisan sa pagsasaka na magpatuloy sa tanging pag-okupa at pagtatamasa sa alin mang loteng pamahayan na maaaring tinatahanan na niya sa pagkakabisa ng Kodigong ito, na ipalalagay na kasama sa pamumuwisan."
October 28, 1999
Who may be granted homelot?
- Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1991, an agrarian reform beneficiary (ARB) under the CARP may be awarded the homelot he actually occupies if it is subject of land distribution under the Program, provided said homelot does not form part of the retained area of the landowner.
April 8, 1998
Should the homelot be within the landholding being tilled by the agricultural lessee?
- If the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under R.A. No. 6657 (Sec. 6, par. 2). In this instance, the homelot actually occupied by the agricultural lessee shall be considered included in the leasehold. Hence, said homelot being an integral part of his farm and is an indispensable factor in his farm operation may be located within the retained area where the landholding he is tilling is as it is likewise located.
April 8, 1998
What is the agricultural lessee's right to a homelot?
- The basic rule is that an agricultural lessee is entitled to a homelot. Section 24 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended provides:
"Right to a homelot – The agricultural lessee shall have the right to continue in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of any homelot he may have occupied upon the effectivity of this Code, which shall be considered as included in the leasehold."
- If the residential lot claimed by OLT beneficiary are considered his homelot pursuant to the aforequoted provision, then he has the right to be maintained therein, and shall enjoy first priority in the acquisition thereof, should the same be sold.
February 09, 1998
July 02, 1996
Is homelot an integral part of the farm?
- Item No. 1 of DAR Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1991 provides, quote: Pursuant to Sections 22 (3) and 26 (a) of Republic Act No. 1199, Section 24 of R.A. 3844, as amended, Section 16 of R.A. No. 6389, Sections 30 and 40 (4) of R.A. 6657, and the provisions of LOI 705 and other related laws, the homelot, as an integral part of the farm and as an indispensable factor in farm operations, may be acquired and distributed to the agrarian reform beneficiary (ARB) in accordance with the land transfer process of CARP.
- Further, item No. II-A of the same Administrative Order provides: "A homelot refers to a parcel of agricultural land used by the ARB as the site of his permanent dwelling including the area utilized for raising vegetables, poultry, pigs and other animals and engaging in minor industries. The area of the homelot may not exceed 1,000 square meters". From the aforequoted provisions, it is clear that a homelot is an "an integral part of the farm" and is "a parcel of an agricultural land".
September 3, 1997
HOMELOTS; WHO MAY BE GRANTED
May homelots be granted to non-CARP beneficiaries?
- Only the CARP beneficiaries may be legally provided with homelots in the landholding awarded to them. Said right is granted under Section 30 of CARL. As regards non-CARP beneficiaries, however, there is no legal basis for granting in their favor homelots within the awarded lands. Section 27 of CARL explicitly prohibits the transfer of the awarded land or a portion thereof within ten years from award except through hereditary succession or to the government or to the Land Bank of the Philippines or to other qualified beneficiaries. It follows that no transfer of the homelot in favor of non-CARP beneficiaries can be legally effected.
December 22, 1995
HOMESTEAD LAND; NOT THE SAME AS FREE PATENT LAND
Are homestead lands considered in the determination of total landholdings?
- Homestead land is not the same as free patent land. While its disposition are governed by CA 141 (Public Land Act), they are treated differently. Notably, they differ in the manner of acquisition because the law prescribes different procedures in obtaining homestead and free patents like the number of years of occupation/possession, area requirement of cultivation, etc.
December 13, 1996
HOMESTEAD LAND; WHEN RETAINED, CONDITIONS FOR ITS EXEMPTION
When may a land covered by a Homestead Patent be retained?
- A homestead may be retained if it is established that it is untenanted as of 15 June 1988 and the homesteader or his heirs were in cultivation as of said date and will continue to cultivate the same. Note that a field determination and report on non-tenancy must be made, in addition to the BARC Certification already issued.
September 16, 1994
What are the conditions for the exemption of homestead lands from Operation Land Transfer?
- The applicable provision of law and guideline are Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 and DAR Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991, entitled: "Guidelines Governing Agricultural Lands Covered by Homestead Patents Pursuant to the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141)". DAR's policy as regards Homestead Patents is laid down under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 which provides that agricultural lands covered by Homestead Patents shall not be covered under CARP if the following conditions are present:
1. The original homestead grantee or his/her direct compulsory heir still owns the land at the time of the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 (15 June 1988); and
2. The original homestead grantee, or his/her direct compulsory heirs, was cultivating the land as of 15 June 1988 and continues to cultivate the same. (underscoring and emphasis supplied)
- The two (2) abovementioned conditions must concur, otherwise, the homestead will not be exempt from Operation Land Transfer (P.D. No. 27) or CARP coverage (R.A. No. 6657) but the grantee or his/her heir(s) may retain seven (7) or five (5) hectares, as the case may be. Under either, however, the security of tenure of the farmers and farmworkers shall be respected (Section 6, R.A. No. 6657).
September 8, 1999
Is the disposition of a homestead land in favor of qualified ARBs through VLT be legally feasible under RA 6657?
- It is evident that the disposition of a homestead land in favor of qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries through the Voluntary Land Transfer Scheme is legally feasible both under the spirit and intent of C.A. No. 141 and R.A. No. 6657 regardless of the date of transfer, for the same falls under the exception to the aforementioned rules on prohibitory periods. Consequently, registration must perforce and of necessity eventually follow as a matter of course.
March 05, 1998
Are lands covered by Homestead Patents be the subject of disposition or mortgage?
- While Sec. 118 of Commonwealth Act 141 (Public Land Act) as amended expressly prohibits the disposition of homestead lands without the approval of DENR Secretary within twenty-five (25) years from the issuance of the title, the same admits of exception as clearly provided under the very same provision of law itself (Sec. 118) when it initially states, quote: "except in favor of the Government or any of its branches, units or institutions, lands acquired under free patents or homestead provisions shall not be subject to encumbrance or alienation xxx".
- While VLT is a direct transfer from the landowner to the beneficiary and not to the government per se, the spirit and intent of Sec. 118 of C.A. No. 141 is nonetheless sufficiently complied with. It must be noted that under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, the government covers or acquires agricultural lands which likewise include homestead lands under certain conditions (Paragraph 1, Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 and DAR M.C. No. 4, S. of 1991) for distribution to qualified beneficiaries. In agrarian reform, the ultimate beneficiaries are therefore the ARBs themselves, thus, transfer of homestead lands through the VLT scheme may also be deemed contemplated within the exclusionary clause of Section 118 of C.A. No. 141, as earlier quoted. Accordingly, the above prohibition is not absolute so as to practically restrict all kinds of disposition.
- Sec. 27 of R.A. No. 6657 expressly provides "lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years." From the aforequoted provision of law and by relative application, clearly, what the law seeks to prevent is the indiscriminate disposition made by awardees in favor of third person and does not in any way include disposition made in favor of qualified beneficiaries since they are excepted from the aforequoted prohibition of law.
March 5, 1998
HOMESTEAD PATENTS; AS COLLATERAL
May homestead patent be accepted as a collateral?
- When the property has been determined by DAR to be exempt as a homestead pursuant to Section 6 of CARL, the same may be accepted as collateral and foreclosure is legally feasible, subject, however, to the condition under Section 73 (a) of CARL that the transferee should not own more than the 5-hectare landownership ceiling, including the property acquired.
October 16, 1995
HOMESTEAD; CONDITIONS BEFORE AGRICULTURAL LANDS COVERED BY HOMESTEAD BE EXEMPTED FROM CARP COVERAGE
- Section 6 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) in relation to DAR Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 1991 [Guidelines Governing Agricultural Lands Covered by Homestead Patents Pursuant to the Public Land Act (Commonwealth Act No. 141)] provides two (2) conditions that must be met in order that agricultural lands covered by homestead may be exempted from CARP coverage. The first condition is that the original homestead grantee or his/her direct compulsory heir (s) still owns the land at the time of the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 on 15 June 1988. And secondly, the original homestead grantee or his/her direct compulsory heir (s) was cultivating the land as of 15 June 1988 and continues to cultivate the same. Both conditions must concur in order that homestead lands may be exempted from CARP coverage, otherwise, they shall be covered.
DLR OPINION NO. 19, s. 2005
July 22, 2005
HOMESTEAD; DIRECT COMPULSORY HEIR
Who is considered a direct compulsory heir?
- The term "direct compulsory heir" is understood to mean the surviving spouse of the original homestead grantee or his children and descendants or illegitimate children who must prove their filiation in accordance with the provisions of the Family Code. In the absence of all the foregoing, the surviving parents of said original homestead grantee shall be considered. Moreover, since the law does not distinguish, there is no limit as to degree of filiation.
June 22, 1994
HOMESTEAD; ISSUANCE OF THE NEW TCT SHALL CANCEL THE ORIGINAL HOMESTEAD PATENT TITLE
- The subsequent transfer of title shall be in the form of a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) which shall be issued by the Land Registration Authority after the compliance of the formalities prescribed by law. The issuance of the new TCT shall cancel the original homestead patent title.
- The subsequent transfer of title of the homestead does not change it from being a homestead. Homestead laws were designed to distribute disposable agricultural lots of the State to land-destitute citizens for their home and cultivation. It aims to preserve and keep in the family of the homesteader that portion of public land which the State had gratuitously given to him.
DAR OPINION NO. 08, s. 2006
January 27, 2006
HOMESTEAD; MEANING OF DIRECT COMPULSORY HEIR
- The term "direct compulsory heir" is understood to mean the surviving spouse of the original homestead grantee or his children and descendants or illegitimate children who must prove their filiation in accordance with the provisions of the Family Code.
DLR OPINION NO. 19, s. 2005
July 22, 2005
HOMESTEAD; WHEN MAY BE EXEMPTED FROM CARP COVERAGE
What are the conditions that must be met in order that agricultural lands covered by Homestead may be exempted from CARP coverage?
- Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 in relation to DAR Memorandum Circular No. 4, Series of 1991 provides for two (2) conditions that must be met in order that agricultural lands covered by Homestead may be exempted from CARP coverage. The first condition is that the original homestead grantee or his/her direct compulsory heir (s) still own the land at the time of the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 on 15 June 1988. Secondly, the original homestead grantee or his/her direct compulsory heirs was cultivating the land as of 15 June 1988 and continues to cultivate the same. Both aforesaid conditions must concur in order that homestead lands may be exempted from CARP coverage, otherwise, they shall be covered.
DAR OPINION NO. 66 (A), s. 1997
June 5, 1997
HONORARIA
Is it legal to grant honorarium to lawyers of the Public Assistance Office (PAO)
- As defined under National Compensation Circular (NCC) No. 75 dated 01 March 1995, Honoraria is a form of compensation or reward paid over and above the regular pay in recognition of gratuitous services rendered by a government personnel covered under said Circular. In general, it is paid to government personnel for additional work rendered which is not among his regular functions (underscoring supplied). Sections 3 and 4 of the same Circular pertinently provide:
"COVERAGE AND EXEMPTIONS
3.1 This Circular shall cover the following:
3.1.1 agency personnel performing or discharging duties in agency activities or special projects in addition to or over and above their regular functions regardless of the source of fund;
xxx xxx xxx
4.1 Agency Activity/Special Project — an undertaking by a composite group of officials/employees from one or more bureaus/offices of a department/agency or from one or more departments/agencies which is not among their regular functions. An agency activity/special project which shall hereinafter be referred to as project shall have a specific timeframe of not less than one month, and shall result in an output or sets of outputs which are not part of the regular outputs of the departments or agencies concerned."
- On the basis of the aforequoted definition and coverage, it can fairly be inferred that the services rendered by the PAO Lawyers do not fall within the purview of the aforecited NCC No. 75, Series of 1995.
November 9, 1999
I
ILLEGAL CONVERSION; WHO MAY INITIATE A CASE FOR ILLEGAL CONVERSION
May a private individual initiate a criminal case for illegal conversion against the offender?
- A perusal of Joint DAR-DOJ Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1994 reveals that it does not prohibit a private individual from filing or initiating a criminal case for illegal conversion against the offender. He can file the necessary complaint-affidavit together with supporting documents before the Provincial/City Task Force. If the Task Force (DAR) is convinced that there was indeed an illegal conversion of the property, then it will recommend to the DOJ Prosecutor members the filing of the criminal case against the landowner or developer.
December 13, 1996
INCREMENT OF 6 PERCENT (6%) YEARLY INTEREST GIVEN TO LANDOWNERS WHO HAVE NOT YET BEEN PAID FOR THE VALUE OF THEIR LANDS
- Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1994, it provides for the grant of an increment of six percent (6%) yearly interest compounded annually based on the land value as determined under existing valuation formula. This means that landowners who have not yet been paid for the value of their lands are entitled to the 6% increment in addition to the compensable value of the land, and this applies to your case provided you have not yet received any amount of compensation. On the other hand, if you have been given the partial payment thereof, the yearly interest of six percent (6%) compounded annually shall be applied to the unpaid balance.
December 24, 1998
INDEMNITY OR COMPENSATION; IN CASE OF ACQUISITION OF RIGHT OF WAY FOR PUBLIC USE
Who should be entitled to the damages?
- It is of no doubt then that when said construction of the power lines over the subject property transpired, the same was already owned by the beneficiaries as evidenced by the CLOAs issued to them and registered in their names by the Registry of Deeds, thus they should be the persons to be paid the damages as owners thereof.
April 1, 1997
J
JOINT VENTURE AGREEMENT; OWNERSHIP IS NOT TRANSMITTED, MERELY USUFRUCTUARY RIGHTS
- DAR AO 2, 1999, which implements Section 44 of RA 6657, as amended, expressly provides for Joint Venture as one of the post-land transfer arrangements available for distributed lands (Sec. 5 [c] [i]; Sec. 7 [a]). The said implementing rules define the parameters under which agribusiness partnerships or arrangements involving distributed lands may be entered into between ARBs and private investors. It explicitly mandates that "the joint venture shall acquire merely usufructuary, but not ownership, rights over the land for an agreed period, . . . . ., and that "ownership of the land remains with the beneficiaries…" (Sec. 7[a] [ii]). It further prescribes that "the equity participation of the beneficiaries shall be determined based on the value of the use of the land…" (Sec. 7[a] [iv].
DAR OPINION NO. 36, s. 2006
November 28, 2006
JUDGMENT; EFFECT ON CARP COVERAGE OF FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENT
What is the effect of a final and executory judgment?
- In view of the finality of the subject Court of Appeals decision on 17 September 1990 and the considerable period of time that had already transpired from said date, the DAR has to abide by the aforesaid decision in recognition of the court's authority. In the judicial and quasi-judicial hierarchy of authority, administrative agencies like the DAR are subordinate to the Court of Appeals of which the former are bound by the dispositions or decisions of the latter.
- However, the decision of the Court of Appeals upholding the judgment for the rescission of contract with damages rendered by the Regional Trial Court does not ipso facto spare the subject property from CARP coverage. Otherwise stated, the property of Nieves Vda. de Saulog is not necessarily exempt from CARP coverage by reason of such decision. Thus, the same can still be placed under CARP coverage subject to the retention right of the landowner and award to her children or heirs, if qualified, pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657.
January 22, 1999
JUDGMENT; FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENT EFFECT THEREOF
- In view of the finality of the Order of Exemption, the same can no longer be reopened. Following the time-honored doctrine of finality of judgment, every case or controversy must come to an end at some point in time as matter of public policy, sound practice and the orderly administration or justice.
DAR OPINION NO. 12, s. 2005
March 7, 2005
JUDGMENT; FINAL AND EXECUTORY JUDGMENT; EFFECT THEREOF
What is the effect of a final and executory judgment?
- It is a time-honored rule in our jurisprudence that every litigation must come to an end at some other future time after the issues raised therein have been thoroughly resolved. Judgment is the final consideration and determination by the court of the rights of the parties as those rights presently exists, upon matters submitted to it in action and proceedings. It is the law's word on a judicial controversy. Corollarily, where a final judgment of an executory character had been rendered in a suit, the mission of the court is limited to the execution and enforcement of the said final judgment in all of its part and in accordance with its express orders.
January 22, 1999
JUDICIAL CONFIRMATION OF IMPERFECT TITLE
Has the VOS offeror in the instant case already acquired an imperfect title to the lot in issue?
- In Republic of the Philippines (represented by Opal National Secondary Technical School) vs. Nicanor Doldol, G.R. No. 132963, promulgated on September 10, 1998, the Supreme Court held: "The law as presently phrased requires that possession of lands of the public domain must be from June 12, 1945 or earlier, for the same to be acquired through judicial confirmation of imperfect title."
- From the foregoing, the VOS offeror in the instant case has already acquired an imperfect title to the lot in issue since his occupation of the same or his predecessors-in-interest was even prior to July 4, 1926, much earlier than the date set forth by law which is June 12, 1945. Such being the case, Mr. Teodoro Salvaro (VOS Offeror) has a superior right over one granted under the subject Presidential Proclamation (which is generally subject to existing private rights) declaring the said property to be within the PNOC reservation area.
November 8, 1999
JURISDICTION OF THE DAR; ALL MATTERS INVOLVING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF AGRARIAN REFORM
- Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657 or CARL provides that the DAR is vested with the power to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform. Likewise, Section 55 thereof provides that no court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the PARC or any of its duly authorized or designated agencies in any case, dispute or controversy arising from, necessary to, or in connection with the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of CARP and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform. Taken together, said legal provisions clearly manifest the legislative intent of empowering the DAR with the jurisdiction to try all cases involving the implementation of the agrarian reform program.
April 30, 1998
February 10, 1994
JURISDICTION OF THE DARAB; VIS-À-VIS THE JURISDICTION OF THE SECRETARY OF AGRARIAN REFORM
What is the delineation of the jurisdiction of the DARAB vis-à-vis the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform?
- By express provision of the New Rules of Procedure of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of R.A. No. 6657 and other agrarian laws as enunciated by pertinent rules shall be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. The decision of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform on the matter is appealable to the Office of the President for proper review and in compliance with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies. On the other hand, the jurisdiction of the DARAB is limited to quasi-judicial functions enumerated under the New Rules of Procedure of the DARAB.
July 30, 1997
JURISDICTION OF THE PARAD; DETERMINATION ON THE PAYMENT OF DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION
- The jurisdiction to determine the payment of disturbance compensation is lodged with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) in the exercise of his adjudicatory function. This is so because it is classified as an agrarian dispute or case which the PARAD alone could determine as provided for by law.
DAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 2009
June 29, 2009
JURISDICTION OF THE REGIONAL DIRECTOR
- The decision of the Regional Director shall prevail over the decision of the PARAD. The fact that jurisdiction over the said controversy has been vested by law with the Regional Director, the decision rendered by him shall perforce be valid and binding upon all the parties involved and such shall be enforceable unless properly appealed. The decision rendered by the PARAD, which has no jurisdiction over the controversy, will have no force and effect.
- Cases within the jurisdiction of the Regional Officers shall henceforth be heard/investigated therein and thereafter resolved by the Regional Directors concerned. These cases include those arising from the implementation of Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D. 27 and amendatory and related decrees, letters of instructions, rules and regulations, as well as conflicts of claim in landed estates and resettlement areas and such other lands as have been placed under the administration and disposition of this Department. The abovecited provision of DAR Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1987 has been affirmed by DAR Administrative Order No. 09, Series of 1994.
April 15, 1998
JURISDICTION; ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF AGRARIAN LAWS
Who has jurisdiction over cases of administrative implementation of agrarian laws?
- It is the Regional Director who has the jurisdiction over the matter since it is an issue involving strictly the administrative implementation of agrarian laws.
June 7, 2002
JURISDICTION; ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF CARP
Who has the jurisdiction over the administrative implementation of CARP?
- In matters involving the administrative implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), such as the coverage of the property of Isabela Cultural Corporation, the Order issued by the Office of the Undersecretary for PPLAO by virtue of Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1990 should be implemented. This finds support under the DARAB New Rules of Procedure which provides that the Board shall have jurisdiction over all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the CARP under R.A No. 6657 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. However, matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of R.A. No. 6657 and other agrarian laws, rules and regulations (e.g., coverage, exemption and retention) shall be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the Secretary of DAR.
February 20, 1998
JURISDICTION; APPROVING AUTHORITY OF THE OIC REGIONAL DIRECTOR
Whether or not the signing of the conversion orders of the OIC Regional Director is valid?
- Since there was concurrence by no less than the Secretary himself (who, within the DAR, has the power to resolve questions on jurisdiction of the approving authority) of the designation of ARDO Renato B. Alano as OIC for DAR Region I by way of Special Order No. 466, series of 2002 (Designation of OIC for DAR Region I), then it follows that the signing of the conversion orders (which was in keeping with the rationale of the issuance of Regional Special Order No. 95, Series of 2002 signed by Regional Director Wilfredo B. Leaño, that is, "In the interest of the service and in order to ensure the smooth flow of operation in the region") was in order and in accordance with Section 12.1 of DAR Administrative Order No. 01, series of 2002. There was, therefore, no want of jurisdiction as would warrant revocation of the conversion orders.
December 9, 2003
JURISDICTION; CANCELLATION OF CLTs
Whether or not cancellation of CLT's falls within the jurisdiction of the Regional Director?
- Pursuant to DAR Memorandum Circular No. 05, series of 1987 (Authorizing Regional Offices to Hear/Investigate and Resolve), cases within the jurisdiction of the Regional Offices to be resolved by the Regional Directors concerned, include those arising from the implementation of Operation Land Transfer (OLT) pursuant to P.D. 27 and amendatory and related decrees, letters of instructions, rules and regulations. Said jurisdiction includes the cancellation of CLTs, as in the instant case. Unless a motion for reconsideration or appeal was filed within the 15-day reglementary period from receipt of copy of the Order.
June 7, 2002
JURISDICTION; CANCELLATION OF REGISTERED EP/CLOA
- The DARAB Rules is applicable when there is an agrarian dispute between the landowner and tenants to whom CLOAs have been issued by the DAR Secretary.
- However, when the case does not involve agricultural tenants or lessees but it is an administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, it falls within the jurisdiction of the DAR. The aforecited jurisprudence clearly provides, thus:
"the case involving the issuance, cancellation of the CLOAs by the DAR in the administrative implementation of agrarian reform laws, rules and regulations to parties who are not agricultural tenants or lessees are within the jurisdiction of the DAR and not of the DARAB." (underscoring ours)
- The jurisdictional boundaries of the DARAB and the DAR Secretary through its Regional Directors on the cancellation of registered CLOAs/EPs are clearly mapped out. Thus, it is our considered view that no conflict exists between the DARAB 2003 Rules of Procedure and the Heirs of Julian dela Cruz vs. Heirs of Albert Cruz case.
DAR OPINION NO. 38, s. 2006
December 29, 2006
JURISDICTION; CANCELLATION OF STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION (SDO) PLANS
Which entity has the jurisdiction over cancellation of Stock Distribution Option (SDO) plans?
- As to the first issue, since the SDO plan is subject to the approval of the PARC pursuant to Section 1(b), 2nd paragraph of DAR Administrative Order No. 10, Series of 1988, and since the Certificate of Compliance issued by the DAR Secretary may be revoked for non-compliance with any of the requirements of Section 31 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) pursuant to Section 12 of DAR Administrative Order No. 10, Series of 1988, and, considering furthermore that SDO Agreement cancellation is an agrarian law implementation (ALI) case strictly involving the administrative implementation of R.A. No. 6657 and other agrarian laws and guidelines, it is therefore the DAR Secretary, through and with the recommendation/approval of the PARC, who/which has jurisdiction on the matter.
February 3, 2004
JURISDICTION; CASES INVOLVING THE ANNULMENT OR RESCISSION OF LEASE CONTRACTS AND DEEDS OF SALE
Which has the Jurisdiction on the Petition for Review of the Lease Contract?
- It is our considered opinion that DARAB has jurisdiction over the matter. However, voluntary methods such as negotiation, mediation and/or conciliation shall be preferred in resolving the issue.
- Further, it should be stressed that the provisions of PARC EXECOM Policy No. 1, series of 1997 (Policy Guidelines on Joint Venture Agreements Between DAR and Other Interested Parties and on the Processing of Applications for Lease Back Arrangements, Joint-Venture Agreements and Other Schemes That May be Recommended by the PARCCOM to the PARC) and DAR Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1999 (Rules and Regulations Governing Joint Economic Enterprises in Agrarian Reform Areas) may not be applicable since the lease contract in issue was executed and long been consummated (i.e., 26 June 1992) prior to the issuance of the aforementioned guidelines.
- Accordingly, neither the DAR-SSO/AVA-TF nor the PARCCOM may evaluate and/or review the lease contract for purposes of determining whether or not it legally infirmed, or, null and void.
August 29, 2003
JURISDICTION; DAR HAS NO JURISDICTION TO MODIFY OR REVOKE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT APPROVED CONVERSION ORDER
- The DAR, pursuant to the President's power of control over all executive departments, bureaus and offices (Sec. 17, Art. VII, 1987 Constitution), has no jurisdiction to modify, much less, cancel and/or revoke the OP-approved conversion of the subject property. The Supreme Court, has ruled: "The final order of this Court upholding the conversion of the property in question from agricultural to industrial has rendered the matter beyond the coverage of the comprehensive agrarian reform law". (Rodolfo Buclasan, et al. vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals, et al., G.R. No. 143280, July 26, 2000,pp. 3-4). Thus, the OIC-Secretary of the DAR has dismissed the petition to cancel and/or revoke the conversion of the subject property in an Order dated October 27, 2006 for want of jurisdiction (DARCO Order No. RCON-0610324, Series of 2006).
- The DAR, as the agency vested with "exclusive authority" over land use conversion (Sec. 5[k], E.O. 129-A [1982]), can determine whether the proposed project, as amplified in the Revised Development Plan submitted to this Office, conforms to the authorized use under the OP Decision approving the conversion.
DAR OPINION NO. 35, s. 2006
November 27, 2006
JURISDICTION; DAR IS NOT CLOTHED WITH THE AUTHORITY TO DECLARE MOU AS NULL AND VOID
- The DAR is not clothed with the authority to issue a final statement declaring the Memorandum of Understanding between Farley Gustilo and the members of Cambuktot Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association (CARBA) as null and void. A Memorandum of Understanding partakes the nature of a contact, and as such, its validity can be challenged or attacked in the court which has jurisdiction over the same.
DAR OPINION NO. 20, s. 2006
July 13, 2006
JURISDICTION; DAR'S JURISDICTION ON COVERAGE
What is the jurisdiction of the DAR?
- It is the DAR that has jurisdiction to determine whether or not agricultural lands fall under CARP coverage. Moreover, the determination of the exclusion of a property from CARP coverage on the ground that the same is used for the raising of livestock, poultry and swine-raising is governed by DAR Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1993.
August 24, 1995
JURISDICTION; INCLUSION OF IDENTIFIED FARMER BENEFICIARIES IN TITLES/CLOAS
- Section 2.2 and Section 7 of DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2003 (2003 Rules for Agrarian Law Implementation Cases) provide, to wit:
"Section 2. ALI Cases. — These Rules shall govern all cases arising from or involving:
xxx xxx xxx
2.2. Classification, identification, inclusion, exclusion, qualification, or disqualification of potential/actual farmer-beneficiaries.
xxx xxx xxx
Section 7. General Jurisdiction. — The Regional Director shall exercise primary jurisdiction over all agrarian law implementation cases except when a separate special rule vests primary jurisdiction in a different DAR office." (emphasis supplied)
- Furthermore, Section 1.6, Rule II of the 2003 DARAB Rules and Procedures provides:
"Those involving the correction, partition, cancellation, secondary and subsequent issuances of Certificates of Landownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration Authority fall within the primary and exclusive original jurisdiction of the DARAB."
- Given the foregoing provisions, the petition for inclusion must first be filed with the Regional Director before resorting to the correction of the title/CLOA with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator.
DLR OPINION NO. 23, s. 2005
September 1, 2005
JURISDICTION; ISSUANCE, CORRECTION AND CANCELLATION OF CLOA
Which has jurisdiction on the issuance, correction and cancellation of registered CLOAs and EPs?
- The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) has the jurisdiction to cancel, if warranted, the CLOA previously awarded to BOLODECO. This infallible conclusion is apparent under Rule II, Section 1, par. (f) of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure which expressly provides that the DARAB shall have primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the CARP under R.A. No. 6657, Executive Order Nos. 228, 229 and 129-A, R.A. No. 3844 as amended by R.A. No. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations.
- Specifically, such jurisdiction shall include those involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of CLOAs and EPs which are registered with the Land Registration Authority. Since the CLOAs covering the disputed properties was registered with the Register of Deeds for the province of Pangasinan on 29 November 1993 as shown by the Original Certificate of Title No. 2077, it is the DARAB that should take cognizance over the case upon filing of petition by the Philippine Tourism Authority (PTA). This is without prejudice, however, on the findings and recommendations of our concerned field officers and the rights of the affected beneficiaries after due investigation/ocular inspection, consultation, and proper determination on the merits of the case pursuant to existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations.
March 10, 1998
JURISDICTION ; LEASE CONTRACT
Does the DARAB have jurisdiction over lease contract?
- In view of the allegation that the lease contract is a ploy to circumvent agrarian reform, laws and the fact that as explained in the DAR decision of 16 May 1994, the DAR cannot rule administratively on the issues pertaining to said lease contract (including entitlement to the fruits by virtue thereof), the same properly fall within the jurisdiction of the DARAB and must be raised before it.
June 10, 1994
JURISDICTION; MARKETING AGREEMENTS NOT SUBJECT TO PARCCOM/DAR-SSO/PARC REVIEW AND APPROVAL PROCESS
- The following are the pertinent provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1999 (Rules and Regulations Governing Joint Economic Enterprises in Agrarian Reform Areas), to wit:
"Section 12. Review and Approval of Contracts. — Contracts for joint economic enterprises such as lease back, joint venture and other schemes, which comprise all the following elements:
(a) it will optimize the operating size for agricultural production;
(b) the investor is the former landowner;
(c) it will require conveyance of the use and possession of the land in favor of the investor (or farmer landowner).
shall be submitted to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) for endorsement to the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) in accordance with Section 44 (a) of RA 6657, as amended by RA 7905. The DAR Support Services Office (SSO) shall review the contract before approval by the PARC. Optimization of operating size shall mean consolidating more than three (3) hectares distributed lands for agricultural production.
All other contracts without any of the elements enumerated above, such as production, processing and marketing agreements, management contracts, or service contracts, shall not be required to go through the PARCCOM/DAR-SSO-/PARC review and approval process. However, they shall be witnessed by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) or the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer(MARO) and copy thereof furnished to the DAR Regional Office which shall, in turn, forward a copy to DAR-SSO.
Contracts shall take effect upon signing by the parties. However, in case of contracts that require PARCCOM/DAR-SSO/PARC review and approval, they shall take effect upon approval by PARC. In this connection, Sec. 30 (h) of DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1998, which provides for the effectivity of agribusiness venture agreements involving distributed commercial farms is hereby amended or modified.
xxx xxx xxx
Any amendment that will substantially affect the rights and obligations of the parties or materially change the contract shall go through the same review and approval process." (underscoring and emphasis supplied)
- From the foregoing, marketing agreements are not required to go through the PARCCOM/DAR-SSO/PARC review and approval process.
DAR OPINION NO. 04, s. 2005
February 10, 2005
JURISDICTION ; MAROs JURISDICTION ON VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
Can the MARO issue certification that the tenants voluntarily surrendered their farmlots?
- If the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) having jurisdiction over the property is convinced that the tenants have voluntarily surrendered their farm lots, a certification to that effect may be issued by said Officer.
May 28, 1996
JURISDICTION; MATTERS INVOLVING ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLEMENTATION OF CARP
Does DARAB has jurisdiction over cases or matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of CARP?
- The New DARAB Rules of Procedure excludes from its jurisdiction, matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and agrarian laws and regulations which are deemed to be the exclusive prerogative of and cognizable by the DAR Secretary (Section 1(g), Rule II).
September 2, 1998
JURISDICTION; OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY NOT THE DARAB HAS THE JURISDICTION ON ISSUE OF CARP COVERAGE
Which has the jurisdiction to issue whether or not the land is covered under RA 6657?
- A careful scrutiny of the New DARAB Rules of Procedure, specifically on matters pertaining to the Board's primary and exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction, readily reveals that the issue on whether or not the property is covered under Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) is an strictly administrative matter which falls squarely under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of Department of Agrarian Reform. Thus, since the DARAB is devoid of competence to assume jurisdiction on the issue of CARP coverage, it follows that the judgment rendered therein on said particular point (not necessarily the whole decision) is void.
- Jurisdiction is conferred only by the Constitution or by law. It cannot be fixed by the will of the parties nor can it be acquired or diminished by any act of the parties. In determining whether a case lies within or outside the jurisdiction of a court or quasi judicial body, reference to the applicable statute on the matter is indispensable (Municipality of Sogod v. Rosal, September 24, 1991, 201 SCRA 632). An assiduous examination of the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 and the DARAB New Rules of Procedure clearly show that it is the Secretary of Agrarian Reform who is vested with the exclusive jurisdiction to rule on the issue of whether or not the subject property is covered under CARP.
February 25, 1999
JURISDICTION; ON COVERAGE OR EXEMPTION
Is coverage or exemption within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary?
- There can be no gainsaying to the fact that the Secretary of Agrarian Reform is possessed of exclusive jurisdiction to rule on the issues of coverage or exemption under OLT, retention and the like. The reason is simple. Said issues, by their nature and character, are strictly administrative matters. This is even explicitly provided in the DARAB New Rules of Procedure.
- On all other litigious matters, like payment of back rentals, the jurisdiction is with the DARAB. Please note, in this regard, the provisions of paragraph (b), Section 1 (Rule II) of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure.
October 4, 2000
JURISDICTION ; OVER CASES OF VOS WITHDRAWAL
- The determining criterion is the size of the area under VOS and not the size of the area being sought to be withdrawn. The latter is but an incident of the former.
November 15, 1999
JURISDICTION; PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
Is a pending case before the DARAB a pre-judicial question which must first be resolved before a criminal action may be instituted in a regular court?
- It is believed that notwithstanding the repeal of P.D. Nos. 316 and 1038 by Section 76 of R.A. No. 6657 and the provisions of DAR Memorandum Circular No. 7, Series of 1988 (particularly second paragraph, nos. 2 and 3), the pending case for "Peaceful Possession, Fixing of Lease Rental, etc." before the DARAB is a pre-judicial question which must first be resolved before the criminal cases for estafa may be instituted or may proceed (Article 36, Civil Code of the Philippines). Moreover, considering that the material issues of tenancy relationship and fixing of lease rental are essentially involved in this case, the same is basically an agrarian matter or controversy of which the DAR Adjudication Board has exclusive and original jurisdiction (Section 50, R.A. No. 6657 and Section 1, Rule II of the DARAB New Rules of Procedure).
- Considering that a case for "Peaceful Possession, Fixing of Lease Rental, etc." is still on appeal before the DARAB, we submit that the prosecution of the criminal cases for estafa in the MTC should await the finality of the DARAB decision on the ground of "pre-judicial question".
February 10, 1999
JURISDICTION; PRIMARY AND EXCLUSIVE ORIGINAL AND APPELLATE JURISDICTION OF DARAB
What are the cases or matters falling within the jurisdiction of the DARAB?
- Kaugnay po dito ay isinasaad sa letrang (a), (b) at (g) ng Section 1, Rule II ng Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Rules of Procedure ang mga sumusunod:
"Section 1. Primary and Exclusive Original and Appellate Jurisdiction. The Board shall have primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under Republic Act No. 6657, executive Order Nos. 228, 229 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No. 6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations. Specifically, such jurisdiction shall include but not limited to cases involving the following:
a) The rights and obligations of persons, whether natural or juridical, engaged in the management, cultivation and use of all agricultural lands covered by the CARP and other agrarian laws;
b) The valuation of land, and the preliminary determination and payment of just compensation, fixing and collection of lease rentals, disturbance compensation, amortization payments, and similar disputes concerning the function of the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP). (Emphasis supplied)
xxx xxx xxx
g) Those cases previously falling under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations under Section 12 of Presidential Decree No. 946, except sub-paragraph (Q) thereof and Presidential Decree No. 815. (Emphasis supplied)
It is understood that the aforementioned cases, complaints or petitions were filed with the DARAB after August 29, 1987.
xxx xxx xxx
- Sa mga nasabing probisyon ay maaaring idaing ang di pagbayad ng buwis o renta sa Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) na may sakop sa usaping lupa.
February 21, 2002
JURISDICTION; PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL OFFENSES UNDER R.A. NO. 6657
Who acquires jurisdiction over criminal offenses under R.A. No. 6657?
- Section 5, Rule of the New Rules of Criminal Procedure is categorical, quote:
"Section 5. Who must prosecute criminal actions. — All Criminal actions commenced by a complaint or information shall be prosecuted under the direction and control of the prosecutor. . ."
The phrase "all criminal actions" needs no interpretation, and this includes violation of special laws with penal provisions, such as R.A. No. 6657.
February 20, 2002
JURISDICTION; RE-DOCUMENTATION OF COLLECTIVE CLOA (CLOA) UNDER NORMAL CONDITION
Which has jurisdiction on the re-documentation of collective CLOA (CCLOA) under normal condition where there is no change/correction of FB's areas or whatever?
- Please be informed that even assuming arguendo that the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1994 (Rules Governing the Correction and Cancellation of Registered/Unregistered Emancipation Patents (EPs) and Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) Due to Unlawful Acts and Omissions or Breach of Obligations of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARB's) and Other Causes) did not supersede the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 03, Series of 1993 (Rules and Procedures Governing the Issuance of Collective CLOAs and Subsequent Issuance of Individual Titles to the Owners), the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) still has jurisdiction in the instant case (i.e. re-documentation of collective CLOA under "normal" condition where there is no change/correction of FBs, areas or whatever) pursuant to Section 1.6, Rule II of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure as reiterated in Section 3.6, Rule I of the 2003 Rules for Agrarian Law Implementation Cases (DAR Administrative Order No. 03, s. 2003) which provide, quote:
Section 1, Rule II 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure
"SECTION I. Primary and Exclusive Original Jurisdiction. The Adjudicator shall have primary and exclusive original jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate the following cases:
xxx xxx xxx
1.6. Those involving the correction, partition, cancellation, secondary and subsequent issuances of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration Authority;" (emphasis supplied)
Section 3.6, 2003 Rules for Agrarian Law Implementation Cases
"Section 3. DARAB cases. The Rules shall not apply to cases falling within the exclusive original jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and its Regional or Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicators (RARAD or PARAD) which include:
xxx xxx xxx
"3.6. Those involving the correction, partition, cancellation, secondary and subsequent issuances of CLOAs which are registered with the Land Registration Authority;" (emphasis supplied)
June 17, 2003
JURISDICTION; REFERRAL OF CASES
- If, indeed, said "transfer action" cases fall within the contemplation of the aforecited provisions of Administrative Order No. 06, series of 2000, the remedy is explicitly provided for under Section 4 of the same guideline, quote:
"SECTION 4. Referral of Cases. — If a case covered by Section 2 herein is filed before the DARAB, the concerned DARAB official shall refer the case to the proper DAR Office for appropriate action within five (5) days after said case is determined to be within the jurisdiction of the Secretary. . . ." (emphasis supplied)
DAR OPINION NO. 11, s. 2002
February 21, 2002
JURISDICTION; REGIONAL DIRECTORS/SECRETARY, DARAB, SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURTS
What are the cases or matters falling within the jurisdiction of the DARAB?
- The DARAB has the jurisdiction to try cases involving the issuance, correction and cancellation of Certificates of Landownership Award (CLOAs) and Emancipation Patents (EPs) which are registered with the Land Registration Authority. Accordingly, questions concerning titles (TCTs) derived from Emancipation Patents issued by the DAR, especially if there are allegations of illegalities or irregularities in the transfer of the subject landholdings and subsequent alleged conversions, shall likewise fall under the jurisdiction of the DARAB (Section 1(f), Rule II of the New DARAB Rules of Procedure and DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1994). The issue of whether or not the landholdings in issue could be transferred shall, however, be cognizable by the DAR Regional Director or the Secretary pursuant to Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1998 since the same involves the administrative implementation of the agrarian reform program. On the other hand, criminal offenses, if any, that may have been committed in the instant case shall fall under the jurisdiction of the Special Agrarian Courts pursuant to Section 57 of R.A. No. 6657.
September 2, 1998
JURISDICTION; RIGHTS OF PERSONS ENGAGED IN THE CULTIVATION AND USE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS
What is the jurisdiction of the DARAB?
- Cases involving the rights and obligations of persons engaged in the cultivation and use of all agricultural lands fall within the primary and exclusive original and appellate jurisdiction of the DAR Adjudication Board.
July 2, 1996
JURISDICTION; SPECIAL AGRARIAN COURT
What is the jurisdiction of the Special Agrarian Court?
- Section 56 of RA 6657 expressly provides that the Supreme Court shall designate at least one (1) branch of the Regional Trial Court within each province to act as Special Agrarian Court. The Special Agrarian Court has jurisdiction over two areas only; (1) just compensation and (2) criminal cases arising out of implementation of CARP.
December 23, 1996
JURISDICTION ; TENANCY RELATIONSHIP
Are issues involving tenancy relationship within the jurisdiction of the DARAB?
- Problem on tenancy relationship in the agricultural portion of the estate is under the DARABs jurisdiction while jurisdiction over the commercial and residential areas of the estate is cognizable by the Regional Director or in other words to be resolved administratively for instance, petition for conversion of the part of the estate to commercial or residential use.
December 13, 1996
JURISDICTION; UNTITLED PUBLIC ALIENABLE AND DISPOSABLE LANDS
- Untitled public alienable and disposable lands are still within the exclusive jurisdiction of DENR pursuant to C.A. No. 141 (Public Land Act).
DENR Administrative Order No. 47, Series of 2004 provides:
"1. Pursuant to Section 13, of PD 705, otherwise known as the Revised Code of the Philippines, as amended, I hereby declare and certify an aggregate area of 1,547.67 hectares as agricultural land (alienable and disposable) for cropland and other purposes for disposition under the Public Land Act." (emphasis supplied)
Thus, the subject landholding are still within the jurisdiction of the DENR.
- For your further information and clarification, attached is a copy of Joint DAR-DENR Memorandum Circular No. 9, Series of 1995 [Clarifying and Restating the Jurisdiction and Authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Over Certain Types of Lands of the Public Domain Covered by the CARP].
DAR OPINION NO. 08, s. 2005
February 23, 2005
JUST COMPENSATION; ADDITIONAL INCENTIVES
May landowner be granted 5% cash payments as incentives?
- Sec. 19 of R.A. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) even grant the landowners other than banks and other financial institutions an additional five percent (5%) cash payment as incentives. The grant of additional incentives which is intended to ease the burden of landowners in losing their properties negates the claim of the DAR and the Bureau of Lands that the value of properties covered by legal easements be deducted from the total value due the landowner.
January 29, 1997
JUST COMPENSATION; COMPUTATION UNDER R.A. 6657
- The Supreme Court in several rulings held that the determination of the proper land valuation to compute the just compensation for purposes of agrarian reform under P.D. No. 27 should be in accordance with processes under R.A No. 6657. The more recent case on the matter is Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Pacita Agricultural Multi-purpose, Inc. (G.R. No. 177607, January 19, 2009).
DAR OPINION NO. 16, s. 2009
July 20, 2009
JUST COMPENSATION; DEPOSIT IN CASH OR LBP BOND
Does full payment mean payment in cash directly to the landowner?
- The CARP Law conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank (Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343).
- Thus, upon deposit with an accessible bank (i.e., Land Bank) of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds, it already constitutes as compliance with the full payment requirement. The DAR may then take immediate possession of the land, request issuance of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines and, thereafter, proceed with the redistribution of the land to qualified beneficiaries.
February 6, 2004
JUST COMPENSATION; DEPOSIT IN CASH OR LBP BOND
What will happen to all trust accounts issued pursuant to A.O. No. 1, Series of 1993 covering landholdings not yet transferred in the name of the Republic of the Philippines as of July 5, 1996?
- Under Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1998, otherwise known as the "Revised Rules and Procedures Governing the Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition Pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657" which was issued in compliance with the Supreme Court Resolution dated 5 July 1996 in the cases of Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) versus Court of Appeals (CA), Pedro L. Yap, et al. (G.R. No. 118712) and Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) versus CA, Pedro Yap, et al. (G.R. No. 118745), it provides in its transitory provision the following, to wit: "all trust accounts issued pursuant to Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1993 covering landholdings not yet transferred in the name of the Republic of the Philippines as of July 5, 1996 shall immediately be converted to deposit accounts in the name of the landowners concerned.
September 3, 1997
JUST COMPENSATION; EXPROPRIATION
Are affected FBs entitled to the compensation of the property subject of expropriation?
- Affected FBs entitled to the compensation of the property subject of expropriation they being the new owners by virtue of the CLOAs issued in their favor. The fact that landowners Tay, Hermo and Encinas voluntarily offered their agricultural properties for coverage under CARP, the contract of sale is deemed perfected upon the acceptance by the DAR and by the execution of the Deed of Transfer.
January 28, 1997
JUST COMPENSATION; LBP's PROPERTY CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO LEVY FOR NON-PAYMENT OF JUST COMPENSATION
- There is no provision in the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) 2003 Rules of Procedure nor in any existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations that allows the property of the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to be subjected to levy for non-payment of just compensation.
DAR OPINION NO. 18, s. 2005
May 9, 2005
JUST COMPENSATION; MODE OF COMPENSATION
What constitutes as compliance with the full payment requirement?
- Thus, upon deposit with an accessible bank of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds, it already constitutes as compliance with the full payment requirement. The DAR may then take immediate possession of the land, request issuance of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines and, thereafter, proceed with the redistribution of the land to qualified beneficiaries.
June 7, 2002
JUST COMPENSATION; PAYMENTS OF OLT LANDS
What is the mechanics for the payment of just compensation of lands covered under OLT?
- The Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) shall compensate the landowner. Considering that landowner Marina B. Santos is now deceased, the legal heirs of the latter will be the parties to be paid just compensation for the land. Executive Order No. 228 dated 17 July 1987, entitled: "Declaring Full Land Ownership To Qualified Farmer Beneficiaries Covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 and Providing For The Manner Of Payment By The Farmer Beneficiary And Mode Of Compensation To The Landowner", provides the mechanics for the payment of just compensation of lands covered under Operation Land Transfer. On the other hand, if the land is covered under R.A. No. 6657, the pertinent guideline covering the just compensation thereof is A.O. No. 5, Series of 1998 (Revised Rules and Regulations Governing the Valuation of Lands Voluntarily Offered or Compulsorily Acquired Pursuant to R.A. No. 6657).
February 11, 1999
JUST COMPENSATION; PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DETERMINATION
- Pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 2005 (Revised Rules Governing the Issuance of Notice of Coverage in the Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Under R.A. No. 6657) as amended by Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 2007 (Amendment to DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 2005, Entitled, Rules and Procedures Governing the Acquisition of Agricultural Lands Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition and Those Covered Under Executive Order No. 407) if the landowner rejects the offer or fails to reply within thirty (30) days from receipt of the Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition (NLVA), the DAR Provincial Office should advise the PARAD to conduct summary administrative proceedings. Thereafter, in case the landowner rejects the DARAB decision, the landowner may go to regular court for final determination of just compensation.
DAR OPINION NO. 16, s. 2009
July 20, 2009
JUST COMPENSATION; PRELIMINARY AND FINAL DETERMINATION
Which court has jurisdiction to determine just compensation?
- The matter of "just-ness" of the compensation, if raised by the landowner, may initially be determined by the DAR Adjudication Board but final determination thereof is with the courts of justice of competent jurisdiction. In other words, if the landowner refuses to accept the compensation offered to him, the issue of just compensation is perforce brought before the DARAB for its preliminary determination and if the landowner is not yet satisfied, the same may be brought before the Special Agrarian Court (SAC) for final determination of just compensation [Sections 16 (d and f) and 57 of R.A. No. 6657).
February 6, 2004
JUST COMPENSATION; PRELIMINARY DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION CASES
Who may initially determine the "just-ness" of the compensation?
- On the matter of "just-ness" of the compensation, if raised by the landowner, it may initially be determined by the DAR Adjudication Board but final determination thereof is with the courts of justice of competent jurisdiction. In other words, if the landowner refuses to accept the compensation offered to him, the issue of just compensation is perforce brought before the DARAB for its preliminary determination and if landowner is not yet satisfied, the same may be brought before the Special Agrarian Court (SAC) for final determination of just compensation [Sections 16 (d and f) and 57 of R.A. No. 6675].
June 7, 2002
JUST COMPENSATION; RECKONING DATE
- Anent your 6th query, the reckoning date in the computation of land compensation of the land shall be from the time of taking of the subject property. This was enunciated in the case of Fernando Gabatin, et al. vs. LBP (G.R. No. 148223, Nov. 25, 2004), where the Supreme Court ruled that in determining the value of the land for the payment of just compensation, the time of the taking should be the basis. The Gross Selling Price (GSP) should be pegged at the time of taking of the properties.
DAR OPINION NO. 32, s. 2007
November 16, 2007
L
LAND ACQUISITION AS DISTINGUISED TO LAND REDISTRIBUTION
- Land acquisition is a transaction between the government and the landowner, while land redistribution is a transaction between the government and the farmer beneficiaries. Acquisition is validly undertaken only after payment of just compensation, while redistribution may be undertaken after the property has already been acquired and transferred to the Republic of the Philippines, and that just compensation has already been paid to landowners either in cash or in LBP bonds.
- Section 16 (c) and (e) of R.A. No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), as amended, provides, quote:
"SEC. 16. Procedure for Acquisition and Distribution of Private Lands.
xxx xxx xxx
(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the LBP shall pay the landowner the purchase price of the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a deed of transfer in favor of the Government and surrenders the Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.
xxx xxx xxx
(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries."
DAR OPINION NO. 23, s. 2009
December 11, 2009
LAND ACQUISITION; LANDOWNERSHIP CEILING OF A CORPORATION
What is the landownership ceiling of a corporation?
- To give merely 10% of agricultural lands to the CARP beneficiaries is not in conformity with the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL). What the law mandates under said Act is that the DAR, being the lead implementing agency in agrarian reform, shall acquire and redistribute to qualified farmer-beneficiaries all agricultural lands falling outside the 5-hectare retention of landowners. In this regard, a corporation is entitled to a retention limit of only five (5) hectares and the rest shall be distributed to qualified farmer-beneficiaries.
September 29, 2000
LAND ACQUISITION; UNTITLED OR UNREGISTERED PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL LANDS
Are untitled or unregistered private agricultural lands covered under CARP?
- DAR's position on the issue of placing untitled or unregistered private agricultural lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is that if there is no adverse claimant over the subject landholdings, that is, there is no court case, then submission of documentary and/or testimonial evidence may already be deemed as substantive proofs of ownership. The landholdings may then be acquired under CARP and the landowners entitled to payment in accordance with pertinent laws and DAR rules and regulations, as opined and resolved under DOJ Opinion No. 176, Series of 1992.
October 16, 2000
LAND AMORTIZATION; DEPOSITS MADE BY FB TO LBP
Are deposits made by the farmer-beneficiaries to the Land Bank of the Philippines pending final determination of land valuation constitutes amortization of the land?
- When CLOAs were issued to farmer-beneficiaries and the same are already registered, the only obligation of said farmer-beneficiaries is to pay regularly and religiously the land amortization to the Land Bank of the Philippines. Thus, deposits made by the farmer-beneficiaries to the Land Bank pending final determination of land valuation shall already constitute as amortization of the land.
September 3, 1997
LAND COMPENSATION; MODE OF PAYMENT; SHALL ONLY BE MADE IN THE FORM OF CASH OR LBP BONDS
What are the modes of payment recognized under R.A. No. 6657?
- The transitory provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1996 expressly provides that: "All previously established trust deposits which served as the basis for the transfer of the landowners title to the Republic of the Philippines shall likewise be converted to deposits in cash and in bonds. The aforecited implementing rules and regulations clearly provides that payment shall only be made in the form of "cash or LBP bonds", a mode of payment recognized under Sec. 16(e) of R.A. No. 6657 and not by means of "trust deposits". This is in line with the Supreme Court Resolutions dated 05 July 1996 in the cases of Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) vs. Court of Appeals (CA), Pedro L. Yap., et al., (G.R. No. 118712) and Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) vs. Pedro L. Yap, et al., (G.R. No. 118745).
February 9, 1998
Would the establishment of trust account produce the effect of payment?
- Since the establishment of "trust account" in the name of Salvador Encinas, Jr. did not produce the effect of payment to extinguish their obligations, the farmer-beneficiaries are still duty bound to pay their lease rental from 1990 until such time that a "cash or LBP bonds", the only mode of payment recognized under Sec. 16 of R.A. No. 6657, has been made in the name of the said landowner. This is so because prior to the conversion of trust deposits into cash or LBP bonds, there could be no payment to speak of. When the trust account in the name of Salvador Encinas, Jr., was opened, the same produced no legal effect per se for this mode of payment is not the one contemplated under the law as ruled by the Supreme Court.
February 9, 1998
LAND DISTRIBUTION; ORDER OF PREFERENCE
What is the order of preference in the distribution of the land?
- Section 22 of CARL clearly states that lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the order of priority stated therein, with the proviso that the children of landowners who are qualified under Section 6 of CARL shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents.
August 8, 1995
LAND RECLASSIFICATION; DISTINGUISHED FROM LAND CONVERSION
Are reclassification and conversion synonymous with each other?
- Reclassification is different from that of conversion. Land use reclassification by itself does not place an agricultural property outside the purview of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) since it merely specifies how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses as embodied in the land use plan. In other words, it merely allocates land to different activities or classes of land uses, evolved and enacted through the town planning and zoning process. It is not synonymous with conversion for while the authority to reclassify is lodged with the Local Government Unit (LGU), the authority to convert remains with the DAR.
March 22, 1999
March 22, 1999
LAND TRANSACTION; DAR CLEARANCE A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT
Is DAR Clearance a mandatory requirement?
- A DAR Clearance should be mandatorily required in order that a valid transaction (i.e., one not contrary to the provisions of R.A. No. 6657) may later be registered with the Register of Deeds. A DAR Clearance should never serve or be unduly construed as a validation of what is otherwise at the outset a null and void transaction (4th paragraph, Section 6 and Section 70 of R.A. No. 6657 and DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989). Concomitant thereto, any intended sale or disposition of agricultural lands by landowners, whether they are allegedly owning more than or less than five (5) hectares, shall always be subject to DAR Clearance before the same could be validly registered with the Register of Deeds, to prevent possible circumvention of the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 and its related implementing guidelines."
February 9, 1999
LAND TRANSACTION; ISSUANCE OF DAR CLEARANCE; ABSENCE OF EXEMPTION CLEARANCE, EFFECT THEREOF
Is DAR clearance required before transfer of agricultural land be legally effected?
- The transfer of the subject 37-hectare agricultural landholdings to the Wesleyan University purportedly for agricultural educational purposes is violative of said provisions of law. Under DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989, a DAR clearance is required before transfer could be legally effected to foreclose possible circumvention of the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 and its implementing guidelines. Moreover, an application for exemption is necessary to determine on the merits whether or not the subject landholdings are exempt from CARP coverage pursuant to Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 and DAR Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1990.
- In view of all the aforegoing, it could be inferred that the possible real intent in transferring the property in issue to Wesleyan University purportedly for agricultural educational purposes is apparently to evade the coverage of the same under CARP. This would in effect be a circumvention of the provisions of Republic Act No. 6657 which should not be countenanced. Thus, in the absence of an application for exemption, said landholdings may now be covered under the Program.
January 5, 1999
LAND TRANSACTION; PRIVATE ENTITY CANNOT BE A TRANSFEREE
Can a private entity be a transferee of lands?
- The NIT, if it is a private entity (unlike the PNP which is a government agency), cannot be the subsequent transferee by virtue of a MOA of the same nature as previously executed. Moreover, even assuming that NIT is a government entity, the same could neither be a transferee if the conveyance would eventually vest ownership of the subject area to NIT in a proprietary or private capacity.
- From the foregoing, NIT could possibly be a transferee of the proposed area through a MOA only if it is a government entity and the conveyance is for public purpose without prejudice, however, to the rights of affected or potential agrarian reform beneficiaries, if any, and the rightful and effective implementation of the Program.
January 11, 2000
LAND TRANSACTION; VALIDITY OF LAND TRANSACTION BY BENEFICIARIES IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT
Are transactions executed by beneficiaries covering lands acquired under the CARP valid?
- The provisions of DAR Administrative Order NO. 8, Series of 1995 contemplate a transfer of awarded lands to private individuals. This can be gleaned from the Policy Statement thereof when it requires the following, to wit: a) maintenance of the productivity of the land; b) buyer's aggregate landholding not to exceed the landownership ceiling provided by law; and c) imposition of the ownership ceiling of five hectares. Moreover, the rules on validity of land transactions (DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989) allow transactions executed by beneficiaries covering lands acquired under agrarian reform laws in favor of the government.
- In DAR Opinion No. 45, Series of 1995, we opined that the registration of the sale of the farmlots may be effected without prior DAR Clearance, considering that said acquisition by NPC (though short of judicial proceedings) was undertaken by virtue of the expropriation powers of the government.
- In fairness to the CLOA or EP awardees whose lands shall be expropriated, they should however still be entitled as agrarian reform beneficiaries or awardees in other landholdings.
November 10, 1998
LAND TRANSACTION; VOLUNTARY LAND TRANSFER/DIRECT PAYMENT SCHEME
Whether or not the subject properties may be sold THROUGH VLT/DPS?
- As regards your 3rd query, the subject properties may possibly, if warranted, be sold through VLT/DPS but only to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) as defined and contemplated under existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations and, provided, further, that the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 08, Series of 2003 [2003 Guidelines on the Acquisition and Distribution of Compensable Agricultural Lands Under Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme (VLT/DPS)] shall be observed.
March 2, 2004
LAND TRANSACTIONS; AMERICAN CITIZEN AS PURCHASER OF AGRICULTURAL LAND
Can an American citizen purchase agricultural lands?
- Although Section 8 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution (National Economy and Patrimony) expressly provides that a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has lost his Philippine citizenship may be a transferee of private lands, subject to the limitations provided by law, the same is not encompassing so as to extend the enjoyment of the privilege to all classes of lands. What the Constitution referred to in the aforequoted provision is for the former Filipino citizen to own residential lands only. This is apparent in Batas Pambansa Blg. 185 Section 2 thereof which provides that "any natural-born citizen of the Philippines who has capacity to enter into a contract under Philippine laws may be a transferee of a private land up to a maximum area of one thousand square meters, in the case of urban land, or one hectare in the case of rural land, to be used by him as his residence. In the case of married couples, one of them may avail of the privilege herein granted: Provided, That if both shall avail of the same, the total area acquired shall not exceed the maximum herein fixed. In case the transferee already owns urban or rural lands for residential purposes, he shall still be entitled to be a transferee of additional urban or rural lands for residential purposes which, when added to those already owned by him, shall not exceed maximum areas herein authorized."
December 8, 1998
LAND TRANSACTIONS; DONATION OF AN AGRICULTURAL LAND, VALIDITY THEREOF
- The 4-hectare area donated to the DECS cannot be taken from that part of the agricultural land of the landowner which is subject for acquisition and redistribution to qualified beneficiaries under CARP. In other words, the donated 4-hectare portion constitutes and forms part of his retention area.
- It should be noted that out of the aggregate area of nine (9) hectares owned by the landowner, only five (5) hectares may be retained by him (inclusive of the 4 hectares donated), while the remaining four (4) hectares are mandated by CARP to be acquired and redistributed to qualified farmer-beneficiaries. Thus, it follows that said remaining 4-hectare portion (which is already beyond his 5-hectare retention area/limit) shall be covered under CARL which took effect way back 15 June 1988 even before the donation took place in 1989.
- Finally, notwithstanding the foregoing, the donation of the 4-hectare agricultural property may have been tainted with invalidity or irregularity since the same should have been effected only upon prior issuance of a DAR Clearance pursuant to Section 6, last paragraph of Republic Act No. 6657 (CARL) and the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989. This is in order to foreclose possible circumvention of the provisions of R.A. No. 6657, particularly Sections 6, 70 and 73 (a) thereof and to ensure that the agricultural productivity of the land is maintained and not otherwise unduly or illegally converted into non-agricultural uses conversion of which is subject to DAR approval pursuant to existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations.
November 3, 1998
LAND TRANSACTIONS; MAY BE REGISTERED WITHOUT DAR CLEARANCE
What are the transactions that may be registered without DAR Clearance?
- Item II-3 of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989 enumerates the transactions that may be registered by the Register of Deeds without clearance from DAR, to wit:
1. Deed of extrajudicial partition of the property of a deceased who died prior to June 15, 1988;
2. Deed of partition of property owned in common by co-owners prior to June 15, 1988;
3. Sub-division of title without change of ownership; and
4. Deed of Real Estate Mortgage executed by the original landowner or beneficiary.
- It is very clear from the above-cited provision that the transfer, sale, disposition and/or conveyance of agricultural lands involving the retained area of the landowner is not among those enumerated or contemplated therein.
September 8, 1997
LAND TRANSACTIONS; MODE OF ACQUISITION THAT AN ALIEN CAN OWN PRIVATE LAND
Can an alien national purchase private lands in the Philippines which include fishponds?
- No. Section 7 of Article XII of the 1987 Constitution (National Economy and Patrimony) provides that save in cases of hereditary succession, no private lands shall be transferred or conveyed except to individuals, corporations, or associations qualified to acquire or hold lands of the public domain. Obviously, it is only through this mode of acquisition (i.e., hereditary succession) that an alien national can own said private lands in the Philippines.
December 8, 1998
LAND TRANSACTIONS; NO ACTUAL TRANSFER IN CASE OF MORTGAGE
Is ownership of the land transferred in case of mortgage?
- A mortgage is a contract by which the debtor secures for the creditor the fulfillment of a principal obligation specifically subjecting to such security real property or real rights over real property in case of non-fulfillment of said obligation at time specified. This means that there is no actual transfer of ownership over the real property subject of the contract of mortgage, and that the ownership of the land shall only be consolidated in the mortgagee or purchaser upon the failure of the mortgagor-debtor to exercise his right of redemption or upon the expiration of the redemption period. Thus, agricultural lands may be mortgage to banking institutions without need for DAR clearance.
- However, the aforesaid lands could either way still be subject to acquisition pursuant to sections 16 and 71 of R.A. No. 6657 (if perchance later foreclosed by banks) and, if not foreclosed, shall nonetheless still be acquired for distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries even beyond the original ten (10) year period of CARP implementation has elapsed, considering the aforecited DOJ Opinion No. 9, Series of 1997 and R.A. No. 8532.
March 10, 1998
Are lands not yet acquired by DAR be the subject of mortgage?
- A Deed of Real Estate Mortgage executed by the original landowner is a transaction that can be registered by the Register of Deeds even without clearance from the DAR. This is provided for under DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989, Rule II-C (4). The same Administrative Order also provides that lands not yet acquired by DAR under R.A. No. 6657 may be the subject matter of mortgage, lien or encumbrance to guarantee any loan obligation to secure to develop or improve the same (Rule V-1)
March 10, 1998
LAND TRANSACTIONS; PRE-EMPTION RIGHT OF TENANT
What is the tenant's right of pre-emption?
- The prohibition to dispose agricultural lands to avoid the implementation of the CARP is explicit under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 which provides that: "upon effectivity of the law (i.e., 15 June 1988) any sale, disposition, lease, management contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of this Act shall be null and void." Should the landowner decide to sell his tenanted or leased land, the landowner must first offer to sell the landholding to his tenant or lessee, who has the preferential right to buy the same under reasonable terms and conditions. This is in accordance with the right of pre-emption under Section 11 of R.A. No. 3844 as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 6389. On the other hand, if the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of the tenant, he may exercise his right of redemption, in which case, the tenant may repurchase the said landholding at a reasonable price and consideration (Section 12, R.A. No. 3844, as amended).
- The law does not, however, altogether prohibit the sale or disposition of agricultural lands by the landowner if the same is his retained area. Section 70 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the disposition of the retained area shall be valid as long as the total landholding, including the land to be acquired by the buyer/transferee shall not exceed the landholding ceiling of five (5) hectares. This, however, is still subject to the right of pre-emption or redemption mentioned earlier. Please be advised that in all cases, the security of tenure of the tenant shall be respected.
December 24, 1998
LAND TRANSACTIONS; PURPOSE, CONDITIONS FOR THE ISSUANCE OF DAR CLEARANCE
What does the PARO Clearance signify?
- The PARO Clearance for registration signifies that the transaction is not in circumvention of CARL.
December 13, 1996
What is the purpose of the Certification/Clearance issued by the PARO?
- The PARO issues the Certification/Clearance under A.O. No. 1, Series of 1989 for purposes of registration of the Deed of Sale of an agricultural land with the Register of Deeds. However, the Certification/Clearance will be issued only upon showing that the subject of the Deed is the retention area of the vendor and that the total landholding that shall be owned by the vendee inclusive of the land to be acquired shall not exceed the landownership ceiling provided in RA 6657.
December 23, 1996
LAND TRANSACTIONS; SALE OF LAND PLACED UNDER OLT AS WELL AS LANDS COMPULSORILY ACQUIRED
- The 11.8813-hectare landholdings which were placed under OLT and wherein thirteen (13) Emancipation Patents were generated, registered and distributed in favor of eleven (11) qualified-beneficiaries in 1995, the same are already legally owned by the farmer-beneficiaries which may only be disposed by them subject to agrarian laws, rules and regulations and by no other (e.g., Maria Nieva Toledo who is no longer the owner thereof), and the EPs may only be cancelled by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) upon proper showing that the farmer-beneficiaries have committed acts and/or omissions violative of agrarian laws, rules and regulations (DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1994).
- The remaining portion of 36.1816-hectares which was compulsorily acquired wherein a Notice of Coverage was already issued and duly received on 27 May 1997, it is submitted that a property which is agricultural, and more so if already subjected to compulsory acquisition pursuant to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, can no longer be the subject of a valid sale by the landowner to any third party including government agencies or government owned or controlled corporations without first securing a DAR clearance.
- . . . the sale of the entire 48.0629 hectares of agricultural land by the partial owner to the National Housing Authority is not a valid transaction. Said sale is a clear violation of the provisions of the Civil Code on ownership, Sections 6 (last paragraph) and 73 (a) of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, and the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989.
October 26, 1998
LAND TRANSACTIONS; SALE OF LAND WITHOUT DAR CLEARANCE
Is the sale of an agricultural land covered by a Notice of Coverage and without a DAR clearance valid?
- The DAR, as the lead agency mandated to implement the CARL (R.A. No. 6657), can file a petition before the proper court or forum for: 1) the cancellation of title issued to NHA on the ground of nullity of the sale and/or fraud and; 2) the registration of the pending collective CLOAs for registration. The sale was a patent nullity because despite the DAR Notice of Coverage and the legal requirement for a DAR Clearance the landowner sold the same to a third party, in this case the NHA, without the knowledge and consent of the farmer-beneficiaries and the necessary DAR Clearance, and considering, moreover, that the subject application for exemption was likewise subsequently denied.
- Thus, the coverage and documentation process may immediately proceed even pending the cancellation proceedings of the title issued to NHA so as not to further delay the implementation of the CARP over the landholdings in issue, in line with the legal mandate of the need to distribute lands to the tillers at the earliest practicable time (5th paragraph, Section 7, R.A. No. 6657 and Sandiganbayan Resolution dated 16 January 1996, Civil Case No. 0033, Republic of the Philippines vs. Cojuangco, et al.).
October 26, 1998
LAND TRANSACTIONS; TRANSACTION MADE BEFORE 15 JUNE 1988
Are registered lands subject of transfers before 15 June 1988 but has not been registered within the 3-month period required by law be covered by CARP?
- We should not deviate from the provisions of Section 6 (4th paragraph) of R.A. No. 6657 as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989 generally declaring as null and void all transactions made before 15 June 1988 which were not registered within 3 months from the effectivity of CARL. The only exception is where the properties in issue are voluntarily offered for sale to the government through the DAR for purposes of CARP coverage (DOJ Opinion No. 141, Series of 1992).
- In the instant case, since the transactions do not appear to fall within the abovementioned exception, no legal impediment exists for us to cover subject eight (8) parcels of land for distribution to qualified beneficiaries. It shall, however, be without prejudice to the landowners' right of retention and award to their children, if qualified, pursuant to the same Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 and related guidelines. On the same vein, the mandate of law that the security of tenure of the farmers and farmworkers, if any, shall be respected in all cases.
September 17, 1999
LAND TRANSFER
What is the legal effect of the prohibition on alienation as provided in Section 3 of Republic Act No. 397 on BSP's voluntary offer to sell the land in question?
- As against a general prohibition to sell or alienate as provided in Section 3 of RA No. 397, the provision in Section 19 of R.A. No. 397 specifically allowing the sale and transfer of lands covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, to which Lot No. 1 SWO 29502 is subject to, it is submitted that the latter should prevail. Moreover, as the earlier law, R.A. No. 397 should give way to R.A. 6657 being the more recent law.
December 22, 1998
LAND TRANSFER; BY CARP BENEFICIARIES IN FAVOR OF LGU
May CARP beneficiaries legally transfer in favor of the local government any portion of the landholding acquired pursuant to CARL within a period of 10 years.
- CARP beneficiaries cannot legally transfer in favor of the local government any portion of the landholding acquired pursuant to CARL within a period of 10 years. This is clearly provided in Section 27 of RA 6657. Although the transfer in favor of the government is one of the exceptions to the prohibition against transfer within 10 years from award found in said Sec. 27, the transfer contemplated is that which will maintain the use of the land for agricultural production pursuant to the CARP. It follows that any transfer in favor of the government within the 10-year prohibitory period for a purpose other than that contemplated is not allowed and this was expressly enunciated in DAR A.O. No. 08, s. 1995.
December 13, 1996
LAND TRANSFER; EXEMPTION FROM PAYMENT OF CERTIFICATION FEES
Are Certification fees charged for the surveyed of landholdings included in the exemption?
- Section 66 and 67 of the CARL enumerate the transactions and the taxes and fees they are exempted from, these are intended exclusively for the benefit of the farmer beneficiaries.
- Certification fees being charged by the CENRO (DENR) to private surveyors contracted by the DAR to conduct survey of untitled landholdings are not included in the said exemption.
December 23, 1996
LAND TRANSFER; ISSUANCE OF TCT NOT EP ON TRANSFER OF LAND FROM FARMER-BENEFICIARIES TO THIRD PERSON
Is transfer of awarded land by a tenant idenfied as of 21 October 1972 allowed?
- Under P.D. No. 27, the original transfer of awarded lands to farmer-beneficiaries from the government through the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) is evidenced by Emancipation Patent. This is clear from Policy Statement No. 4 of DAR Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1995 which expressly provides, quote: "If awardee was identified as tenant as of 21 October 1972 and amortizations were fully paid, transfer of awarded lands by the original tenant or his heirs may be allowed, regardless of date of issuance of Emancipation Patent (P.D. No. 27, as amended by E.O. No. 228)." By contrast, the subsequent transfer of awarded lands from farmer beneficiaries to third persons shall be evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) and no longer that of EP. Policy Statement No. 7 of said DAR Administrative Order expressly provides that TCT shall be issued by the Land Registration Authority (LRA) for lands transferred by an awardee to a transferee (P.D. No. 27, as amended by E.O. No. 228).
March 22, 1999
LAND TRANSFER; UNDER PD 27; CONDITIONS
When may transfer of awarded lands under P.D. No. 27 be allowed?
- Transfer of awarded lands under P.D. No. 27, as amended by Executive Order No. 228 may be allowed, provided the following shall be observed:
a. that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
b. that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landowner ceiling provided by law; and
c. that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall be imposed.
July 1, 1997
What are the conditions before the transfer of OLT acquired lands may be allowed?
- Although the transfer of OLT acquired lands is allowed after full payment of amortizations, the following should be noted:
a. The total agricultural land owned by the transferee, inclusive of the land to be acquired shall not exceed the 5-hectare landownership ceiling provided in RA 6657;
b. No conversion of the farmholding for purposes other than agricultural shall be undertaken without a DAR Order of Conversion; and
c. Under A.O. No. 20, s. 1992 of the Office of the President, all irrigated and economically irrigable lands covered by irrigation projects with firm funding commitments shall be non-negotiable for conversion.
March 17, 1994
LAND USE AGREEMENT; JURISDICTION OF DAR TO RENEW
- The DAR may still intervene to review the results of the renegotiation of the LUA. The jurisdiction of the DAR applies whether or not a nullification case is filed before the DARAB as it is the mandate of the DAR to ensure the protection of the rights and welfare of the ARBs and their cooperatives/association.
DAR OPINION NO. 22, s. 2009
November 18, 2009
LAND USE AGREEMENT; SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PARC
- The DARAB's resolution/determination on the issue of nullification must precede the PARC’s review of the LUA. The renegotiation, renewal and extension of the contract hinges upon the determination by the DARAB of validity of the LUA. Thereafter, it will proceed to the PARCCOM for the necessary recommendation before it can be reviewed and later finally be approved or disapproved on the merits by the PARC.
- Section 4.14 of A.O. No. 09, Series of 2006 treats of a situation where renegotiated, renewed or extended contacts do not have pending issues filed in any court or any quasi-judicial body, in which event, the PARC may outrightly review and approve the same.
DAR OPINION NO. 22, s. 2009
November 18, 2009
LAND VALUATION; BASIS AND/OR FORMULA
What is the basis and/or formula of land valuation?
- The governing guidelines is Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992 which provides for the basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) and Compulsory Acquisition (CA) regardless of the date of offer or coverage of the claim.
September 13, 1996
When is the land valuation made?
- Land valuation is made after the DAR has identified the land, the landowners, the beneficiaries and has sent notice to acquire the land.
September 13, 1996
LAND VALUATION; DISTRIBUTION OF REGISTERED CLOA PENDING CASE FOR VALUATION
May the MARO proceed with the distribution of the registered CLOAs and physically install the FBs pending land valuation cases with the DARAB?
- Where there are land valuation cases pending at the DARAB or Special Agrarian Court in view of the refusal of the landowner to accept the value offered by the government or is likewise contesting the valuation of the land, the government through the MARO may proceed with the distribution of the registered CLOAs and physically install the farmer beneficiaries thereon upon deposit in cash or LBP bond of the land value offered. The issue of just compensation should not be a bar in the continuity of the coverage process since the landowner may still bring said issue before the DARAB for preliminary determination thereof and if not yet satisfied, the same may be brought before the Special Agrarian Court (SAC) concerned for final determination of just compensation (Sections 16 (f) and 57 of R.A. No. 6657).
- It must be noted however that although the final determination of the value of the land is a judicial function, the Land Bank valuation may be contested in the DARAB, and, unless the landowner or any party-in-interest files a case with the SAC within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the decision, the decision of the adjudicator/s shall become final and executory.
October 27, 1999
LANDLESS; DEFINED
How is landless defined under CARL?
- Under CARL, landless means one who owns less than 3 hectares of agricultural land.
August 23, 1994
LANDOWNERS RIGHT TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT UNDER THE CIVIL CODE
- The landowners relationship with the barangay-based association finds no legal anchor in the CARL but may be allowed based on the meeting of the minds/mutual consent of the parties.
- It is noteworthy to quote the pertinent provisions of the New Civil Code of the Philippines, to wit:
"Art. 1306. The contracting parties may establish such stipulations, clauses, terms and conditions as they may deem convenient, provided they are not contrary to law, morals, good customs, public order, or public policy.
Art. 1308. The contracts must bind both contracting parties, its validity or compliance cannot be left to the will of one of them." (underscoring ours)
- As landowner may enter into an agreement with the an association if it would result to their mutual benefit.
DAR OPINION NO. 02, s. 2007
January 19, 2007
LANDOWNERS RIGHT TO USE AND ENJOY HIS PROPERTY
When may landowners exercise their right to use and enjoy their properties?
- Any landowner is free to assume the cultivation of his land, directly or through the use of hired labor, after the court (DARAB) orders the ejectment of a tenant. This is in consonance with the right of the owner to use and enjoy his property.
October 29, 1997
LANDOWNERSHIP CEILING
May an FB own 5-hectare of agricultural land?
- Although Section 25 of RA 6657 requires that to be a beneficiary under CARL a person must be landless, there is no prohibition against the acquisition by the FB of an additional area to complete the 5-hectare landownership ceiling under Sec. 6 of CARL after the award to him of 3 hectares.
September 1, 2000
July 12, 1994
May a person, natural or juridical own more than 5 hectares of agricultural land?
- Under Sections 6 and 73 (a) of RA 6657, no person, natural or juridical, may own more than five hectares of agricultural lands. This means that a corporation may acquire only such area that would complete the five-hectare landownership ceiling allowed under CARL.
July 5, 1995
LANDOWNERSHIP CEILING OF FIVE (5) HECTARES; SALE OR DISPOSITION THEREOF
- Landowners of private agricultural lands, except those who have already been granted full retention under Presidential Decree No. 27, may exercise their right of retention granted under R.A. No. 6657. In no case, however, shall their total agricultural landholdings exceed five (5) hectares, the landownership ceiling prescribed under R.A. No. 6657.
- Pursuant to Section 70 of R.A. No. 6657, the sale or disposition of agricultural lands retained by a landowner as a consequence of Section 6 of said law shall be valid as long as the total landholdings that shall be owned by the transferee thereof inclusive of the land to be acquired shall not exceed the landholding ceilings provided for in R.A. No. 6657
December 14, 1999
LANDOWNERSHIP CEILING; THE WORD PERSON DEFINED
- Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988), as amended, provides that no person may own or retain any public or private agricultural land exceeding five (5) hectares.
- The word "person" in the aforementioned provision refers not only to natural persons but also juridical persons, such as a JVC. Hence, the JVC may only acquire agricultural land within the prescribed limits and apply for its conversion to non-agricultural uses, subject to existing guidelines on land use conversion.
DAR OPINION NO. 23, s. 2010
September 20, 2010
LANDOWNERSHIP CEILING; DISPOSITION THEREOF
May a landowner dispose of his property to third person?
- The disposition of agricultural land (assuming it is your retention) is valid as long as the total landholding that shall be owned by the transferee thereof inclusive of the land to be acquired shall not exceed the landholding ceiling provided in R.A. No. 6657. As far as DAR is concerned, where all the documentary requirements for Application for DAR Clearance are submitted to DAR and the land transaction is thereafter evaluated to be not in violation of the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 and its implementing guidelines, a DAR Clearance shall be issued which in effect clears the transfer as regular and valid.
December 14, 1999
LANDOWNERSHIP CEILING; LIMIT UNDER SECTION 6 OF RA No. 6657
Is the term "landholding ceilings" expressly provided under Section 70 refer to award to beneficiaries?
- Section 70 expressly covers the sale or disposition of retained areas, hence, the term "landholding ceilings" as used therein does not refer to award to beneficiaries but to the 5-hectare landownership limit under Section 6 of RA 6657.
July 13, 1994
LANDOWNERSHIP CEILING; LIMITATON PROVIDED BY LAW APPLICABLE TO CORPORATION
- Agrarian laws do not prohibit the creation of a corporation involving an agricultural land. However a corporation is bound by the limitation provided for by law (R.A. No.6657), that is, it cannot legally acquire more than five (5) hectares of agricultural land.
- Section 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657 states that it is prohibited to own and possess, for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Act of agricultural lands in excess of the total retention limits or award ceilings by any person, natural or judicial, except those under collective ownership by farmer-beneficiaries.
- So long as the purpose and productivity of an agricultural land shall be maintained, and no further change in the nature of its use, the change of the title of the property in the name of the corporation shall have no effect to CARP.
DAR OPINION NO. 37, s. 2006
December 22, 2006
LEASE CONTRACT ON PRIVATE LANDS; EXPIRATION PERIOD PURSUANT TO SECTION 11 OF EO 229
- While Section 72 (a) of R. A. No. 6657 explicitly provides that the lease on private lands may continue under their original terms and conditions until the expiration of the same even if such land has already been transferred to qualified farmer-beneficiaries, the same is not absolute as Section 11 of EO 229 provides a period of not exceeding five (5) years in which to continue with the terms and conditions. Applying these provisions to the instant, it appears that subject contract is already a long way beyond the 5-year period, in which case, the period to continue with the contract’s original terms and conditions has deemed expired.
DAR OPINION NO. 13, s. 2009
June 17, 2009
LEASE CONTRACT; MUST YIELD TO VALID EXERCISE OF POLICE POWER
- While we recognize the rights of AVINA and RISHI in their contract of lease over the landholdings now covered by CLOAs, and while we adhere to the constitutional guarantee of non-impairment of obligations of contracts as provided under Section 10, Article III of the 1987 Constitution, we submit that any contract validly executed, like in this case, the Lease Contract, though protected by the contract clause must also yield to valid exercise of police power. It is beyond question that R.A. No. 6657 is social justice legislation and likewise a police power measure (as it acquires agricultural lands for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries). Hence, whatever rational degree of constraint it exerts on freedom of contract and existing contractual obligations is constitutionally permissible. This is also pursuant to the settled rule underscored by the Supreme Court in a long line of decisions that the constitutional guarantee of non-impairment of obligations is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State (i.e., public welfare is superior to private rights) of which the implementation of R.A. No. 6657 is being undertaken in the exercise thereof.
Given the foregoing, we do not see any impediment in undertaking the installation of the farmer-beneficiaries named in the two (2) CLOAs (TCT-CLOA No. 12989 and 123047), provided that there are no other issues/problems involving the land covered by the aforesaid CLOAs.
DAR OPINION NO. 13, s. 2009
June 17, 2009
LEASE RENTAL; BASIS
- What is required by law as consideration for the lease of the land is only up to twenty-five percent (25%) or the equivalent of 1/4 of the average normal harvest during the three (3) agricultural years immediately preceding the date the leasehold was established after deducting the amount used for seeds and the cost of harvesting, threshing, loading, hauling and processing whichever is applicable. The only instance, however, that a landowner-lessor can demand for an increase in the fixed or agreed lease rental as provided under said Section 34 of R. A. No. 3844 is that when he introduced capital improvements on the farm. In such a case, the rental shall be increased proportionately to the resulting increase in production due to said improvements.
DAR OPINION NO. 19, s. 2008
July 17, 2008
LEASE RENTAL; LBP OR ANY BANKING INSTITUTIONS AUTHORIZED TO RECEIVE PROVISIONAL LEASE RENTALS
- The provision of Republic Act No. 3844 as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 2006, clearly state that the LBP or any duly authorized banking institution in the locality are authorized banking institutions to receive provisional lease rentals of the lessees in the event the landowner refuses to receive the same. Since the LBP of Tarlac City refused to receive the said provisional lease rentals due to the existence of their internal banking policy requiring the lessees to secure an authorization from or consent of the landowner before they can open an account in the name of the landowner, it is suggested that the lessees may tender their provisional lease rentals to any duly authorized banking institution in the locality where the property is located. However, this shall take effect only upon order of the PARAD and after due hearing. Moreover, this is the least reasonable way for the lessees to perform their obligations to pay the lease rentals to the agricultural lessor when it falls due, as explicitly provided in Section 26 (6) of Republic Act No. 3844.
DAR OPINION NO. 06, s. 2008
April 2, 2008
LEASE RENTAL; TREATED AS ADVANCE PAYMENT/AMORTIZATION
- Necessarily, the amount paid as lease rental shall be treated as advance payment/amortization and deducted from the total cost of the property.
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 2008
April 14, 2008
LEASE RENTAL: COMPUTATION
How is lease rental computed?
- Sec. 34 of RA 3844 (the Agricultural Land Reform Code) provides that the amount of lease rentals to be paid by the agricultural lessee shall not be more than the equivalent of twenty-five percent (25%) of the average normal harvest during the three (3) agricultural years immediately preceding the date the leasehold was established after deducting the amount used for seeds and the cost of harvesting, threshing, loading, hauling and processing, whichever is applicable. The computation of the lease rental shall include both the primary and secondary crops existing at the time of the establishment of the leasehold. We advise you to request our Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) to assist you and your tenant in the execution of your agricultural leasehold agreement.
August 15, 1994
What is the amount of consideration for the lease of an agricultural land?
- Under Section 34 thereof, that the consideration for the lease of an agricultural land shall not be more than the equivalent of 25% of the average normal harvest during the three (3) agricultural years immediately preceding the date the leasehold was established after deducting the amount used for seeds and the cost of harvesting, threshing, loading, hauling and processing, whichever are applicable. DAR Administrative Order No. 05, Series of 1993, provides appropriate rules and procedures for the proper implementation of this statutory mandate.
September 24, 1999
LEASE RENTAL; LANDOWNER MAY DEMAND INCREASE
Can a landowner demand for an increase in the fixed or agreed lease rental?
- R.A. No. 3844 or the Agricultural Land Reform Code provides that, a landowner (lessor) can demand for an increase in the fixed or agreed lease rental only if he introduced capital improvement on the farm. In such a case, the rental shall be increased proportionately to the resulting increase in production due to said improvement.
November 27, 2000
LEASE RENTAL; NON PAYMENT A GROUND FOR DISPOSSESSION
- The deliberate non-payment of lease rentals is one of the grounds provided in Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844 for the dispossession of a tenant. If the tenant deliberately failed to pay the rentals, he may be ejected from his farmlot on the basis of a court judgment that is final and executory. After said ejectment the landowner is free to choose a replacement if he so desires. However, if said non-payment is due to crop failure as a result of a fortuitous event, the same is not a ground for dispossession, although the obligation to pay is not extinguished.
DAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 2009
June 29, 2009
LEASE RENTAL: NON-PAYMENT A GROUND FOR DISPOSSESSION
Is the deliberate non-payment of lease rentals considered a ground for the dispossession of a tenant?
- The deliberate non-payment of lease rentals is one of the grounds provided in Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844 for the dispossession of a tenant. If the tenant deliberately failed to pay the rentals, he may be ejected from his farmlot on the basis of a court judgment that is final and executory. After said ejectment the landowner is free to choose a replacement, if he so desires. However, if said non-payment is due to crop failure as a result of a fortuitous event, the same is not a ground for dispossession, although the obligation to pay is not extinguished.
October 25, 1994
LEASE RENTAL: NON-PAYMENT
Whether or not non-payment by the tenant of lease rentals to the landowner will disqualify him from being a CLT holder.
- Non-payment by the tenant of lease rentals to the landowner will not necessarily disqualify him from being a CLT holder of the farmlot under his cultivation. This is so because non-payment of rentals can be a ground for the tenant's ejectment from the landholding only if there is a judgment by the court which is final and executory finding that said non-payment is deliberate and not due to crop failure by reason of force majeure. This presupposes that there must first be a case filed for non-payment of lease rentals and a finding that the tenant was deliberately remiss. Only after the tenant has been declared by the court as remiss will be disqualified from being a CLT recipient. However, once a property is identified as falling under Operation Land Transfer (OLT) coverage pursuant to PD 27, the disqualification of the tenant will not affect said OLT coverage. The property will be reallocated to a deserving farmer-beneficiary.
September 21, 1994
LEASE RENTAL; PAGHAHAWAK NG LUPA; MGA KATALIWASAN
Is failure to pay lease rental a ground to dispossessed a tenant from the land he is tilling?
- Section 36 (5) ng R.A. No. 3844, as amended ay nagsasaad na ang hindi pagbabayad ng buwis sa kaukulang araw nito ay maaaring dahilan ng pagpapaalis ng magsasaka kung ang pagpapaalis sa kanya ay ipinahintulot ng Hukuman sa isang hatol na pangwakas makaraan ang kaukulang paglilitis. Subalit, kung ang di pagbabayad ng buwis ay dahil sa pagkasira ng ani na umaabot sa pitumpu't limang porsiyento, bunga ng isang pangyayaring di maiiwasan, ang di pagbabayad ay di magiging matwid sa pagpapaalis, bagaman ang pananagutang magbayad ng buwis ukol sa aning iyon ay di nawawala sa gayon.
November 8, 2000
LEASE RENTAL: PAYMENT BY AGRICULTURAL LESSEES
How much lease rental should the lessees pay?
- The lease rental to be paid by all the agricultural lessees shall not be more than the equivalent of 25% of the average normal harvest during the three (3) agricultural years immediately preceding the following dates:
1. Sept. 10, 1971 – the date of effectivity of R.A. No. 6389 for tenanted rice and corn lands;
2. Date of leasehold agreement by the parties concerned or June 15, 1988, whichever is sooner for all other agricultural lands after deducting the amount used for seeds and the cost of harvesting, threshing, loading, hauling and processing whichever is applicable.
- It is clear from the foregoing that your tenant is no longer allowed under the law to share with you the produce of the land but instead to pay you lease rentals for he is considered now as an agricultural lessee and you as the lessor/owner of the subject property.
May 7, 1997
LEASE RENTAL: PAYMENT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE LESSEE
May payment of lease rental be dispensed with?
- Once the lease rental is established, payment thereof is incumbent upon the lessee regardless of the produce, hence, the landowner need not be made a party to the milling contract nor in the issuance of quedans and warehouse receipts.
February 16, 1994
LEASE RENTAL; PAYMENTS: SUBSTANTIATED BY PROOF OR EVIDENCE
May lease rental payments made by tenants of lands under P.D. No. 27 be considered as land amortization due to the landowner?
- Lease rental payments made by tenants of lands under P.D. No. 27 to be considered as land amortizations due to the landowner must be substantiated by proof or evidence of such payments and the same must be confirmed by the landowner.
March 3, 1997
LEASE RENTAL; UNDER THE LEASEHOLD SYSTEM
How much lease rental should the lessees pay?
- Under the leasehold system, the lease rental to be paid by the lessee is predetermined and fixed on the basis of the average normal harvest. Once fixed, it constitutes the consideration for the use of the land, and the lessee is under obligation to pay the same even in case of crop failure to the extent of seventy-five percent (75%) as a result of fortuitous event.
February 16, 1994
LEASE RENTAL; WHEN LANDOWNER REFUSES TO ACCEPT
Is the lessee required to deliver to the owner the consideration of the lease in case the Provisional Lease Rental (PLR) is pending with the PARAD/RARAD for approval?
- While the PLR is pending with the PARAD or RARAD for approval, same shall already, and continue to, be in force. In other words, the tenants-lessees are required to deliver to the owner the consideration of the lease, as fixed by the MARO, in compliance with the tenants' obligation to pay the lease rental when it falls due. In case the owner refuses to accept it, the tenants-lessees may deposit the same with the proper PARAD or RARAD.
September 24, 1999
LEASE RENTALS/AMORTIZATION PAYMENTS; WHEN MAY BE WITHDRAWN
- DAR Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 1997 allows the withdrawal of farmer beneficiaries lease rentals/amortization payments deposited with the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) for lands covered by areas retained by landowners. However, the lease rental or amortization payment may be withdrawn only upon favorable endorsement by the concerned DAR Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO).
DAR OPINION NO. 11, s. 2005
March 10, 2005
- Section 5.4 of DAR Administrative Order No. 06, series of 2003 provides:
"The lease rental for coconut lands shall not be more than twenty-five percent (25%) of the average normal harvest for a specific area for the preceding three (3) calendar years less the value of production cost."
DAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 2005
April 18, 2005
LEASE; ADDITIONAL LAND THROUGH AVA
- It could be inferred that a company under Stock Distribution Option (SDO) may enter into lease agreement of additional land through AVA whether such land is a retention area, or land covered with EP or CLOA subject to the conditions and procedural requirements set forth under the above quoted guideline. Likewise such proposals necessitate approval by PARC.
DAR OPINION NO. 24, s. 2010
September 30, 2010
LEASE; FIXING OF LEASE RENTALS
Which has the authority to determine and fix lease rentals?
- Pursuant to Section 12 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Law), the DAR is mandated to determine and fix lease rentals in accordance with Section 34 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended. Relative thereto, DAR Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1993 provides for the guidelines governing agricultural leasehold and the determination of lease rental for tenanted lands, the pertinent provisions of which are as follows:
a) Item III.D
The lease rental to be paid by all agricultural lessees shall not be more than the equivalent of twenty-five percent (25%) of the average normal harvest during the three (3) agricultural years immediately preceding 15 June 1988 (i.e., effectivity of R.A. No. 6657), after deducting the amount used for seeds and the cost of harvesting, threshing, loading, hauling and processing, whichever is applicable.
b) Item III.F
The lease rental shall cover the whole farmholding attended to by the lessee and that the computation shall include both primary and secondary crops existing as of 15 June 1988. Secondary crops which are planted to an aggregate area of half a hectare or less shall not be included in the computation of the lease rental. (underscoring supplied)
c) Item III.G.
Where the rental has been fixed, whether in cash or in kind, such rental shall constitute the consideration for the use of the land and the lessee may diversify and/or plant secondary crops, provided that all the expenses are shouldered by him/her. (underscoring supplied)
- Item III.G connotes that the lessee may not be compelled to pay additional rent for the secondary crops raised by him/her after the execution of the contract, provided all the expenses are shouldered by him/her.
October 23, 2000
LEASE; LAND SUBJECT OF CONVERSION ORDER
- Agricultural lands which are the subject of a Conversion Order duly issued by the DAR, may be eligible for lease. If the JVC is able to own converted lands, it may enter into a contract of lease with any person not disqualified under existing laws. The JVC shall, however, be held responsible for complying with the Conversion Order provided for in Section 51 of the 2002 Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion.
DAR OPINION NO. 23, s. 2010
September 20, 2010
LEASE; LEGALITY TO ENTER INTO ANY CONTRACT WITH THE AWARDEE OF LAND
May the DOTC legally enter into any contract with the awardee without the approval or intervention of the DAR?
- The DOTC cannot legally enter into any contract with the awardee without the approval or intervention of the DAR. The intercession of DAR is required obviously to safeguard the rights of farmer-beneficiaries affected, without which they may be entering into a contract which might be grossly prejudicial to them. To obviate such possibility and to place farmer-beneficiaries on equal footing, intervention of DAR is imperative and necessary.
January 9, 1998
LEASE; MAXIMUM PERIOD FOR THE INITIAL CONTRACT
What is the maximum period for the initial contract of agricultural land lease?
- The maximum period for the initial contract is 50 years, with a maximum renewal period of 25 years. This means that the initial lease contract cannot cover a period exceeding 50 years.
August 1, 1996
LEASE; OBLIGATIONS, SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTES
Can an agricultural lessor close the drainage system of the land?
- Section 30 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, provides that the agricultural-lessor has the obligation to keep intact such permanent useful improvements existing on the land at the start of the leasehold relation such as irrigation and drainage systems. Thus, the agricultural lessor may be held liable if he purposely closes the drainage system of the land to the detriment of the crops planted therein. In all cases, the agricultural-lessor shall respect the peaceful possession and cultivation of his tenant-lessee. Significantly, should the agricultural lessor fail to respect the peaceful possession and cultivation of his tenant-lessee, the latter may seek the assistance of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) and the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) concerned to jointly conduct mediation conference between the landowner and the tenant for the purpose of threshing out any differences between them. If no agreement is reached, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) may assume jurisdiction over the matter. Again, if they fail to resolve the conflict on that level, the aggrieved party may file a case with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB).
September 29, 2000
LEASEHOLD CONTRACT; DETERMINATION AND CONSIDERATION FOR THE LEASE; CONTINUITY OF CONDITIONS
- Ayon sa Seksiyon 12 ng R.A.No.6657 (CARL), inatasan ang DAR na kagyat na tiyakin at itakda ang halaga ng pamumuwisan doon alinsunod sa Seksiyon 34 ng B.R. Blg. 3844, ayon sa pagkakasusog. Ang porsiyento/bahagdan na 75-25 na itinakda ayon sa nabanggit na probisyon ay di hihigit sa katumbas ng dalawampu't limang porsiyento, pabor sa namumuwisan. Ito ay naayon sa puntong mas malaki ang kontribusyon lamang ng nagpapabuwis ay ang kanyang lupa. Samakatuwid, ang pamumuwisan ay magpapatuloy hanggang sa baguhin ito ng magkabilang panig alinsunod sa Seksiyon 16 sa nabanggit na batas at habang naka-apela ang nasabing isyu ng exemption.
DAR OPINION NO. 34, s. 2006
November 16, 2006
LEASEHOLD CONTRACT: EFFECT OF DEATH OF THE AGRICULTURAL LESSEE ON THE AGRICULTURAL LAND
Is leasehold contracts extinguished by the death or permanent incapacity of the lessor and lessee?
- The law clearly provides that the leasehold relation between the agricultural lessor and the agricultural lessee is not extinguished by the death or permanent incapacity of the parties and mandates that the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen in accordance with the provisions of Section 9 (par. 1) of R.A. No. 3844. However, Section 8(3) of the Code provides that the absence of the persons under Section 9 to succeed to the lessee in the event of death or permanent incapacity shall extinguish the agricultural leasehold relation.
March 16, 1994
LEASEHOLD CONTRACT; PARTIES MAY FREELY ENTER INTO ANY KIND OF TERMS: CONDITIONS OR STIPULATIONS
Are the agricultural lessor and the agricultural lessee be free to enter into any kinds of terms, conditions or stipulations?
- Sec. 15 of RA 3844 expressly provides that the agricultural lessor & agricultural lessee shall be free to enter into any kinds of terms, conditions or stipulations in a leasehold contract, as long as they are not contrary to law, morals or public policy. While the parties are given wide latitude to freely enter into contracts, the same is subordinated by the limitations provided by law.
- Strictly speaking, a leasehold contract entered into between the agricultural lessor and agricultural lessee is only limited to a specific area as stated in a leasehold contract. It cannot encroach or extend to other landholdings even if owned by the same landowner.
- A tenant is not at liberty for his personal gain or benefit without the latter's consent as he is bound by the leasehold contract limiting his right of cultivation to a specific area designated.
December 13, 1996
LEASEHOLD RELATIONSHIP; REQUISITES
- In a string of jurisprudence, the Supreme Court held that there is a landlord-tenant relationship when the following requisites concur: that the parties are the landlord and the tenant; that the subject is an agricultural land; that there is consent by the landowner for tenant to work on the land given either orally or in writing, expressly or impliedly; that the purpose is agricultural production; and that there is compensation in terms of payment of a fixed amount in money and/or produce.
DAR OPINION NO. 02, s. 2007
January 19, 2007
LEASEHOLD RENTAL, NOT MORE THAN 25%
What is the consideration for the lease of a riceland?
- Section 4 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended provides in part: "Agricultural share tenancy, as herein defined, is hereby declared to be contrary to public policy and shall be abolished ….." Section 5 of the same law further provides: "The agricultural leasehold relation shall be established by operation of law in accordance with Section four of this Code." Pursuant to the aforequoted provisions of law, agricultural share tenancy has been abolished, and, in its stead, agricultural leasehold relation has been established. Thus, a landowner shall now receive leasehold rental for the use of his land rather than his share on the harvest.
- Under Section 34 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, the consideration for the lease of riceland shall not be more than the equivalent of twenty-five per centum of the average normal harvest during the three agricultural years immediately preceding the date the leasehold was established, after deducting the amount used for seeds and the cost of harvesting, threshing, loading, hauling and processing, which ever are applicable.
November 15, 2000
LEASEHOLD RENTALS; DETERMINATION OF LEASE RENTALS
- Item III.D of DAR Administrative Order NO. 05, series of 1993 (Rules and Procedures Governing Agricultural Leasehold and the Determination of Lease Rental for Tenanted Lands) provides, quote:
"The lease rental to be paid by all agricultural lessees shall not be more than the equivalent of twenty-five percent (25%) of the average normal harvest during the three (3) agricultural years immediately preceding 15 June 1988, after deducting the amount used for seeds and the cost of harvesting, threshing, loading and processing, whichever is applicable."
DAR OPINION NO. 19, s. 2002
June 7, 2002
LEASEHOLD RENTALS; DETERMINATION OF LEASE RENTALS
How is lease rental determined?
- Ayon po sa Seksyon 12 ng B.R. Blg. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) at Seksyon 34 ng B.R. Blg. 3844, upang mapangalagaan at mapabuti ang kalagayan ng pagmamay-ari at pangkabuhayan ng mga magsasaka sa mga lupaing may kasama sa ilalim ng retensyong limit at mga lupang hindi pa natatamo alinsunod sa batas na ito, inatasan ang DAR na kagyat na tiyakin at itakda ang halaga ng pamumuwisan at ang dapat na upa ng isang nananakahan ay hindi dapat humigit sa katumbas ng dalawampu't limang porsiyento (25%) ng katamtamang karaniwang ani sa loob ng tatlong (3) taong pansakahan na kagyat na nauuna sa Hunyo 15, 1988 (noong pinagtibay ang B.R. Blg. 6657), matapos maawas ang halagang ginamit sa mga binhi at ang ginastos sa pag-aani, paggiik, pagkakarga, paghahakot at pagpoproseso, kung alinman ang magagamit. At kung sakaling tumanggi o walang tinanggap na tugon mula sa may-ari sa nasabing bahaginan, maaari kayong dumulog sa MARO o Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer kasama ang BARC Chairman sa inyong lugar upang itakda ang dapat na upa na naaayon sa nasabing mga batas at Kautusang Pampangasiwaan Blg. 5, Serye 1993.
October 28, 1999
How much lease rental should the lessees pay?
- Section 12 of CARL mandates the DAR to determine and fix immediately the lease rentals in tenanted lands under retention and those not yet acquired under CARL in accordance with Section 34 of R.A. 3844 as amended. Pursuant to said provision, DAR Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1993 was issued, providing the guidelines for the execution of agricultural leasehold agreements. However, as tenancy relationship may be express or implied, the refusal of any party to sign a leasehold contract shall not affect the tenants status as a lessee.
July 2, 1996
July 15, 1996
- Sections 12 and 76 of R.A. No. 6657 mandated the DAR to determine and fix immediately the lease rentals in accordance with Section 34 of R.A. No. 3844. And with the repeal of Section 35 of R.A. No. 3844, all tenanted agricultural lands (coconut lands, among others, included) are now subject to leasehold. DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1991, as amended by Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1993, prescribes the rules and procedures on leasehold operations in tenanted coconut lands.
September 8, 1999
LEASEHOLD SYSTEM; CONVERSION OF THE SHARING SYSTEM INTO THE LEASEHOLD SYSTEM
- The proviso as to the functions of the National Land Reform Council (NLRC) ceased to subsist with the advent of Presidential Decree No. 2 (Proclaiming the Entire Country a Land Reform Area) issued in September 26, 1972 and PD 27 (Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants from the Bondage of the Soil Transferring to Them the Ownership of the Land They Till and Providing the Instruments and Mechanism Thereof) issued on October 21, 1972. According to Justice Milagros German’s book on Share and Leasehold Tenancy, the former Presidential Decree provided for the compulsory conversion of the sharing system into the leasehold system in rice and corn lands. Proclamations by the NLRC had also been rendered obsolete. Corollary, the latter P.D. abolished the existence of the council.
DAR OPINION NO. 05, s. 2009
March 24, 2009
LEASEHOLD; 3-HECTARE LIMIT DOES NOT APPLY; SUBLEASING PROHIBITED
- There is no specific provision limiting the area that a lessee may cultivate. While it is true that RA 6657 only speaks of the three (3) hectare-limit with respect to the award that may be given to the ARB, this ceiling does not apply under the leasehold system. On the other hand, the act of a tenant in letting another person till his farmholding would be tantamount to subleasing. Section 27 of RA 3844 prohibits the agricultural lessee to employ a sub-lessee on his landholding except in case of illness or temporary incapacity where he may employ laborers whose services on his landholding shall be on his account.
DAR OPINION NO. 19, s. 2008
July 17, 2008
LEASEHOLD; ABOLITION OF AGRICULTURAL SHARING SYSTEM
Is agricultural share tenancy still operative under R.A. No. 3844?
- Ang "agricultural sharing system" ay ipinawalang bisa ng Batas Republika Bilang 3844, na sinususugan ng Batas Republika Blg. 6389 na nagkabisa noong ika-10 ng Setyembre 1971. Sa pamamagitan ng nasabing batas, ang lahat ng "agricultural share tenancy" ay magiging agricultural leasehold na. Ang Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1993 (Rules and Procedures Governing Agricultural Leasehold and the Determination of Lease Rental for Tenanted Lands) ay nagsasaad ng mga sumusunod:
"I. Prefatory Statement
xxx xxx xxx
By virtue of R.A. No. 3844 which took effect on 8 August 1963, agricultural share tenancy was declared to be contrary to public policy and was, thereby, abolished. This was further strengthened in Section 4 of R.A. No. 6389 which provided that agricultural share tenancy throughout the country shall be automatically converted to agricultural leasehold.
November 10, 1998
LEASEHOLD; AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD RELATION IS EXTINGUISHED UPON TRANSFER OF RIGHT BY THE LESSEE FATHER TO HIS SON/MEMBER OF IMMEDIATE FARM HOUSEHOLD TENANCY; PERSONAL CULTIVATION AS REQUIREMENT
- Section 23 of Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code) provides, quote:
"Sec. 23. Rights of Agricultural Lessee in General — It shall be the right of the agricultural lessee:
(1) To have possession and peaceful enjoyment of the land;
(2) To manage and work on the land in a manner and method of cultivation and harvest which conform to proven farm practices;
(3) To mechanize all or any phase of his farm work; and
(4) To deal with millers and processors and attend to the issuance of quedans and warehouse receipts for the produce due him."
- That one of the conditions for a tenancy relationship to exist is that, there is personal cultivation or with the help of the immediate farm household. There is personal cultivation if the tenant cultivates the land himself or with the aid of his immediate farm household. Immediate farm household refers to the members of the family of the lessee and other persons who are dependent upon him for support and who usually help him in the farm activities, and he may continue to work as tenant if the conditions laid down under Sec. 9 of R.A. No. 3844 are complied.
- Leasehold is not extinguished with the transfer of legal ownership of the land from one landowner to another. Section 10 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, provides that the purchaser or transferee shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor.
DAR OPINION NO. 11, s. 2007
February 13, 2007
LEASEHOLD; AGRICULTURAL LESSEE'S RIGHT TO A HOMELOT
Is an agricultural lessee entitled to a homelot?
- Section 24 of R.A. No. 3844 expressly provides that "the agricultural lessee shall have the right to continue in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of any homelot he may have occupied upon the effectivity of this Code, which shall be considered as included in the leasehold." A homelot is an integral part of the farm and an indispensable factor in farm operations used by a lessee as the site of his permanent dwelling including the area utilized for raising vegetables, poultry, pigs and other animals and engaging in minor industries which area may not exceed 1,000 square meters. The tenant, including her children, are legally entitled thereto and they cannot be ejected therefrom except for cause as provided for by law.
February 9, 1999
LEASEHOLD; AMOUNT OF LEASE RENTAL; BASES THEREOF
What is the basis of computing the amount of lease rental?
- Isinasaad sa Seksiyon 12 ng Batas Republika Blg. 6657 na upang mapangalagaan at mapabuti ang kalagayang pagmamay-ari at pangkabuhayan ng mga magsasaka sa mga lupaing may kasama, inaatasan ang DAR na kagyat ng tiyakin at itakda ang halaga na pamumuwisan alinsunod sa Seksiyon 34 ng B.R. Blg. 3844. Gayundin, alinsunod sa Kautusang Pampangasiwaan Blg. 5, Serye 1993 (Administrative Order No. 5, Series 1993), (Mga Alintuntunin At Pamamaraang Namamahala Sa Buwisang Pansakahan At Ang Pagtatakda Ng Upa Sa Buwisan Para Sa Mga Lupaing May Kasama), ang halaga ng buwisan na babayaran ng lahat ng mga namumuwisan ay hindi dapat humigit sa katumbas ng dalawampu't-limang porsiyento (25%) ng katamtamang karaniwang ani sa loob ng tatlong (3) taong pansakahan, matapos maawas ang halagang ginamit at ginastos sa pag-aani, paggiik, pagkakarga, paghahakot at pagpoproseso. Sang-ayon din sa nabanggit na kautusan, tungkulin ng Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) sa tulong ng Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) ang magtakda ng upa sa buwisan sa isang komperensiya kaharap ang may-ari at ang magsasaka at kung sakaling hindi magkasundo ang may-ari ng lupa at namumuwisan sa nabanggit na upa sa buwisan, itatakda ng MARO ang pansamantalang upa sa buwisan na kung saan ito ay isusumite sa Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) upang muling pag-aralan bago magpalabas ng kautusan na nagtatakda ng upa sa buwisan.
March 4, 1999
LEASEHOLD; BENEFICIARIES OF LAND COVERED BY P.D. 27
Can immediate family members qualify as beneficiaries?
- Ayon sa Presidential Decree No. 27, ang kapatid ay maaaring maging benepisaryo ng lupang kanyang sinasaka, subalit kung ang palayan ay nasasakop ng "retained area" ng nagmamay-ari ng palayan ay nararapat lamang na magtatag ng "leasehold agreement" para mapangalagaan at mapaunlad ang kabuhayan ng magsasaka. Ang ugnayan ng magsasaka at ang may-ari ng lupa ay nararapat na naaayon sa nabanggit na alituntunin.
Nov. 10, 1998
LEASEHOLD; CAUSES AND CONDITIONS FOR DISPOSSESSION OF AGRICULTURAL LESSEE
Is failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions of the contract a ground for dispossession of agricultural lessee?
- Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844 (par. 2) expressly provides that one of the causes for dispossession of agricultural lessee is that he/she failed to substantially comply with any of the terms and conditions of the contract or any of the provisions of said law unless his failure is caused by fortuitous event or force majeure. This presupposes, however, that the dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory and after due hearing. Moreover, Section 37 of the aforementioned law likewise provides that the burden of proof to show the existence of a lawful cause for the ejectment of an agricultural lessee shall rest upon the agricultural lessor. Ejectment of a tenant without authorization by a Court constitutes unauthorized dispossession punishable by law (Section 31, R.A. No. 3844, as amended).
February 9, 1999
LEASEHOLD; COCONUT PLANTATION
What law governs the leasehold of coconut plantation?
- Section 35 of R.A. No. 3844 (Code of Agrarian Reforms, as amended by R.A. 6389) expressly provides that a coconut plantation is exempt from leasehold wherein the consideration, as well as the tenancy system prevailing, shall be governed by the provisions of R.A. No. 1199, as amended. Under Section 41 of R.A. No. 1199 (the Agricultural Tenancy Act of the Philippines), the landholder and the tenants on lands which produce crops other than rice shall be free to enter into any contract stipulating the ratio of crop division. In the absence of a stipulation, the custom of the place shall govern.
- The foregoing provisions were however already expressly repealed by Section 76 of R.A. No. 6657. Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657 now categorically provides, quote: "The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produce, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and E.O. No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture". Accordingly, a coconut plantation is covered by CARP.
February 4, 1998
LEASEHOLD; CONDITIONS TO ESTABLISH TENANCY RELATIONSHIP
- To establish tenancy relationship, the following conditions must be present: 1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; 2) the subject is agricultural land; 3) there is consent by the landowner for tenant to work on the land, given either orally or in writing, expressly or impliedly; 4) the purpose is agricultural production; 5) there is personal cultivation or with the help of the immediate household; 6) there is compensation in terms of payment of a fixed amount in money and/or produce. All the conditions set forth must be present and absence of any of said conditions would defeat the purpose and essence of tenancy relationship.
DAR OPINION NO. 21, s. 2008
August 21, 2008
LEASEHOLD; CONSENT OF AGRICULTURAL LESSOR NEEDED IN INSTALLING OTHER TENANTS; MEANING OF PERSONAL CULTIVATION
- The said heir cannot install another person to occupy and cultivate the same without the consent of the owner. As mentioned above, the consent of the true and lawful lessor who could be the owner is required.
- In agrarian reform, there is personal cultivation where a person, in order to be considered a tenant, must himself and with the aid available from his immediate farm household cultivate the land. Therefore, the said heir who hire others whom he pays for doing the cultivation of the land does not satisfy the meaning of personal cultivation.
DAR OPINION NO. 05, s. 2007
February 7, 2007
LEASEHOLD; CONSIDERATION OF LEASE RENTAL
What is the consideration for the lease of riceland and lands devoted to other crops?
- Section 34 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended by Section 5 of R.A. 6389, provides that the consideration for the lease of riceland and lands devoted to other crops shall not be more than the equivalent of twenty-five per centum of the average normal harvest or if there have been no normal harvests, then the estimated normal harvest during the three agricultural years immediately preceding the date the leasehold was established after deducting the amount used for seeds and the cost of harvesting threshing, loading, hauling and processing which ever are applicable.
July 15, 1996
What is the consideration for the lease of riceland and lands devoted to other crops?
- The consideration for the lease of riceland and lands devoted to other crops shall not be more than the equivalent of twenty-five per centum of the average normal harvest or if there have been no normal harvest, then the estimated normal harvest during the three agricultural years preceding the date the leasehold was established after deducting the amount used for seeds and the cost of harvesting, threshing,, loading, hauling and processing, whichever are applicable.
- If capital improvements are introduced on the farm not by the lessee to increase its productivity, the rental shall be increased proportionately to the consequent increase in production due to said improvements. In case of disagreement, the court shall determine the reasonable increase in rental.
Undated
LEASEHOLD; DEATH OF THE AGRICULTURAL LESSEE; ORDER OF PREFERENCE
Is the agricultural leasehold relation extinguished by the death or permanent incapacity of any of the parties?
- Under Section 9 of RA 3844, as amended (the Agrarian Reform Code), in case of death of the agricultural lessee the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor within one month from such death or permanent incapacity, from among the following: a) the surviving spouse; b) the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; c) the next eldest descendant or descendants in the order of their ages. In case the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his choice within the period stated, the priority shall be in accordance with the order established.
August 26, 1994
LEASEHOLD; DEDUCTIBLE ITEMS
- It is crystal clear that only those enumerated under Section 34 of R.A. No. 3844, as implemented by Section III (10) of A.O. No. 2, Series of 2006 are allowed as deductible items. Since the enumeration as deductible items are exclusive in character, no other item can be claimed or considered as deductible item. Accordingly, the cost of fertilizer should not be considered a deductible item in the computation of lease rental.
DAR OPINION NO. 01, s. 2009
January 28, 2009
LEASEHOLD; DEDUCTIBLE ITEMS ON LEASE RENTALS
What are the deductible items for computation of lease rentals?
- Based on the aforecited provisions of Sec. 32 in conjunction with Section 34 of R.A. No. 3844, it is crystal clear that only those enumerated under Section 34 of said Act are allowed as deductible items, namely, the cost of harvesting, threshing, loading, hauling and processing. Since the enumeration as deductible items under Republic Act No. 3844 are exclusive in character, no other item can be claimed or considered as deductible item. Accordingly, the cost of irrigation should not be considered a deductible item in the computation of lease rental.
March 04, 1998
LEASEHOLD; EFFECT OF FORTUITOUS EVENT OR FORCE MAJEURE
- Under the leasehold system, the lease rental to be paid by the lessee is predetermined and fixed on the basis of the average normal harvest. Once fixed, it constitutes the consideration for the use of the land, and the lessee is under obligation to pay the same even in case of crop failure to the extent of 75% as a result of fortuitous event.
- In case the tenant-lessee suffers crop failure due to a fortuitous event or force majeure, the parties need not enter into another contract. The lessee may defer payment of the lease rental due for agricultural year affected by a fortuitous event or force majeure causing crop failure to the extent of 75%. The lease rental shall be paid on a staggered basis subject to the agreement of both parties. Normally, such rental is paid in installments every harvest time beginning the next agricultural year and to continue until the lessee is fully paid.
DAR OPINION NO. 17, s. 2007
March 30, 2007
LEASEHOLD; EVOLUTION OF THE LAW ON LEASEHOLD
- In the prefatory statement of DAR Administrative Order No. 06, Series of 2003 (Rules and Procedures Governing Leasehold Implementation on Tenanted Agricultural Land), it is stated that:
"The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) or R.A. No. 6657, which took effect on 15 June 1988, expressly repealed Section 35 of R.A. No. 3844. The significant implications of this evolution of the law are as follows:
The abolition of share tenancy now covers all agricultural landholdings without exceptions;
Leasehold tenancy is no longer just an option which exists by operation of law; and
Agricultural leasehold can be a preliminary step to land ownership. Hence, all share-crop tenants were automatically converted into agricultural lessees as of 15 June 1988, whether or not a leasehold agreement had been executed."
Thus, since share tenancy is already abolished having been declared as contrary to public policy under Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code), your tenants are now therefore agricultural lessees.
DAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 2005
April 18, 2005
LEASEHOLD; EXTINGUISHMENT OF LEASEHOLD RELATION
Is agricultural leasehold relation extinguished by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of a landholding?
- Ang ugnayan ng magsasaka at dating may-ari ng lupa ay hindi natatapos kung sakaling ito ay maibenta sa iba at sa halip ay nalilipat lang ang karapatan at obligasyon sa nakabili ayon sa Seksyon 10 ng B.R. Blg. 3844. Kung ito ang sinasaad ng batas ay lalo nang walang karapatan ang taong hindi pa nabibili ang lupa na alisan ng karapatang magsaka ang dati nang nagsasaka rito.
October 28, 1999
LEASEHOLD; FIXING OF PROVISIONAL RENTALS
How is provisional lease rentals in coconut lands are computed?
- Administrative Order No. 4 prescribes the fixing of provisional lease rentals in coconut lands at 75% - 25% with 75% as the share of the agricultural lessees and the remaining 25% as the share of the landowner from the produce of the land.
December 13, 1996
How much lease rental should the lessee pay?
- DAR A.O. 5, Series of 1993 provides the guidelines for implementing the DAR mandate under Section 12 of RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL) to determine and fix immediately the lease rentals in lands under leasehold in accordance with Section 34 of RA 3844, as amended. Said Section 34 provides that the consideration for the lease of riceland and lands devoted to other crops shall not be more than the equivalent of 25% of the average normal harvest during the three agricultural years immediately preceding the date the leasehold was established after deducting the applicable deductible items. In coconut land, the deductible items are enumerated in paragraph VI-B2 of DAR Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1993.
October 27, 1994
LEASEHOLD; LEASEHOLD RELATION WHEN EXTINGUISHED
When may agricultural leasehold relation be extinguished?
- The agricultural leasehold relation is not extinguished by the death or permanent incapacity of the parties and mandates that the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen in accordance with the provisions of Section 9, R.A. No. 3844. Otherwise stated, it is only in the absence of the persons enumerated under Section 9 to succeed the deceased lessee that the agricultural leasehold relation could be extinguished. The son of the deceased tenant-spouses can succeed to the tenancy, provided there is no other direct descendant more qualified to succeed, in accordance with the order of priority mentioned in said Section 9 of R.A. No. 3844.
April 8, 1998
January 2, 1998
LEASEHOLD; LESSEES RIGHT OF PRE-EMPTION/RIGHT OF FIRST REFUSAL
- A tenant must be given the first priority in buying the land he tills. However, it should be stressed that the said right may only be availed of by bona fide tenants. In the case of Castillo v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 161959, February 2, 2007, a bona fide tenant is defined as a person cultivating the land himself and with the aid available from his immediate farm household. Therefore, for a farmer to be given the right of first refusal, he must show proof that he has been cultivating the land personally or with the aid of his immediate family members under a tenancy relationship.
DAR OPINION NO. 08, s. 2008
April 14, 2008
LEASEHOLD; NO RENTAL ON THE SECOND CROP
Can a landowner claim leasehold rentals on the second crop?
- The answer is in the negative. After the rental has been fixed, such rental shall serve as payment for the use of the land. And the lessee may diversify and/or plant secondary crops without paying additional rent provided that all the expenses are shouldered by him/her.
LEASEHOLD; NOT EXTINGUISHED BY DEATH, INCAPACITY OR EXPIRATION OF THE TERM
Is the agricultural leasehold relation extinguished by the death or incapacity of parties?
- 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.
February 9, 1999
Is leasehold relaltionship extinguished by the death of a lessor?
- The obligation of the legal heirs toward their tenants is not affected by the death of their parents (agricultural lessors) since such relationship continues to remain despite their death. This is evident under Section 9 of R.A. No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code) which provides that "in case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessor, the leasehold shall bind his legal heirs." Thus, the legal heirs shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of their late parents (agricultural lessors).
February 9, 1999
When may leasehold relations be terminated?
- The tenant is entitled to security of tenure on the farmlot and may not be ejected therefrom except upon final order of the court. However, under Sec. 28 (5) of RA 3844, as amended, the leasehold relations may be terminated if the tenant voluntarily surrenders the farmlot "due to circumstances more advantageous to him and his family".
August 24, 1994
LEASEHOLD; NOT EXTINGUISHED BY DEATH, INCAPACITY OR EXPIRATION OF THE TERM; ORDER OF PRIORITY OF SUCCESSORS/ORDER OF PREFERENCE
- The law accords the landholder the right to initially choose his tenant to work on his land. Section 9, R.A. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code) provides:
"Section 9. Agricultural Leasehold Relation Not Extinguished by Death or Incapacity of the Parties. — In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his landholding, the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by the agricultural lessor within one month from such death or permanent incapacity, from among the following: (a) the surviving spouse; (b) the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; or (c) the next eldest descendant or descendants in the order, of their age: . . ."
- It could be inferred that tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the person who furnished the landholding, either as owner, civil lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor. Even assuming that there was such a sale of tenancy rights, the same cannot bind the owner since no consent either by word or action was given by the owner.
DAR OPINION NO. 05, s. 2007
February 7, 2007
LEASEHOLD; NOTIFICATION BEFORE HARVESTING NOT NECESSARY
- Once the rental is fixed, whether in cash or in kind, reduced into writing and affirmed by the PARO concerned, such agreed rental shall be paid by the lessee when it falls due without need for the latter to notify the lessor for the harvesting or threshing.
DAR OPINION NO. 08, s. 2009
March 24, 2009
LEASEHOLD; OBLIGATION OF THE LESSEE TO PAY LEASE RENTAL
What is the effect of failure of the lessee to pay lease rental?
- Pertinent are the provisions of Sections 26 (6) and 36 (6) of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, otherwise known as the Agricultural Land Reform Code, to wit:
"Section 26. Obligation of the Lessee — It shall be the obligation of the agricultural lessee:
xxx xxx xxx
(6) To pay the lease rental to the agricultural lessor when it falls due."
"Section 36. Possession of Landholding; Exceptions. — Notwithstanding any agreement as to the period or future surrender of the land, an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory if after due hearing it is shown that:
xxx xxx xxx
(6) The agricultural lessee does not pay the lease rental when it falls due: Provided, That if the non-payment of the rental shall be due to crop failure to the extent of seventy five per centum as a result of a fortuitous event, the non-payment shall not be a ground for dispossession, although the obligation to pay the rental due that particular crop is not thereby extinguished."
February 6, 2004
LEASEHOLD; ORDER OF PRIORITY OF SUCCESSORS IN CASE OF DEATH OR PERMANENT INCAPACITY OF AGRICULTURAL LESSEE
Is leasehold relation extinguished by the death or permanent incapacity of the lessee?
- Section 9 of R.A. No. 3844 provides, quote: "In case of death or permanent incapacity of the agricultural lessee to work his landholding, the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the person who can cultivate the landholding, personally chosen by the agricultural lessor within one month from such death or permanent incapacity, from among the following: (a) the surviving spouse; (b) the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; or (c) the next eldest descendant or descendants in the order of their age . . . . . in the event the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his choice within the periods herein provided, the priority shall be in accordance with the order herein established." The son of a tenant may therefore take the place of his deceased parent as tenant of the land subject to the conditions as legally provided above.
February 9, 1999
LEASEHOLD; PARTIES THERETO AND BASIS THEREOF
Who are the parties to and what is the legal basis of entering into an agricultural leasehold relation?
- Section 6 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended provides that the "agricultural leasehold relation shall be limited to the person who furnishes the landholding either as owner, civil law lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor and the person who personally cultivates the same". It is clear from said provision that the legal possessor of a landholding may enter into an agricultural leasehold contract with another person, instituting him as agricultural lessee thereon.
August 14, 1996
- The law provides that in case of death of the agricultural lessee, "the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by the agricultural lessor within one month from such death x x x from among the following: a) the surviving spouse; b) the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; c) the next eldest descendant or descendants in the order of their age: Provided, that in case the death x x x of the agricultural lessee occurs during the agricultural year, such choice shall be exercised at the end of the agricultural year: Provided, further, that in the event the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his choice within the period herein provided, the priority shall be in accordance with the order herein established".
January 11, 1994
LEASEHOLD; PERSONAL CULTIVATION
Is personal cultivation a ground to terminate tenancy relationship?
- It should be stressed that personal cultivation is no longer a ground to terminate tenancy relationship, considering that the same has already been deleted as a ground for ejectment of the tenant under Section 7 of R.A. No. 6389, which amended Section 36 (l) of R.A. No. 3844. Such being the case, a landowner may not dispossess his tenant of his farmlot on the ground that the landowner will now personally cultivate the landholding.
February 21, 2002
LEASEHOLD; PERSONAL CULTIVATION
Is personal cultivation a ground to terminate tenancy relationship?
- Personal cultivation is no longer a ground to terminate tenancy relationship considering that it has already been deleted as a ground for ejectment of the tenant under Section 7 of R.A. no. 6389, which amended Section 36 (l) of R.A. No. 3844. Such being the case, the landowner may not dispossess the tenant of his farmlot on the ground that the landowner will now personally cultivate the landholding.
May 2, 2001
LEASEHOLD; PERSONAL CULTIVATION
Is personal cultivation required before a person can be considered tenant in a coconut land?
- Personal cultivation is not necessarily required before a person can be considered tenant. This is so in view of the S.C. decisions in the cases of Coconut Cooperative Marketing Association, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals, 164 S 568, August 19, 1988 and Wenceslao Hernandez, 189 S 758, September 21, 1990, to quote: "Cultivation is not limited to the plowing and harrowing of the land, but also husbanding of the ground to forward the products of the earth by general industry, the taking care of the lands and fruits growing thereon, fencing of certain areas and the clearing thereof by gathering dried leaves and cutting of grasses. IN coconut lands, cultivation includes the clearing of the landholdings, gathering of coconuts, their pilling, husking, and handling, as well as the processing thereof into copra, although at times with the aid of hired laborers.
January 2, 1998
LEASEHOLD; PERSONAL CULTIVATION: AS A GROUND TO TERMINATE TENANCY RELATIONSHIP
Is personal cultivation a ground to terminate tenancy relationship?
- Personal Cultivation is no longer a ground to terminate tenancy relationship because the same has been deleted as a ground for the ejectment of the tenant under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6389 which amended Section 36 (1) of RA 3844.
February 2, 1994
January 26, 1994
February 16, 1994
October 10, 1994
LEASEHOLD; POLICIES FOR LAND PRIMARILY DEVOTED TO COCONUT
- Section 5.1 of DAR Administrative Order No. 06, series of 2003 provides, to wit:
"Section 5. Specific Policies for Land Primarily Devoted to Coconut. — In the implementation of the leasehold system, particularly in coconut lands, the following policies shall apply:
5.1 The indiscriminate cutting of coconut trees by the landholder/tenant shall be deemed prima facie evidence to dispossess the tenant/landholder of his landholding. To rebut this presumption:
5.1.1 The party who wishes to cut coconut trees shall secure the written consent of the other party; and
5.1.2 The proposing party shall secure a permit to cut coconut trees from the Philippine Coconut Authority, in accordance with R.A. No. 8048 (Coconut Preservation Act of 1995) and its implementing rules and regulations."
- Likewise, under DAR Administrative Order No. 16, Series of 1989 (Rules and Regulations Governing Cutting of Coconut Trees and/or Change in Use of Lands Primarily Devoted to Coconut), the indiscriminate cutting of coconut trees by the landowner is under regulation since this may lead to the unlawful ejectment or dispossession of the tenant-tillers and/or farmworkers.
DAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 2005
April 18, 2005
LEASEHOLD; PROHIBITION ON INSTALLATION OF PUMP WELL
Can a landowner stop a lessee from irrigating other lots/crops from the pump well he installed in a landholding?
- If there is no substantial damage, destruction or unreasonable deterioration of the land or any improvement thereon, the lessee may not be prohibited in installing the pump well and using it in irrigating other lots. What is strictly prohibited by R.A. No. 3844 is the lessee entering into a contract to work additional landholdings belonging to a different agricultural lessor, or acquiring and personally cultivating an economic family size farm, without the knowledge and consent of the lessor with whom he had first entered into leasehold, if the first landholding is of sufficient size to make him and the members of his immediate farm household fully occupied in its cultivation.
November 27, 2000
LEASEHOLD; PROHIBITIONS TO AGRICULTURAL LESSEE
May an agricultural lessee employ a sub-lessee?
- It is worthy to note Section 27 (2) of R.A. No. 3844, as amended which provides, quote:
"Section 27. Prohibitions to Agricultural Lessee. It shall be unlawful for the agricultural lessee:
xxx xxx xxx
To employ a sub-lessee on his landholding: Provided, however, that in case of illness or temporary incapacity, he may employ laborers whose services on his landholding shall be on his account."
February 21, 2002
LEASEHOLD; REQUISITES
What are the requisites of agricultural leasehold relation?
- The following requisites must be present in order for agricultural leasehold relation to exist (as decided by the SC in the case of "Julio Beranda and Roberto Beranda vs. Hon. Alfonso Baguio", Vol. 189 SCRA 194):
1. the parties are the landowner and the tenant;
2. the subject is agricultural land;
3. there is consent
4. the purpose is agricultural production;
5. there is personal cultivation; and
6. there is sharing of harvests.
- If one of the above requisites is absent, no agricultural leasehold relation exists between the parties. Hence, if the cultivation of the farmlot is without the consent of the landowner, there can be no tenancy relation between him and the transferee. Moreover, the tenant is under obligation to personally cultivate his farmlot, performing the major phases of farmwork, except when he is temporarily incapacitated to do so, in which case he may, during such period of temporary incapacity, hire other persons to cultivate the land for him.
October 10, 1994
January 30, 1995
August 1, 1995
May 28, 1996
April 23, 1998
LEASEHOLD; RETAINED AREA NOT COVERED UNDER LAND ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION
Are lands within the retention right of a landowner and under leasehold be covered by CARP?
- Although lands within the retention right of a landowner are covered by the provisions of existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations with respect to leasehold rights of a tenant-lessee (e.g., right to security of tenure), the same are not covered insofar as the land acquisition and distribution aspect of the agrarian reform program is concerned. It is only when said lands are beyond the legally allowable retention area of the landowner that the same could be covered by CARP.
August 24, 1998
LEASEHOLD; RICELAND SUBJECT OF LEASEHOLD CANNOT BE SUBJECT OF MORTGAGES
May the tenant legally mortgage his leasehold on the riceland under his tillage?
- The tenant cannot legally mortgage his leasehold on the rice land under his tillage. This is because under Section 26 of R.A. 3844, as amended the agricultural lessee has the obligation, among others, to cultivate and take care of the farm, growing crops and other improvements on the landholding as a good father of a family and perform all the work therein in accordance with proven farm practices and to keep his farm and growing crops attended to during the work season. Should the tenant contract with another for the cultivation of the land, he would remiss in his obligation to work thereon and may be held liable for abandonment of his farm lot.
July 2, 1996
LEASEHOLD; RIGHTS OF AGRICULTURAL LESSEE, RIGHTS TO BE PROTECTED
What are the rights of agricultural lessee in general?
- The rights of agricultural lessee in general are the following: 1) to have possession and peaceful enjoyment of the land; 2) to manage and work on the land in a manner and method of cultivation and harvest which conform to proven farm practices; 3) to mechanize all or any phase of his farm work; and 4) to deal with millers and processors and attend to the issuance of quedans and warehouse receipts for the produce due him.
October 25, 1994
- Section 23. Rights of Agricultural Lessee in General. – It shall be the right of the agricultural lessee:
1. To have possession and peaceful enjoyment of the land;
2. To manage and work on the land in a manner and method of cultivation and harvest which conform to proven farm practices;
3. To mechanize all or any phase of his farm work; and
4. To deal with millers and processors and attend to the issuance of quedans and warehouse receipts for the produce due him.
July 2, 1996
What are the rights of agricultural lessee?
- Section 7 of R.A. 3844, as amended gives the agricultural lessee the right to work on the landholding once the leasehold relationship is established. It is also entitled him to security of tenure on his landholding.
August 14, 1996
Is the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) in a position to pursue remedies involving the prosecution of actions?
- The DAR shall consider legal options recommended in order to protect the rights of the agricultural lessees and in order not to derail the effective implementation of CARP.
- However, the DAR is of the view that the DOJ is in a better position than the DAR to pursue whatever remedies to take insofar as it involves the prosecution of actions. Stated otherwise, it is within the competence and expertise of the DOJ to initiate moves that would secure the lessees against the harassment of some landowners.
December 13, 1996
LEASEHOLD; RIGHTS OF AGRICULTURAL LESSOR AND AGRICULTURAL LESSEE
- The rights of agricultural lessees are provided for under Sections 23, 24 and 25 of R.A. No. 3844 while the rights of an agricultural lessor are provided for under Section 29 of the same Code.
DAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 2005
April 18, 2005
LEASEHOLD; SECURITY OF TENURE
- Considering that Mr. Sorio, the second hired caretaker, is a tenant, he is entitled to the security of tenure and can not be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB), in a judgment that is final and executory after due hearing in accordance with Sections 7 and 36 of Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code).
DAR OPINION NO. 19, s. 2006
July 6, 2006
LEASEHOLD; SECURITY OF TENURE
- Security of tenure, which means that they may not be ejected from their tillage unless authorized by the Court (now DAR Adjudication Board) for causes provided in said law.
DAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 2005
April 18, 2005
- However, the children may acquire the land not as preferred beneficiaries but as tenants in the landholding provided that their tenancy will be established. This is anchored in the third paragraph of Section 6.
"Section 6.
xxx xxx xxx
In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on the land prior to the approval of this Act shall be respected."
- Section 22 further provides that actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or removed therefrom. Hence, a thorough evaluation must be done to ascertain if the children have been in actual cultivation prior to the CARP coverage.
DAR OPINION NO. 14, s. 2006
February 22, 2006
- Under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code), tenants are entitled to a security of tenure and they continue to enjoy it despite the sale of the property. The leasehold contract is not extinguished by the transfer of legal ownership of the land from one landowner to another. In such cases, the purchaser or transferee shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the original agricultural lessor. Likewise, in Sections 11 and 12 of said law, it is explicit that in case the agricultural lessor decides to sell the landholding, the agricultural lessee shall have the preferential right to buy the same, and, in case the landholding is 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.
DAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 2006
March 21, 2006
LEASEHOLD; SECURITY OF TENURE OF AGRICULTURAL LESSEE
Can a tenant enjoy security of tenure?
- Under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended (The Agricultural Land Reform Code), the agricultural leasehold relation, once established, shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. He/she shall be entitled to security of tenure on his/her landholding and he/she cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court (now DAR Adjudication Board) for causes provided by law.
- Time and again, the Supreme Court has guaranteed the continuity and security of tenure of tenant. As elucidated in the case of Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals (168 SCRA 439), security of tenure is a legal concession to agricultural lessees which they value as life itself and deprivation of their landholding is tantamount to deprivation of their only means of livelihood.
February 21, 2002
LEASEHOLD; SECURITY OF TENURE OF AGRICULTURAL LESSEE
Is leasehold relation extinguished by the sale of the landholding?
- Isinasaad sa mga nasabing probisyon ng batas na kung sakali man na ipagbili o magkaroon ng paglilipat sa pagmamay-ari ng lupang sinasaka, magpapatuloy ang samahang buwisan sa pagsasaka, nararapat lamang na kayo po ay magbigay pa rin ng buwis sa bagong may-ari ng lupang sinasaka.
October 30, 2001
LEASEHOLD; SECURITY OF TENURE OF AGRICULTURAL LESSEE
Can a tenant enjoy security of tenure?
- A tenant enjoys security of tenure on his landholding, which means that he/she cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the court for cause. Section 7 of R.A. No. 3844 provides that "the agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished." Time and again, the Supreme Court has guaranteed the continuity and security of tenure of tenant even in cases of a mere transfer of legal possession. As elucidated in the case of Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals (168 SCRA 439), security of tenure is a legal concession to agricultural lessees which they value as life itself and deprivation of their landholding is tantamount to deprivation of their only means of livelihood.
February 9, 1999
LEASEHOLD; SECURITY OF TENURE
- Moreover, Section 7 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, provides that agricultural leasehold relation, once established, shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court (now, DAR Adjudication Board) for causes provided for in said law. Section 36 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, further provides in part: "xxxxx an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory xxxxx".
DAR OPINION NO. 04, s. 2001
May 2, 2001
LEASEHOLD; SECURITY OF TENURE
- Mortgage of agricultural land by a landowner, as a rule, is not prohibited by law, it being an attribute of ownership. However, pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by R.A. 6389 (Code of Agrarian Reforms), the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding, and, he cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court (now, the DAR Adjudication Board) for causes provided under said law. As elucidated in the case of Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals (168 SCRA 439), security of tenure is a legal concession to agricultural lessees which they value as life itself and deprivation of their landholding is tantamount to deprivation of their only means of livelihood.
- More specifically, section 10 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended provides that the leasehold relation is not extinguished by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding. And, 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 (owner)
DAR OPINION NO. 02, s. 2001
April 27, 2001
LEASEHOLD; TENANCY RELATIONSHIP NOT EXTINGUISHED BY TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP
- Ang isang lehitimong kasamang namumuwisan ay may karapatan na magpatuloy sa paggawa sa hinahawakang lupa kung sakali man na ipagbili o magkaroon ng paglilipat sa pagmamay-ari ng lupang sinasaka. Ang isang namumuwisan sa pagsasaka, gayunman, ay maaring magkusa ng pagsasauli sa hinahawakang lupa at ito ay isang paraan ng pagwawakas ng pagsasamahang buwisan sa pagsasaka alinsunod sa Seksyon 8 (Pagwawakas sa Pagsasamahang Buwisan sa Pagsasaka) ng nasabing batas.
DAR OPINION NO. 23, s. 2008
September 18, 2008
LEASEHOLD; TENANCY RELATIONSHIP NOT EXTINGUISHED BY TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP
- Under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code), a tenant is entitled to a security of tenure on his landholding until such leasehold relations is extinguished. Such tenant continues to enjoy it despite the transfer of the property to another because tenancy relationship is not extinguished by the transfer of ownership of the land. Where there is transfer of ownership, the transferee shall be subrogated to the rights of the transferor. The rights and obligations arising from the tenancy relationship shall continue to subsist until modified by the parties (the new owner and the tenant).
DAR OPINION NO. 30, s. 2008
November 25, 2008
LEASEHOLD; TENANT-LESSEE'S RIGHT OF REDEMPTION
- There are two (2) mutually exclusive remedies provided under the aforequoted Section 12 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 6389 for the exercise of the tenant-lessee's right of redemption. One is the filing of the corresponding petition or request with the Department, and, the other is the filing of a corresponding case in court (now DARAB), as herein resorted to.
DAR OPINION NO. 08, s. 2002
February 21, 2002
LEASEHOLD; TENANT-LESSEES'S RIGHT OF REDEMPTION
- Section 12 of Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code), as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 6389, which provides:
"Section 12. Lessee's Right of Redemption. — In case the landholding is 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: Provided, That where there are two or more agricultural lessees, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised within one hundred eighty days from notice in writing which shall be served by the vendee on all lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian Reform upon the registration of the sale, and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption. The redemption price shall be the reasonable price of the land at the time of the sale.
Upon the filing of the corresponding petition or request with the department or corresponding case in court by the agricultural lessee or lessees, the said period of one hundred and eighty days shall cease to run.
Any petition or request for redemption shall be resolved within sixty days from the filing thereof; otherwise, the said period shall start to run again."
- Clearly, the right of redemption must be exercised within the specified time limit. Although this right may not be possible at this point, the leasehold relation is not extinguished by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding, the purchaser or transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the obligations of the new owner in accordance to Section 10 of R.A. No. 3844.
DAR OPINION NO. 28, s. 2006
October 17, 2006
LEASEHOLD; TENANTS ENTITLED TO SECURITY OF TENURE
- Tenants are by law entitled to security of tenure, which means that they can only be ejected from their tillage for just cause and after payment of disturbance compensation. However, please note that we speak of disturbance compensation only in cases of legal conversion approved by the DAR upon the application of the landowner pursuant to Section 36(1) of R.A. No. 3844. In cases if expropriation undertaken at the instance of the government in the exercise of its power of eminent domain, the provision of Section 18 of Executive Order No. 1035 shall be the applicable law.
DAR OPINION NO. 02, s. 2008
January 11, 2008
LEASEHOLD; TENANTS NOT ENTITLED TO PENSION OR RETIREMENT BENEFITS
Are the tenants entitled to pension or retirement benefits?
- Bukod pa sa mga nabanggit, ang isang magsasaka o naglilinang ay hindi maihahalintulad sa isang empleyado na karaniwang pinagkakalooban ng pensiyon o "retirement benefits" ayon sa itinakda ng batas, subalit manapa'y ang isang tenant ay ipinapalagay o tunay na may-ari ng lupa na kaniyang sinasaka. Hindi siya naninilbihan o nagtatrabaho para kaninuman kundi para sa kanyang sariling kapakanan.
April 19, 2001
LEGAL OPINION; REFUSAL TO RENDER OPINION
May the Department of Agrarian Reform render an opinion in matters which involve a review of the decision by the DARAB?
- This Office regrets that it has decline to render an opinion for it would inevitably involve a review of the decision by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) which allegedly resulted in the issuance of TCT No. NT-273396 dated March 16, 2000 in the names of Renato Romero and Librada Romero. Said query involves matters which falls within the exclusive authority of the DARAB and any opinion that we may render thereon might be taken as an unwarranted intrusion upon the powers and functions of the Board. As a matter of policy, this Office has consistently declined to render opinion on issues which are justiciable in nature or which could be the subject of court litigation.
DAR OPINION NO. 02, s. 2002
January 29, 2002
LEGAL OPINION; REFUSAL TO RENDER AN OPINION
May the DAR render an opinion in matters which are the subject of a pending litigation or controversy?
- It is the Department's declared policy to maintain a hands-off stance in matters which are the subject of a pending litigation or controversy. The rationale behind the refusal to take cognizance of the issues raised is based on ethical ground, that is, to avoid conflicting opinions on the matter, and in order not to pre-empt any decision the DARAB may render. In effect, they are sub judice.
November 10, 1999
Can the DAR render legal opinion on matters which are the subject of pending litigation or controversy before a judicial or quasi-judicial body?
- This Office has consistently adhered to the standing policy of maintaining a hands-off stance on mailers which are the subject of pending litigation or controversy before judicial or quasi-judicial bodies. Said policy is founded both on ethical and practical ground, that is to avoid, conflicting opinions and pre-judgment of the issues raised therein.
March 24, 1998
LEGISLATIVE POWER
What is the legislative power of the State?
- Legislative power is the power of lawmaking, framing and enactment of laws and is effected through the adoption of a bill, or a proposed or projected law introduced by any member of the House of Representatives or the Senate which once approved, becomes the law of the state.
August 23, 1995
LIENS AND ENCUMBRANCES; CARRIED OVER TO THE EP/CLOA
Are liens and encumbrances carried over to EPs issued to FBs be dispensed with?
- The carry-over of liens to the EPs issued to farmer-beneficiaries is a legal requirement and cannot be dispensed with. Section 62 of P.D. No. 1529 (the Property Registration Decree) provides, quote:
"A mortgage or lease on registered land may be discharged or cancelled by means of an instrument executed by the mortgage (sic) or lessee in a form sufficient in law, which shall be filed with the Register of Deeds who shall make the appropriate memorandum upon the certificate of title."
- Land Registration Authority Circular No. 54 requires that the liens or encumbrances shall be carried over to the EP/CLOA presented for registration, unless the appropriate instrument for its cancellation is likewise presented.
- DOJ Opinion No. 92, Series of 1978 pointed out that, the farmer-beneficiaries are already deemed owners of the land as of 21 October 1972 by operation of law and, as such, it could no longer be transferred except to the heirs of the tenants or to the government, and the same could not accordingly be the subject of foreclosure proceedings. This is pursuant to the settled rule underscored by the Supreme Court in a long line of decisions that the constitutional guarantee of non-impairment of obligations is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State (i.e., public welfare is superior to private rights) of which the implementation of P.D. No. 27 is being undertaken in the exercise thereof.
June 01, 1998
LIENS; LAND BANK'S ROLE WITH REGARD TO LIENS CARRIED OVER TO EPs
May the Land Bank take notice of the encumbrance carried over to EPs?
- The Land Bank must therefore take notice of such encumbrance and pay the amount of the loan (minus the amount already paid by the farmer-beneficiaries) which amount shall be deducted from the total land compensation. However, should the amount of loan be greater than the actual land valuation as provided for by law, the excess thereof must necessarily be shouldered by the landowner, and the mortgagee bank should perforce correspondingly issue a Certificate of Release of Mortgage as a matter of course in order not to unduly prejudice the farmer-beneficiaries who, at the inception of OLT implementation and even before the contract of mortgage, are already deemed owners of the lands in issue.
June 01, 1998
M
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT; EXECUTION OF MOA BETWEEN DAR AND DOH
What does a MOA partakes of?
- The execution of a Memorandum of Agreement between the DAR and the DOH, provided it is pursuant to and in compliance with existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations, is a step in the right direction insofar as the transfer of the subject landholdings to the DAR is concerned. The execution of a MOA will facilitate the transfer and will ensure the strict compliance of the terms and conditions therein stated. As the MOA partakes of the nature of a contract, the same will constitute as the law between the contracting parties which will serve as a safeguard against possible breach.
June 23, 1998
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT; EXECUTION OF MOA BETWEEN DECS AND DAR
What is the effect of a MOA? Would the existence of the MOA hinder DAR from indorsing the request for re-proclamation to the Office of the President?
- The existence of the MOA between the DECS and DAR will not necessarily hinder the latter from indorsing request for re-proclamation of the area to the Office of the President. However, in view of Executive Order No. 448 dated 14 February 1991 (amending E.O. No. 407, Series of 1990), such indorsement may not appropriately be the immediate legal recourse. Section 1 of the abovecited Executive Order provides:
Sec. 1. Executive Order No. 407 is hereby amended by adding a new section to read as follows:
"Sec. 1-A. All lands or portions thereof reserved by virtue of Presidential Proclamations for specific public uses by the government, its agencies and instrumentalities, including government-owned or controlled corporations suitable for agriculture and no longer actually, directly and exclusively used or necessary for the purposes for which they have been reserved, as determined by the Department of Agrarian Reform in coordination with the government agency or instrumentality concerned in whose favor the reservation was established, shall be segregated from the reservation and transferred to the Department of Agrarian Reform for distribution to qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program." (underscoring supplied)
October 27, 1999
MINERAL LAND; ELEMENTS IN CONSIDERATION THEREOF
What are the elements in consideration of a mineral land?
- As earlier declared in the Memorandum of MGB dated 26 October 1999, the three elements in the consideration of a Mineral Land are as follows: 1) The presence of Mineral Resources; 2) the conduct of mining operations, i.e., exploration/development/extraction activities; and 3) a valid and subsisting mining permit/contract.
October 9, 2000
MORTGAGE OF CLOA
Can CLOA properties be mortgaged by landowners to secure the loan of the Nation Petroleum Corporation (NPC) from various banking institutions?
- In order not to possibly unduly put the ARBs of risk, it is our considered opinion that subject lands should not be mortgaged by the ARBs. We have to safeguard and protect the welfare and interests of the ARBs since there is the possibility that should the business venture (petroleum depot) not prosper or materialize the agrarian reform beneficiaries will be at risk of losing their lands in case of foreclosure.
- Moreover, it is worthy to note that in Nos. 2 and 3 of the terms and conditions in the subject Joint Venture Agreement dated 08 August 2002, "the Landowners shall cede and deliver possession and use of their landholdings to the Corporation" while "the Corporation shall undertake conversion of the landholdings by putting up its facilities for petroleum depot, shouldering all the expenses therefore until its completion."
April 13, 2004
MORTGAGE; CANCELLATION
Should all liens or encumbrances appearing on the title be cancelled?
- Only liens or encumbrances on the title or CLOA as a result of a mortgage or other encumbrance equivalent to the landowner's compensation value as provided in Section 72 of R.A. No. 6657 and DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1997 shall be cancelled. Otherwise stated, not all liens or encumbrances appearing on the title shall be assumed by the government in its entirety for the latter's obligation is only limited to the landowner's compensation value and any excess thereof would be carried over to the title or CLOA.
July 1, 1997
MORTGAGE; ESSENTIAL REQUISITES
- In other words, they are deemed mortgages and as such are bound by the terms and conditions stated in the contract. Article 2085 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides:
"Article 2085. The following requisites are essential to the contract of pledge and mortgage:
(1) That they be constituted to secure the fulfillment of a principal obligation;
(2) That the pledges or mortgagor be the absolute owner of thing pledged or mortgaged;
(3) That the persons constituting the pledge or mortgage have the free disposal of their property, and in the absence thereof, that they be legally authorized for the purpose."
- As such, the total area of 16,441 square meters as embraced in the Emancipation Patent shall be the subject of foreclosure in addition to other cooperative's assets to satisfy a just and demandable debt.
DAR OPINION NO. 25, s. 2005
October 28, 2005
MORTGAGE; ESSENTIAL REQUISITES OF CONTRACT OF PLEDGE AND MORTGAGE
- Article 2085. The following requisites are essential to the contracts of pledge and mortgage:
(1) That they be constituted to secure the fulfillment of a principal obligation;
(2) That the pledge or mortgagor be the absolute owner of the thing pledged or mortgaged;
(3) That the persons constitution the pledge or mortgage have the free disposal of their property, and in the absence thereof, that they be legally authorized for the purpose.
DAR OPINION NO. 25, s. 2005
October 28, 2005
MORTGAGE; REGISTERED WITH THE REGISTER OF DEEDS SHALL BE ASSUMED BY THE GOVERNMENT
When shall the government assume the mortgage and other claims registered with the Register of Deeds?
- Sec. 72 (b) of R.A. No. 6657 provides that mortgages and other claims registered with the Register of Deeds shall be assumed by the government up to an amount equivalent to the landowner's compensation value as provided in this Act. If in the process of valuation, the amount of the property turns out to be lower than the amount of loan granted by the creditor bank, and the offeror does not agree with such valuation, he may bring the matter to the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) for the preliminary determination of just compensation and if he disagrees with the decision of the Board, he may elevate the matter to the Special Agrarian Court which shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction over all petitions for the final determination of just compensation to landowners.
March 11, 1997
N
NATIONAL LIVELIHOOD SUPPORT FUND (NLSF); MOA BETWEEN DAR AND LBP/NLSF
What is the function of the Bagong Kilusang Kabuhayan sa Kaunlaran (BKKK)?
- Section 37 of R.A. 6657 provides that the BKKK Secretariat shall be transferred and attached to the LBP, for its supervision including all its applicable and existing funds, personnel, properties, equipment and records. Likewise, Section 64 of the same Act provides that the Land Bank of the Philippines shall be the financial intermediary for the CARP, and shall insure that the social justice objectives of the CARP shall enjoy a preference among its priorities (Underscoring supplied). On the other hand, Administrative Order No. 4511, Series of 1998 in its final whereas clause states that the objectives and programs of BKKK/NLSF and PCFC are similar . . . (underscoring supplied).
- The transfer of the functions of the BKKK to the PCFC pursuant to A.O. No. 4511 will not necessarily divert or rechannel the aforementioned P211 million DAR-NLSF program fund for other non-agrarian poverty alleviation purposes. The statement in the dispositive portion of A.O. No. 4511 (no. 3 thereof) that the trust fund shall be used exclusively for microfinance services for the poor perforce includes and contemplates, likewise, livelihood credit assistance for the ARBs who definitely belong to the category of the poor in our society.
January 25, 1999
NGO; CAN A REGULAR GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE REPRESENT AN NGO? QUALIFICATION AS REPRESENTATIVE OF AN NGO IN THE PROVINCIAL LEVEL OF PARCCOM
- Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1994 [New Implementing Guidelines Strengthening the Formation, Organization, and Operation of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM)] defines a Non-Government Organization as a civic, religious or non-sectarian organization or association which is peasant-oriented, organized primarily for rural development and operating in the province. The same A.O. state as basic qualification of a representative to be a bonafide member of an association/organization/cooperative as certified by the said organization/cooperative/NGO.
- This implies that a sectoral representative must represent the special interest/concern of the sector in which he/she is a member. A government employee therefore, cannot simply represent an NGO because of varied interest.
DAR OPINION NO. 27, s. 2008
October 10, 2008
NOTARY PUBLIC; AUTHORITY OF DAR FIELD LAWYERS
- Significantly, Department Special Order No. 597, Series of 1989 (Authority for DAR Field Lawyers to Apply for Commission as Notaries Public) was issued which provides that in the interest of the service, DAR Regional Directors are authorized to allow their lawyers, one lawyer for every province or city, to apply for Commission as Notaries Public for this Department in the cities or provinces where they are assigned; that as official Notaries Public of this Department, they shall notarize, free of charge, not only documents and transactions of this Department and those executed by DAR officials and employees in their official capacities but also agricultural leasehold contracts; that as to other documents, notarial fees shall be collected in accordance with the schedule prescribed under Section 9 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court by the DAR cashier concerned; that the official notaries public of this Department shall submit to the Auditor/Accountant for examination and notation their reports before submitting them to the Clerk of Court concerned; and that the expenses for filing petition for Commission as Notary Public, notarial books, loose leaves, and notarial seal shall be chargeable to the Department.
- The commission issued to DAR lawyers for them to notarize a document does not by itself confer them an unbridled right to perform notarization even outside DAR’s Office. For them to legally and validly perform the functions of a notary public, clearance from the DAR Secretary and court official concerned is necessary to put a stamp of validity to their authority. Since a notarial acknowledgement attaches not only full faith and credit to the document concerned but also vests upon the document the presumption of regularity unless it is impugned by strong, complete and conclusive proof (Severo Sales vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-40145, July 29, 1992), public policy dictates that the same should be duly regulated and authorized accordingly.
DAR OPINION NO. 17, s. 2009
July 28, 2009
NOTARY PUBLIC; AUTHORITY OF DAR FIELD LAWYERS
Are DAR Field Lawyers allowed to notarize documents not related in the performance of official duties and functions and can therefore charge notarial fees?
- Department Special Order No. 597, Series of 1989 (Authority for DAR Field Lawyers to Apply for Commission as Notaries Public) was issued which provides that in the interest of the service, DAR Regional Directors are authorized to allow their lawyers, one lawyer for every province or city, to apply for Commission as Notaries Public for this Department in the cities or provinces where they are assigned; that as official Notaries Public of this Department, they shall notarize, free of charge, not only documents and transactions of this Department and those executed by DAR officials and employees in their official capacities but also agricultural leasehold contracts; that as to other documents, notarial fees shall be collected, in accordance with the schedule prescribed under Section 9 of Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, by the DAR cashier concerned; that the official notaries public of this Department shall submit to the Auditor/Accountant for examination and notation their reports before submitting them to the clerk of court concerned; and that the expenses for filing petition for Commission as Notary Public, notarial books, loose leaves, and notarial seal shall be chargeable to the Department.
- The commission issued to DAR lawyers for them to notarize a document does not itself confer them an unbridled right to perform notarization even outside DAR's Office. For them to legally and validly perform the functions of a notary public, clearance from the DAR Secretary and court official concerned is necessary. Since a notarial acknowledgment attaches not only full faith and credit to the document concerned but also vests upon the document the presumption of regularity unless it is impugned by strong, complete and conclusive proof (Severo Sales vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-40145, July 29, 1992), public policy dictates that the same should be duly regulated and authorized accordingly.
October 28, 1999
Are DAR lawyers authorized to perform the functions of a notary public outside DAR's office?
- The commission issued to DAR lawyers for them to notarize a document does not by itself confer them an unbridled right to perform notarization even outside DAR's Office. For them to legally and validly perform the functions of a notary public, clearance from the DAR Secretary is necessary to put a stamp of validity to their authority. Since a notarial acknowledgement attaches not only full faith and credit to the document concerned but also vest upon the document the presumption of regularity unless it is impugned by strong, complete and conclusive proof (Severo Sales vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-40145, July 29, 1992), public policy dictates that the same should be duly regulated and authorized accordingly.
- A clearance from the DAR Secretary is a condition sine qua non before DAR lawyers can perform the function of a notary public outside DAR's Office.
June 23, 1998
Are Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicators (PARADs) allowed to notarize in a place where he is temporarily assigned?
- The authority of a notary public to acknowledge documents is only limited to those executed within his/her territorial jurisdiction (Severo Sales & Esperanza Sales Bermudez vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. L-40145, July 29, 1992). By its terms, a PARAD appointed in one province but temporarily assigned with the DAR Central Office could not comply with the aforesaid notarial rule. Notarization is only limited to one particular place as implied in the jurat itself.
November 09, 2000
NOTARY PUBLIC; DAR LEGAL OFFICERS NOT AUTHORIZED TO SIGN AS NOTARY PUBLIC
- A DAR Legal Officer who is not a full-fledged lawyer is not authorized to sign as Notary Public in any kind of legal document. The 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice provides for the qualifications of a petitioner for a commission as Notary Public. Rule III, Section 1 thereof provides, quote:
"Section 1. Qualifications. — A notarial commission may be issued by an Executive Judge to any qualified person who submits a petition in accordance with these Rules.
To be eligible for commissioning as notary public, the petitioner:
xxx xxx xxx
4. must be a member of the Philippine Bar in good standing with clearances from the Office of the Bar Confidant of the Supreme Court and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
xxx xxx xxx."
- Clearly, only members of the Philippine Bar are eligible for a commission to act as a Notary Public.
DAR OPINION NO. 04, s. 2007
January 31, 2007
O
OATH; JUDGES AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER
- It could be gleaned from said provision of R.A. No. 9700 specifically Section thereof, that there is an express and specific mention that the contemplated taking of oath by the intended beneficiary shall be administered only by the judge of the municipal or city court. It should be emphasized that where the law is clear, by its terms, is expressly limited to certain matter, it may not, by interpretation or construction, be extended to other matters. Likewise, it is a settled rule on statutory construction that the express mention of one person, thing or consequence implies the exclusion of all others. This is under the rule in expressio unius est exclusion alterius.
- In view of the foregoing, and considering that there is no express mention under R.A. No. 9700, Sharia’h Court Judges cannot be considered as authorized to administer the required oath.
DAR OPINION NO. 04, s. 2010
January 12, 2010
OFFICE OF THE AGRARIAN COUNSEL; FUNCTIONS
- Section 163 of R.A. No. 3844 as amended by R.A. No. 6389 provides:
"Section 163. Functions of the Office of the Agrarian Counsel. — It shall be the responsibility of the Office of the Agrarian Counsel upon proper notification by the party concerned or by the association or organization to which he belongs, to represent tenants, agricultural lessees, agricultural farmworkers and agricultural lessees and agricultural owner-cultivators or the members of their immediate farm household referred to in this Code who cannot engage the services of competent private counsel in cases before the Court of Agrarian Relations. This responsibility shall include representation before the courts, including appellate, in cases civil or criminal, instituted by or against said tenant, agricultural lessees, agricultural farmworkers and agricultural owner-cultivators or the members of their immediate farm household, where the cases arise from, or are connected with, or results or effects of an agrarian dispute, The decision of the Office of the Agrarian Counsel to provide legal assistance shall be final."
DAR OPINION NO. 01, s. 2006
January 9, 2006
ORDER OF AWARD
Are lands covered by an Order of Award be subjected to the Land Improvement Tenure Program?
- The land covered by an Order of Award can be subjected to the Land Improvement Tenure Program if, prior to October 21, 1972, the awardee had paid in full the purchase price and had complied with the cultivation requirement of the land.
December 13, 1996
ORDER OF AWARD; TO BE IMPLEMENTED BY DAR AND LBP
- In view of the aforementioned DAR CLT Cancellation Order and since the Order of Award dated 08 December 2003 signed by no less than the Secretary of DAR was already issued to the new awardee, Warren Francis Hernandez, after passing the criteria and requirements set forth by pertinent laws and regulations, it is therefore but proper and incumbent upon DAR and LBP to respect and implement said Order of Award.
DAR OPINION NO. 05, s. 2005
February 11, 2005
ORDER OF PRIORITY; BENEFICIARIES
- The order of priority with respect to beneficiaries has been adopted in the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 particularly Section 22, to wit:
"Section 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. — The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same Barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless resident of the same municipality in the following order of priority:
a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;
b) regular farmworkers;
c) seasonal farmworkers;
d) other farmworkers;
e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
g) others directly working on the land.
Provided, however, that the children of landowner who are qualified under Section 6 of this Act shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents; And provided, further, that actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or removed therefrom.
xxx xxx xxx
- Thus, it can be construed that the NLRC is now a defunct body; the order of priority of beneficiaries remains to be in effect subject to certain modifications in keeping with the present agrarian laws.
DAR OPINION NO. 05, s. 2009
March 24, 2009
ORDER OF REALLOCATION; APPEAL MAY BE FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE DAR SECRETARY
Where may an Order of Reallocation be appealed?
- An appeal from an order of reallocation may be filed with the Office of the DAR Secretary to enable the heirs to prove that said reallocation is erroneous and that they have a better right to said reallocation as heirs of the beneficiary.
January 11, 1996
ORDER/RESOLUTION BY THE DAR SECRETARY; IMPLEMENTATION THEREOF
Can the Regional Director implement orders/resolution issued by the DAR Secretary?
- Executive Order No. 129-A provides that the Regional Office within its administrative region is responsible for the implementation of laws, policies, plans, program, projects, rules and regulations of the Department. Moreover, Department M.C. No. 10, Series of 1994 in relation with DAR M.C. No. 3, 1994 provides that the Order/Resolution of the Secretary on cases arising from the administrative implementation of Agrarian Reform Law shall be sent to the field office for purposes of implementation. It is therefore clear that the Regional Director is tasked to implement final and executory DAR Orders/Resolutions involving cases within his region.
April 30, 1998
OUTSIDE OF URBAN CENTERS AND CITY LIMITS; DEFINED
What is the meaning the phrase "outside of Urban Centers and City Limits?
- The phrase "outside of urban centers and city limits" means outside the boundaries of urban centers and cities. Although Section 73 (e) of RA 6657 (the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) refers only to lands outside of urban centers and city limits, Section 73 © covers agricultural lands both within and outside of urban centers and cities by declaring as a prohibited act the conversion of agricultural land into non-agricultural use with intent to avoid the application of CARL on the landholding.
January 31, 1995
OWNERSHIP; OWNER OF THE LAND BECOMES OWNER OF WHAT HAS BEEN ERECTED TO HIS LAND BY ANOTHER
- The owner of the land becomes the owner of what had been erected on his land by another. However, determination is required on whether the builder was in good faith or in bad faith. Assuming that the builder was in good faith, the landowner should he desire to appropriate the fence, must first give the proper indemnification to the builder (i.e., the alleged tenant and his sons).
DAR OPINION NO. 05, s. 2008
February 19, 2008
OWNERSHIP; EXISTENCE OF COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP
When does collective ownership exist?
- CARP lands are generally distributed directly to individual worker-beneficiaries. However, for purposes of facilitating the distribution of these lands to agrarian reform beneficiaries, these are preferably transferred collectively to groups of farmers. This collective ownership is either by the option of the beneficiaries pursuant to Sec. 25 of CARL, or because the DAR has determined that it is not economically feasible and sound to divide the land among the beneficiaries, as provided under Sec. 29 of the same Act.
December 23, 1996
December 13, 1996
November 28, 1994
OWNERSHIP; OF PROCESSING PLANT; DAR AS STOCKHOLDER
- When the NCFSJC incorporated the CQPICPP, a corporation was established under BP Blg. 68 (the Corporation Code of the Philippines) for which the CQPICPP legitimately became a juridical person. A reading of the Memorandum of Understanding reveals that the DAR invested P30 Million in the corporation; in effect, DAR became a major stockholder of the corporation holding a stock certificate with a corresponding 30 million capital stock. It must be emphasized that substantial ownership of stocks in a corporation does not make a shareholder/stockholder, such as DAR, the owner of the corporation. The CQPICPP, as a corporation is invested by law with a personality separate and distinct from its stockholders. The stockholders are not owners but have only indirect interests over corporate assets.
DAR OPINION NO. 10, s. 2009
May 13, 2009
P
PACTO DE RETRO SALE; PRINCIPLE
- On pacto de retro sale, title to and ownership of property are immediately vested in the vendee a retro, subject only to the resolutory condition that the vendor repurchases it within the stipulated period. Pending the redemption, the vendor loses all ownership rights over the property, save for the right to repurchase it.
- The vendee can be protected under Article 1606 of the New Civil Code as to the repurchase period, if no period was agreed upon, vendor must exercise the right to repurchase within four (4) years from the execution of the contract providing for the period to repurchase. If there is an agreement, the period cannot extend ten (10) years. Moreover, in case of failure to redeem, there shall be consolidation of ownership in the vendee a retro and such failure results in the loss of the right to repurchase.
DAR OPINION NO. 29, s. 2008
November 14, 2008
PARA-LEGAL OFFICER OF DAR AS COUNSEL IN CASES OF AGRARIAN DISPUTE
Whether or not a para-legal officer may appear as counsel in ejectment cases.
- The issue dealing on the sharing of harvest and the deposit of lease rentals for refusal of the landowner to accept lease rentals is an agrarian dispute which falls squarely under the jurisdiction of the DARAB and not the regular courts.
- Sec 3 (d) of RA 6657 (CARP) defines AGRARIAN DISPUTE as any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers association or representation of persons, in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements.
- A para-legal officer of the DAR, who is a non-lawyer can appear as counsel in an ejectment case because the dispute is an agrarian matter.
December 13, 1996
PARC’s RESOLUTION; SUFFICIENT AUTHORITY TO GOVERN PROVISION OF GOVERNMENT’S SUBSIDY
- A PARC Resolution may already be sufficient to govern the government’s subsidy in keeping with its mandate "to ensure the timely and effective delivery of the necessary support services" (Section 18, Executive Order No. 229). Likewise, under the same Section of Executive Order No. 229, it provides that "the PARC shall formulate and/or implement the policies, rules and regulations necessary to implement each component of the CARP, and may authorize any of its members to formulate rules and regulations concerning aspects of agrarian reform falling within their area of responsibility".
- Further, Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657 expressly provides: "The PARC and the DAR shall have the power to issue rules and regulations, whether substantive or procedural, to carry out the objects and purposes of this Act".
- Accordingly, with these legal mandate and function of PARC, a Resolution from their end would be sufficient without necessarily going through the process of legislation.
DAR OPINION NO. 04, s. 2009
March 11, 2009
PARCCOM CHAIRMAN; INELIGIBILITY TO HOLD APPOINTIVE OFFICE OR POSITION
May a Vice-Mayor be considered automatically resigned as PARCCOM Chairman upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy?
- "Sec. 66. Candidates holding appointive office or position. – Any person holding a public appointive position including active members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and officers and employees in government owned or controlled corporations shall be considered ipso facto resigned from his office upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy.
- From the foregoing, it is clear that a Vice-Mayor is considered automatically resigned as PARCCOM Chairman upon the filing of his certificate of candidacy. It follows that as of said date of filing, he no longer possessed the power vested in the PARCCOM Chairman, hence, could no longer legally discharge his duties as such.
August 3, 1995
PARCCOM MEMBERS; BASIC QUALIFICATIONS
What are the basic qualifications of PARCCOM members?
- The basic qualifications of PARCCOM members were enumerated in PARC Executive Committee Adm. Order No. 01, series of 1997 mentioned PARC Executive Committee Administrative Order. On the surface, it appears that a natural-born Filipino citizen who had renounced his Philippine citizenship and became an American citizen may still be qualified as a member of the PARCCOM for as long as he possesses all the basic qualifications enumerated therein.
- To become a PARCCOM member or a member in the Screening Committee of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries contemplates occupancy of a public office or, at least, calls for the discharge of a public function, a prerogative that is exclusively reserved for Filipino citizens.
- That one has been nominated to represent a particular sectoral group is inconsequential. Involved herein are public offices or functions.
November 5, 1999
PARCCOM; CHAIRMAN ARE CONSIDERED PUBLIC OFFICER
Is the PARCCOM Chairman considered a public officer?
- A Chairman of the PARCCOM, is considered public officer, for he is appointed by the President to whom the power to appoint has been vested.
SECTION 26. Every person holding a public appointive office or position ipso facto ceases in his office or position on the date he files his certificate of candidacy.
- The mere filing of said certificate would constitute and result in the cessation from the appointed public official.
February 16, 1998
PARCCOM; DISQUALIFICATION OF MEMBERS FROM HOLDING OTHER POSITION IN GOVERNMENT
Are PARCCOM members qualified to hold other office in government?
- As ruled by the Supreme Court, the constitution being the fundamental and paramount law of the nation is also the supreme law to which all other laws must conform and in accordance with which all private rights must be determined and all public authority administered (Manila Prince Hotel vs. G.S.I.S. et al., G.R No. 122156, Promulgated, February 3, 1997). This implies that in the discharge and administration of public authority or office, it must be in conformity and consonance with the constitution, otherwise, the same will have no force or effect in law.
- The prohibition shall accordingly apply to both categories of members in the House of Representatives, whether he be a Congressman by the direct vote of the people or a Party-list Representative.
November 5, 1998
PARCCOM; FUNCTION
What is the function of the PARCCOM?
- DAR A.O. No. 7, Series of 1994 provides that the PARCCOM shall serve as a forum for resolving operational problems and issues, for policy formulation and inter-agency work programming and shall provide overall direction in inter-agency coordination and work programming at the provincial level.
December 13, 1996
PARCCOM; MEMBERS WHO ARE CONSIDERED PUBLIC OFFICERS
Are PARCCOM Members considered public officers?
- As to the Chairman of the PARCCOM, since the power to appoint is vested in the President, the fact that he is appointed by the President who is a competent authority makes him a public officer. As to the other members of PARCCOM, they are likewise considered public officers. As members, they are occupying other position in the government by virtue of a valid appointment, thereby making them public officers as well.
- However, with respect to the last category of members of PARCCOM which are the "elective members" they are not considered public officers. The term election as used in Art. 203 of the Revised Penal Code shall mean popular or election by the voters at large. Since the elected members being referred hereto are not elected by direct vote of the people at large, they cannot be deemed as public officers as defined and contemplated in the abovecited provision of law and Supreme Court Ruling. Accordingly, said elective members of the PARCCOM who filed their candidacy in the recently concluded Election are not considered ipso facto resigned from office upon filing of their certificates of candidacy.
February 16, 1998
PARCCOM; MEMBERSHIP; CANNOT BE INCREASED OR DECREASED BY MERE RESOLUTION OR ORDINANCE
May the composition of PARCCOM be increased or decreased?
- Sec. 44 of RA 6657 enumerates the composition of every PARCCOM Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1994 which serves as the Implementing Guidelines of the said provision of the law, also enumerates the composition of each PARCCOM.
- The composition of each PARCCOM is exclusive, and being such, the membership may not be increased or decreased by merely approving a resolution or ordinance to that effect.
- It is a settled rule that a resolution or ordinance cannot amend a statute which is an act of the legislative for the simple reason that only a statute can amend a statute.
December 13, 1996
May the composition of PARCCOM be amended?
- The composition of every PARCCOM has been set forth in Sec. 44 of R.A. 6657. Membership in the PARCCOM is provided for by law. It is a settled rule that a law can only be amended by another law.
December 13, 1996
PARITY AMENDMENT; PRIVILEGE TO ACQUIRE AND EXPLOIT AGRICULTURAL LANDS EXTENDED TO US CITIZENS
Is the privilege to acquire and exploit agricultural lands extended to US Citizens?
- As originally drafted by the framers of the 1935 Constitution, the privilege to acquire and exploit agricultural lands of the public domain and other natural resources of the Philippines, and to operate public utilities, were reserved to Filipinos and entities owned or controlled by them, but the "Parity Amendment" expressly extended the privilege to citizens of the United States of America and/or to business enterprises owned or controlled by them. Section 127 of Commonwealth Act 141 (the Public Land Act of 1936) prescribes:
"Sec. 127. During the existence and continuance of the Commonwealth, and before the Republic of the Philippines is established, citizens and corporations of the United States shall enjoy the same rights granted to citizens and corporations of the Philippines under this Act."
- The right of United States citizens and corporations to acquire and exploit private or public lands and other natural resources of the Philippines was intended to expire when the Commonwealth ended on 04 July 1946. Thereafter, public and private agricultural lands and natural resources of the Philippines were or became exclusively reserved by our Constitution for Filipino citizens. This situation lasted until the "Parity Amendment", ratified in November, 1946, once more reopened to United States citizens and business enterprises owned or controlled by them the lands of the public domain, the natural resources of the Philippines, and the operation of the public utilities, exclusively, but not the acquisition or exploitation of private agricultural lands, about which not a word is found in the Parity Amendment (Republic vs. Quasha, 46 SCRA 160).
- Moreover, even assuming that the acquisition by United States citizens of private agricultural lands in the Philippines is valid and constitutional, their rights expire on 3 July 1974. All the exceptional rights conferred upon United States citizens and business entities owned or controlled by them, under the Amendment, are subject to one and the same resolutory form or period: they are to last "during the effectivity of the Executive Agreement entered into on 04 July 1946", "but in no case to extend beyond the third of July 1974." None of the privileges conferred by the "Parity Amendment" are excepted from this resolutory period (supra).
December 12, 2000
PARTITION; COLLECTIVELY AWARDED LAND CANNOT BE A SUBJECT OF PARTITION
Are lands collectively awarded be the subject of partition?
- Whether the land is awarded collectively or through the cooperative the same cannot be the subject of a partition within ten (10) years from issuance of the CLOA unless the following conditions and requirements are all complied with:
1. Determination by DAR that it is economically feasible and sound to divide in coordination with the Department of Agriculture and other concerned agencies;
2. Majority vote of the ARBs to partition the land; and
3. Approval by the DAR considering that it retains the option to generate individual CLOAs within the 10-year period.
- That the provision of law under Section 29 of R.A. No. 6657 that "in case it is not economically feasible and sound to divide the land, then it shall be owned collectively by the worker beneficiaries" is a specific limitation to the general right of a co-owner to demand at any time the partition of the thing owned in common (Article 494, Civil Code). Well-entrenched is the rule that provisions of a specific law (e.g., R.A. No. 6657) prevail over that of a general law (e.g., Civil Code). Our Constitution itself recognizes the need to regulate the acquisition, ownership, use and disposition of property (Section 1, paragraph 2, Article XIII, Philippine Constitution) and that the exercise of one's rights of ownership is subject to limitations as established by law (Article 428, Civil Code).
July 14, 1999
PATRIMONIAL LOTS; WHO SHOULD PROCESS THE TITLE
Who should process the title of patrimonial lots already turned-over to the Local Government Unit (LGU) and to other patrimonial lots still to be turned-over?
- Under the provisions of the guide MOA by and between the DAR and Local Government Unit concerned, said MOA being attached to and forming part of DAR Memorandum Circular No. 26, series of 1995, the PARO Office shall assist the Municipality or LGU in securing the corresponding title/s from the proper Register of Deeds (ROD). As provided in the 7th WHEREAS Clause of the guide MOA,
". . . . the DEPARTMENT do hereby turn over and convey unto and in favor of the MUNICIPALITY/CITY all the items enumerated in Appendix "A" and shall cause, through its Provincial Agrarian Reform Office, the issuance of corresponding Certificate/s of Title in favor of the MUNICIPALITY/CITY from the Register of Deeds concerned xxxxx." (emphasis supplied)
February 20, 2002
PAUPER LITIGANT; EXEMPT FROM ANY LEGAL FEE
Is a pauper litigant farmer/tenant exempt from payment of any legal fee as an incident of a pending case before the DARAB?
- 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…", 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.
- A pauper litigant is also exempt from the fragment of kilometrage for the DARAB Sheriff as this is still within the import and contemplation of the statement emphasized in the aforequoted provision of law that a pauper litigant "shall continue to enjoy such status as a pauper litigant in all the levels of adjudication until the case is terminated".
October 28, 1999
PAYROLL DEDUCTION; WHEN ALLOWED
When may payroll deduction be allowed?
- ARTICLE III, SECTION 7 OF THE CNA
"Section 7. Check-Off. The DAR recognizes the right of the ASSOCIATION to check-off or to deduct from the payroll of ASSOCIATION dues, assessments and other fees from salaries of the members of the ASSOCIATION upon receipt of written authorization from said members and to remit the same to the ASSOCIATION Treasurer within a reasonable number of working days after the deductions have been made, provided that personal debts and obligations shall be excluded from this check-off authority." (emphasis supplied)
- ARTICLE VI, SECTION 1.1 OF THE CNA
"Section 1. The DAR shall set aside or allocate a budget intended for the benefits as herein adopted subject to availability of funds. For the purpose of ensuring the grant of such benefits, the DAR and the ASSOCIATION shall also establish a system for prioritizing the utilization of savings and available funds for purposes of granting the following benefits:
1. Medical Health Maintenance Program. The DAR shall grant annual allowance amounting to Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) to all employees. Said benefits shall not be given in cash but will serve as membership contribution to the self-managed health care program operated and managed by the ASSOCIATION's Foundation." (emphasis supplied)
- IN VIEW of the aforequoted provisions which are all geared for the promotion of unity, cooperation, mutual support, harmonious and beneficial relations by, between and among the DAR and DAREA managements and DAREA member employees of which this present administration subscribes to, the Regional and Provincial Offices and all others concerned should, therefore, take heed and be reminded of said provisions to protect the gains and carry on the visions/objectives of the Association in partnership with the DAR Administration. Towards this end, all positive efforts should be undertaken by all concerned to encourage full support and cooperation in all the plans and programs of the Association to effect an orderly and continuous payroll deductions of all DAREA members' dues and obligations pursuant to the aforequoted provisions of the First Collective Negotiation Agreement (CNA) and DAREA National Constitution and By-Laws.
July 9, 2003
PCGG SURRENDERED PROPERTIES; PROCEEDS ACCRUED TO ARF UNDER E.O. NO. 323
- If they are non-agricultural, they are deemed exempt and are beyond the ambit of R.A. No. 6657. However, since they are surrendered properties to PCGG and there is a plan to privatize the same, it is mandated under E.O. No. 323 that the proceeds shall accrue to the Agrarian Reform Fund (ARF) pursuant to Section 63 of R.A. No. 6657.
DAR OPINION NO. 04, s. 2006
January 20, 2006
PERFORMANCE BOND; PERIOD WITHIN WHICH TO COMPLY
When is an applicant required to post a performance bond?
- Requisite Number of Days Within Which an Applicant is Required to Post a Performance Bond
Section 26, Article III (Procedures) of DAR Administrative Order No. 01, series of 2002 pertinently provides:
"Section 26. Performance Bond. — Within five (5) days from receipt of a copy of the Conversion Order, the applicant shall post a performance bond in the form of either of the following . . . . ."
On the other hand, Section 33.2, Article V (Issuance of Conversion Order and its Effects) of the same Administrative Order provides:
"Section 33. Conditions of Conversion Order. — The approval of the application for conversion shall be subject to the following conditions:
xxx xxx xxx
Section 33.2. Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the Conversion Order, the landowner shall post a performance bond in accordance with Sections 25 or 26 hereof."
- Basic is the rule in statutory construction that where there is a particular or special provision and a general provision in the same statute, and the latter in its most comprehensive sense would overrule the former, the particular or special provision must be taken to effect only the other parts of the statute to which it may properly apply. In other words, the particular or special provision is construed as an exception to the general provision.
- Here, we could infer that Section 26 is the special provision regarding the posting of performance bond while Section 33 is the general provision, in which case the former shall prevail. Thus, an applicant for conversion should post a performance bond within five (5) days from receipt of a copy of the conversion order.
December 9, 2003
POLICE POWER OF THE STATE; ENACTMENT OF AGRARIAN LAWS PURSUANT THERETO
Is the enactment of agrarian laws a valid exercise of the police power of the State?
- The enactment of agrarian laws is pursuant to valid exercise of the police power of the State. In its exercise, the State may interfere with property, business and occupation. The rationale for the interference is that public welfare or interest is superior to private rights, thus, well-settled is the rule as underscored by the Supreme Court in a long line of decisions that the constitutional guarantee of non-impairment of obligations is limited by the exercise of the police power of the State.
June 23, 1998
PRAWN FARMS OR FISHPONDS; COLLATERAL FOR A MORTGAGE LOAN
May prawn farms or fishponds be used as collateral for a mortgage loan?
- So long as there is a DAR determination on the exemption of the property as a prawn farm or fishpond in accordance with DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1995, the same can stand as collateral for a mortgage loan and may be foreclosed and transferred in case of non-payment.
October 16, 1995
PRE-EMPTION/REDEMPTION RIGHT
- In case the agricultural lessor decides to sell the landholding, the agricultural lessee shall have the preferential right to buy the same, and, in case the landholding is 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.
DAR OPINION NO. 21, s. 2010
July 30, 2010
PRE-EMPTION/REDEMPTION RIGHT
What are the rights given to lessee in case of sale or transfer of the land to 3rd persons?
Ang mga may-ari ay may karapatan na ipagbili ang kanilang lupa kung ito ay kanilang nanaisin. Subalit ang magsasaka ay may tinatawag na "right of pre-emption" at "right of redemption" ayon sa Sections 11 and 12 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, na nagsasaad ng ganito:
"SEK. 11. Karapatan ng Namumuwisan na Unang Pagbigyan sa Pagbili — Sakaling ipasiya ng nagpapabuwis sa pagsasaka na ipagbili ang hinahawakang lupa, ang namumuwisan sa pagsasaka ay magkakaroon ng karapatan upang unang pagbigyan sa pagbili ng naturan sa ilalim ng mga makatwirang katakdaan at kondisyon.
SEK. 12. Karapatan ng Namumuwisan sa Pagtubos. — Sakaling ipagbili ang lupa sa ibang tao nang hindi alam ng namumuwisan sa pagsasaka, magkakaroon ng karapatan itong huli na tubusin ang naturan sa katamtamang halaga at kabayaran."
- Tangi sa riyan, ang pagsasalin ng pagmamay-ari ng lupa sa nakabili ay hindi rin magiging sanhi ng pag-papaalis sa magsasaka. Sa madaling salita, ang dating magsasaka ay mananatili pa ring magsasaka ng bagong may-ari sa dahilang ang pagsasalin ng pagmamay-ari ng lupa sa pamamagitan ng bentahan ay hindi kinikilala ng batas para tuluyang mapa-alis ang isang namumuwisan (Section 10, R.A. No. 3844, as amended).
November 15, 2000
Does the agricultural lessee have the right of pre-emption and redemption?
- 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 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.
February 9, 1999
PRE-EMPTION/REDEMPTION; NOT AVAILABLE TO BUYER OF TENANCY RIGHTS
Is the right of pre-emption or redemption available to buyer of tenancy rights?
- The right of pre-emption or redemption conferred upon a lessee to buy or redeem the property is not available to buyer of tenancy rights because tenancy status cannot be bargained away for consideration without the consent and knowledge of the landowner.
December 13, 1996
PRE-EMPTION; WHEN MAY BE EXERCISED
When may the right of pre-emption be exercised?
- The right of pre-emption may be exercised within one-hundred eighty (180) days from notice in writing, which shall be served by the owner on all lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian Reform. Likewise, the right to redeem the property may be exercised within one hundred eighty (180) days from notice in writing which shall be served by the vendee on all lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian Reform upon registration of the sale and shall have priority over any other right of legal redemption.
August 15, 1994
February 19, 1997
PRESCRIPTION; STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS; SECTION 38 R.A. NO. 3844
When does the 3-year period begin for purposes of prescription?
- For purposes of prescription, the three (3) year period starts running from the time of discovery by the landowner of the mortgage contract entered into by the tenant.
- It was held that the running of the 3-year prescriptive period was stopped by the filing of letter-complaint with DAR. The law does not specifically require a judicial action, hence, it can be an administrative action. Ubi lex non distinguit nec nos distinguere debemos (Where the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish) - Dolorfino vs. Court of Appeals, 191 SCRA 880, 03 December 1990.
- One of the essential requisites of a contract of mortgage is that the mortgagor should be the absolute owner of the thing mortgaged.
October 13, 2000
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27; WHO SHALL PAY REAL ESTATE TAXES
- The Secretary of Justice has rendered on February 27, 1973, Opinion No. 35, Series of 1973 (copy attached) stating who shall pay real estate taxes pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27. Under said Opinion, the following tenant/farmers are to pay the real estate taxes due on their farmholdings:
1. Those who actually till their farmholdings located on large estates primarily devoted to rice and/or corn containing areas of 100 hectares or more, regardless of whether or not such tenant-farmers have been issued Certificates of Land Transfer; and
2. Those who have been issued Certificates of Land Transfer although their farmholdings are located in estates, the area of which are less than 100 hectares.
- On the other hand, the landowners are the ones to pay said real estate taxes due on their lands not covered by the foregoing paragraphs.
DAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 2006
March 21, 2006
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27; WHO SHALL PAY REAL ESTATE TAXES
- With respect to landholdings covered by OLT, the pertinent guidelines are embodied in DAR Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1973 in relation to DOJ Opinion No. 35, Series of 1973. Under said guidelines, the following tenant-farmers are to pay real estate taxes due on their farmholdings:
1. Those who actually till their landholdings located on large estates primarily devoted to rice and/or corn containing areas of 100 hectares or more, regardless of whether or not such tenant-farmers have been issued Certificates of Land Transfer; and
2. Those who have been issued Certificates of Land Transfer although their farmholdings are located in estates, the area of which are less than 100 hectares.
- On the other hand, landowners are the ones to pay said real estate taxes on their lands not covered by the above.
DAR OPINION NO. 11, s. 2006
February 2, 2006
PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL LAND; DEFINED
How are private agricultural lands defined in DAR A.O. No. 7, Series of 1997?
- Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1997 (Omnibus Rules and Procedure Governing Conversion of Agricultural Lands to Non-agricultural Uses) defines private agricultural lands as lands devoted to or suitable to agriculture, as defined in R.A. No. 6657 and owned by natural or juridical persons or by the government in its proprietary capacity. Item V of said Administrative Order provides the following, quote: "These rule shall cover all private agricultural lands as defined herein regardless of the tenurial arrangement and commodity produced. It shall also include all untitled agricultural lands and agricultural lands reclassified by LGUs into non-agricultural uses after June 15, 1988, pursuant to Memorandum Circular No. 54, Series of 1993 of the Office of the President and those proposed to be used for livestock, poultry and swine raising as provided in DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993.
February 09, 1998
February 09, 1998
PROCLAMATION NO. 446; PROPRIETY OF AMENDMENT THEREOF
Is the amendment of Presidential Proclamation No. 446 dated 15 August 1994 proper?
- As explained by DENR, the amendment seeks to correct the clerical error in the technical description of the area covered by PP No. 446, as well as to transfer the administration and disposition thereof from DAR to DENR, considering that said parcel of land is more suitable for residential rather than agricultural purposes. Our field officers report that the track of land covered by PP No. 446 is fully occupied by B'laan and Muslim immigrants, some of whom have constructed semi-permanent houses. Considering that said area is actually used for residential purposes, the DAR interposes no objection to the proposed amendment.
June 27, 1996
PRODUCTION AND PROFIT SHARING; INTERIM SCHEMES EMPLOYED ADOPTED BY CORPORATE FARMS PENDING FINAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE LAND TO THE FBS
What are the interim schemes employed or adopted by corporate farms pending final distribution of the land to the farmer-beneficiaries?
- The interim schemes employed or adopted by corporate farms pending final distribution of the land to the farmer-beneficiaries are the production and profit sharing mandated under Section 16 of Executive Order No. 229 and Sections 13 and 32 of RA 6657 and Commercial Farm Deferment as provided in Section 11 of RA 6657 as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 16, Series of 1988.
December 13, 1996
PRODUCTION AND PROFIT SHARING; MAY CONTINUE AFTER THE LAPSE OF THE TEN-YEAR DEFERMENT PERIOD
Whether or not the Production Profit Sharing (PPS) of deferred commercial farms may continue after lapse of the ten-year deferment period?
- Section 13, R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law)
"Section 13. Production Sharing Plan. — Any enterprise adopting the scheme provided for in Section 32 or operating under a production venture, lease, management contract or other similar arrangement and any farm covered by Sections 8 and 11 hereof is hereby mandated to execute within ninety (90) days from the effectivity of this, a production-sharing plan, under guidelines prescribed by the appropriate government agency.
Nothing herein shall be construed to sanction the diminution of any benefits such as salaries, bonuses, leaves and working conditions granted to the employee beneficiaries under existing laws, agreements, and voluntary practice by the enterprise, nor shall the enterprise and its employee-beneficiaries be prevented from entering into any agreement with terms more favorable to the latter."
- Article 100, P.D. No. 442, as amended (The Labor Code)
"ART.100. Prohibition against elimination or diminution of benefits. — Nothing in this book shall be construed to eliminate or in any way diminish supplements, or other employee benefits being enjoyed at the time of promulgation of this Code."
- Section 12, R.A. No. 6971 (An Act to Encourage Productivity and Maintain Industrial Peace by Providing Incentives to Both Labor and Capital)
"Sec. 12. Non-Diminution of Benefits. — Nothing in this Act shall be construed to diminish or reduce any benefits and other privileges enjoyed by the workers under existing laws, decrees, executive orders, company policy or practice, or any agreement or contract between the employer and employees."
- Given all the above-quoted provisions of law, considering that the grant of production and profit shares appears to have already been an established practice, and since the lands are still devoted to agricultural production, it is our considered opinion on equitable considerations that production and profit sharing (PPS) should continue. Accordingly, the submission of reports of compliance may still be required pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 8, series of 1988 (Guidelines and Procedures Implementing Production and Profit Sharing Under Republic Act No. 6657).
May 6, 2003
PRODUCTION AND PROFIT SHARING; PROFIT INCENTIVE PAYMENT BY FISHPOND OPERATORS
When are the fishpond operators required to pay profit incentive?
- R.A. No. 7881 requires the execution of incentive plan within six (6) months from the effectivity of said law. The implementation of R.A. No. 7881 was suspended only on 13 November 1995, hence, the deadline for execution of incentive plan has expired before said law was suspended. Therefore, fishpond operators are still obliged to pay profit incentive for the year 1995, that is, from the effectivity of R.A. No. 7881 on 12 March 1995 up to the date the law was suspended on 13 November 1995. This is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the law pursuant to Article 1702 of the New Civil Code which provides that in case of doubt, all labor legislation and all labor contracts shall be construed in favor of the safety and decent living for the laborer. Consequently, fishpond operators are not obliged to pay the profit incentive reckoned from the date of suspension on 13 November 1995 up to the time of lifting thereof on 6 August 1997 when the Decision of the Court of Appeals had become final and executory, afterwhich payment of said profit incentive shall again resume.
May 25, 1998
PROFIT-SHARING ARRANGEMENT; SUSPENDED WITH APPROVAL OF DAR
Can profit-sharing arrangement be unilaterally suspended?
- Any existing Production/Profit Sharing Arrangement once granted by the employer shall remain to be enforced and cannot be unilaterally suspended without the approval of the Department of Agrarian Reform. Section 2 of R.A. No. 6657 (otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL) is founded on the right of the farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. This production and profit sharing plan is in pursuit of this avowed principle of agrarian reform and is mandated under Sections 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 in order that farmworkers can realize an improvement in their farm income.
January 02, 1998
PROSPECTING; WHEN NOT ALLOWED
When is prospecting not allowed?
- Sec. 28 (a) of Commonwealth Act No. 137 (The Mining Act) provides the following :
"Sec. 28. No prospecting shall be allowed:
a. In a mineral reserve which has been proclaimed closed to mining locations, and in reservations established for other purposes, except by the government."
July 22, 1994
PROTEST; ON COVERAGE
What is the effect on coverage in case there is a pending protest or applications for exemption or conversion?
(Note: Superseded by Section 14 of A.O. No. 06, s. 2000)
- As clarified in DAR Opinion No. 9, series of 1999, to quote:
". . . it is deemed wise and prudent to resolve first the pending petition 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.
In view of all the foregoing, we submit that in cases where there are pending applications for exemption or conversion or protests on coverage, the issuance of Certificate of Cash Deposit shall be held in abeyance until such time that said applications or protests are resolved with finality."
November 9, 2000
PROTEST; ON COVERAGE, RETENTION, EXEMPTION, EXCLUSION OR CONVERSION; DOCUMENTATION TO BE SUSPENDED PENDING RESOLUTION OF PROTEST
Should the coverage documentation proceed pending resolution of protest?
(Note: Superseded by Section 14 of A.O. No. 06, s. 2000)
- 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 first the pending petition 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."
November 10, 1999
PUBLIC DOMINION; CREEK CLASSIFIED AS PROPERTY OF PUBLIC DOMAIN
- Art. 502 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that rivers and their natural beds are of public dominion.
- In the case of Mercado vs. Mun. President of Macabebe, 59 Phil 592, a creek is merely an arm of a river, and must therefore be classified as property of public dominion. A creek is really property of public dominion, being an arm or extension of a river. But even granting that it is private, still, if used by the general public for a long time it has ceased to be private, and the alleged owner or claimant has no right to prevent the public from using the same.
- No person shall have a right over bodies of water classified as property of public dominion such as a creek. However, the discharge of domestic waters (such as water for washing, bathing, cooking or other household needs, home gardens and watering of lawns or domestic animals) to a creek may not be restricted except when the same is deemed hazardous to the life and limb of the inhabitants of the community near the creek.
DAR OPINION NO. 05, s. 2008
February 19, 2008
PUBLIC FOREST; CANNOT BE RECLASSIFIED TO AGRICULTURAL LAND
May a property which is part of the public forest be reclassified to agricultural land?
- A property which is part of the public forest cannot be reclassified as agricultural land in view of the prohibition found in Section 4 (a) of RA 6657 against the reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands until Congress has determined by law the specific limits of the public domain.
March 13, 1994
PUBLIC LAND ACT; COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 141
Is it valid under the Public Land Act to sell or mortgage lands without the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources? What is its effect?
- Section 29 of Commonwealth Act No. 141, as amended, otherwise known as the "Public Land Act" provides in part:
" . . . Any sale and encumbrance made without the previous approval of the Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources, shall be null and void and shall produce the effect of annulling the acquisition and reverting the property and all rights thereto to the State, and all payments on the purchase price theretofore made to the Government shall be forfeited . . ."
- Any sale or encumbrance by the original claimants or pioneer settlers of their landholdings acquired under the abovementioned law without prior approval of the concerned government agency (i.e., NARRA, then Land Authority and now DAR) is null and void. It bears stressing that holders of Certificates of Allocation acquire only possessory rights over the properties allocated to them. In case of violation of the conditions and requisites for the eventual issuance of title, cancellation proceedings must necessarily be undertaken to revoke the CAs awarded, and, to determine who would be the next qualified beneficiaries to the subject landholdings.
May 6, 1998
PUBLIC LAND; ACQUISITION UNDER R.A. NO. 6657
Are lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture subject of CARP coverage?
- Even assuming that farmer-claimants are not deemed owners with acquired private rights (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, 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).
May 05, 1999
PUBLIC LAND; ACQUISITIVE PRESCRIPTION; CONDITIONS THEREOF
What are the conditions set by law before a possessor of public land acquires a right to a government grant?
- 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."
- 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), 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.
May 5, 1999
PUBLIC LAND; NECESSITY OF AN OCULAR INVESTIGATION/INSPECTION
Is it necessary to conduct ocular inspection on lands before coverage takes place?
- It is 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 pertinent 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 agency concerned (CGP in the instant case) 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.
May 5, 1999
PUBLIC LAND; P.D. 1073 SHOULD NOT HAVE RETROACTIVE EFFECT
Should P.D. No. 1073 be accorded retroactive effect?
- 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. A more liberal interpretation of the law 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.
May 5, 1999
PUBLIC LANDS; WHEN CONSIDERED PRIVATE
What are the situations where public lands are considered private property as of October 21, 1972?
1) Land covered by sales application — The area should have been sold at public auction awarded to the successful bidder, who may be either the applicant or another person, prior to October 21, 1972 and the awardee must have complied with the cultivation requirement of the law and fully paid the purchase price thereof prior to said date;
2) Land covered by homestead application — The application had been approved and applicant had complied with all requirements of the law regarding occupancy, cultivation and residence as of said date by the applicant for approval by the Bureau of Lands; and
3) Land covered by free patent application — In all cases, the land may be considered private property if application has been accepted, processed and found to be patentable under the provisions of the free patent law considering that under the said law the right of the applicant to the title to such land which is being confirmed administratively retroacts on the date of occupancy and cultivation thereof, either by himself or his predecessor-in-interest on June 12, 1945, or prior thereto.
September 2, 1997
PUBLIC OFFICIAL; MULTIPLE DIRECTORSHIP; LEGALITY THEREOF
Is it legal for public officials or employees to hold multiple directorship in other government agencies?
- The Department fully supports the prohibition of public officials or employees to hold multiple directorships in other government offices, agencies and instrumentalities including Government Owned and Controlled Corporations (GOCCs) or their subsidiaries, even if there is no law allowing the same or even if the appointment is not related to the primary functions of their positions. The resolution calling for an inquiry is in line with the provision of Rule XVIII, Section 1 of the Omnibus Rules Implementing Book V of Executive Order No. 292 and other Pertinent Civil Service Laws.
December 21, 1998
PUBLIC OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES; NOT ABSOLUTELY PROHIBITED TO PRACTICE PRIVATELY THEIR PROFESSION
Are public officials and employees allowed to practice their profession?
- Section 7 (b) (2) of Republic Act No. 6713 (Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees) which provides that public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not engage in the private practice of their profession unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions. It is clear from the foregoing provision of law that private practice of profession of government employees is not absolutely prohibited provided authority for limited practice is granted by the proper Department Head under such terms and conditions prescribed by law and pertinent executive issuances.
October 28, 1999
PUBLICATION; "NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN SUCH PLACES" HOW CONSTRUED
- The provisions stated under Item Nos. 4.6 and 4.7 of said Order are very explicit. The phrase "NEWSPAPER OF GENERAL CIRCULATION IN SUCH PLACES" implies that publication could be made in a local newspaper of general circulation in the province or region where the property is located. It need not be published in a national newspaper of general circulation. The phrase "in such places" suggests specific or particularity of place/location.
DAR OPINION NO. 06, s. 2006
January 26, 2006
Q
QUARRYING; VALID GROUND FOR DISPOSSESSION OF TENANT
- If the alleged quarrying was without your consent, and the landholding was used for a purpose other than what had been previously agreed upon, this is a valid ground for the dispossession of the tenant under Section 36, par. 3 of R.A. No. 3844.
DAR OPINION NO. 15, s. 2009
June 29, 2009
R
RECLASSIFICATION; DOES NOT AUTHORIZE CONVERSION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND
- A reclassification of an agricultural by the Local Government Units based on their mandate under the Local Government Code (RA7160) does not in effect authorize the conversion of an agricultural land. In other words the slightest change in the agricultural land use to some other non-agricultural use (which in this case is a housing project), no matter how minimal the area to be covered by such change will be interpreted as land use conversion. As such, the reclassification is not sufficient, there is a need to apply for conversion clearance from the DAR before any development or act is executed on any agricultural land.
DAR OPINION NO. 30, s. 2008
November 25, 2008
RECLASSIFICATION; RECLASSIFICATION TO NON AGRICULTURAL USE BEFORE EFFECTIVITY OF CARL DOES NOT OPERATE TO DIVEST TENANT-FARMERS OF THEIR RIGHTS OVER THE LAND
- Reclassification as early as 1980, prior to effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 on June 15, 1988, to non-agricultural uses did not operate to divest tenant-farmers of their rights over lands covered by Presidential Decree No. 27, which have already been vested prior to 15 June 1988. As held by the Supreme Court in the case entitled Anderson Co. vs. Intermediate Appellate Court (G.R. No. L-65928 June 21, 1988).
DAR OPINION NO. 28, s. 2008
November 14, 2008
RECLASSIFICATION; AS DISTINGUISHED FROM LAND USE CONVERSION; EXEMPTION FROM CARP COVERAGE
How is reclassification distinguished from conversion?
- Reclassification, which is the Local Government Unit's (LGU's) act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses, such as residential, industrial, commercial as embodied in the land use plan, is not synonymous with land use conversion, which is the actual change of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses as duly approved by DAR. Approval of applications for land use conversion remains the exclusive responsibility of DAR.
- Agricultural lands classified or zonified for non-agricultural uses by LGUs and approved by the HLURB before June 15, 1988 (effectivity of R.A. No. 6657), shall be governed by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994, as amended (guidelines on exemption from CARP coverage). Thereafter, the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1999 shall apply as regards applications for conversion.
December 23, 1999
How is reclassification distinguished from conversion?
- Reclassification is the act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses. It also includes reversion of non-agricultural lands to agricultural use. Land Use Conversion, on the other hand, is defined as the actual change of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses. Although seemingly, reclassification and conversion are similar in the sense that they both determine whether a parcel of land should be used for agricultural or other purposes, they differ in approach. Land Reclassification is done through the town planning process, subject to review and approval by the Provincial Sanggunian while the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses goes through the DAR's evaluation process subject to existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations, as provided for under DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 1997.
- Thus, insofar as the legality and propriety for conversion of agricultural lands or lands classified as such into non-agricultural uses are concerned, the same must be adjudicated by DAR which has the exclusive authority and legal mandate to approve or disapprove the conversion of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses (Sections 4(j) and 5(l) of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987).
November 10, 1998
RECLASSIFICATION; AUTHORITY OF LGU TO DISPOSE REAL PROPERTY
Is the local government unit authorized to dispose real property?
- A local government unit is thus authorized to dispose of real property held by them in their proprietary capacity. Therefore, if the City of Marikina holds the said park lots (assuming that they are not classified as agricultural) in its proprietary capacity, the city council has the authority to reclassify (not convert) said park lots into relocation sites or to pursue any lawful project which the City Council may deem proper and beneficial for the City of Marikina. However, if the said park lots are classified as public lands, the awarding or selling thereof cannot be made by the city/municipal council through a mere ordinance. Instead, Commonwealth Act No. 141, otherwise known as the Public Land Act, shall govern, which in turn provides that public lands cannot be subsequently alienated unless authorized by Congress.
November 10, 1998
Where does the authority of the local government unit to reclassify emanate?
- The authority of the local government units to reclassify lands emanate from Section 20 of Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) which pertinently provides in part that "a city or municipality may, through an ordinance passed by the sanggunian after conducting public hearing for the purpose, authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition in the following cases: (1) when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the Department of Agriculture or (2) where the land shall have substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes, as determined by the sanggunian concerned."
- Clearly, the authority to enact zoning ordinance and reclassify lands is lodged with the local government units concerned while the authority to approve or disapprove applications for conversion belongs to the Department of Agrarian Reform. The provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 1997 (cited earlier) shall likewise serve as guide for local government units on matters pertaining to applications for land use conversion.
December 2, 1998
RECLASSIFICATION; AUTHORITY OF LGU TO RECLASSIFY AGRICULTURAL LAND
- The LGU and the DAR have both derived their mandate from laws which are R.A. No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991) and R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) respectively. Both stand on equal footing. However, it is well-settled that agricultural lands subjected to acquisition and redistribution under CARL are excluded from the reclassification which LGUs may authorize by ordinance.
DAR OPINION NO. 27, s. 2005
November 10, 2005
RECLASSIFICATION; AUTHORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT TO RECLASSIFY LANDHOLDINGS; NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH DAR'S AUTHORITY TO CONVERT
Is the authority of local government unit to reclassify landholdings synonymous with DAR's authority to convert?
- Reclassification, which is the Local Government Unit's (LGU's) act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses, such as residential, industrial, tourism or commercial, as embodied in the land use plan, is not synonymous with land use conversion, which is the act or process of changing the current physical use of a piece of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses as duly approved by DAR. Under the law, approval of applications for land use conversion remains the exclusive responsibility of DAR.
- Thus, landowners are still required to file an application for conversion to be determined on the merits and duly approved by the proper DAR authorities (not the MARO) before agricultural lands may be converted into non-agricultural uses pursuant to the provisions of existing/applicable laws and DAR guidelines on conversion.
September 9, 2003
RECLASSIFICATION; AUTHORITY OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNIT TO RECLASSIFY LANDHOLDINGS; NOT SYNONYMOUS WITH DAR'S AUTHORITY TO CONVERT
Is the authority of local government unit to reclassify landholdings synonymous with DAR's authority to convert?
- R.A. No. 7160 (Local Government Code of 1991), Sec. 20 thereof grants to the Local Government Units (LGUs) the power to reclassify lands. Under the law and existing rules and regulations it is still the DAR which has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to order the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses.
April 24, 1997
RECLASSIFICATION; CARP — COVERED PROPERTIES; EXCLUDED FROM RECLASSIFICATION BY LGUs
Are agricultural lands subjected under CARP excluded from reclassification by LGUs?
- Agricultural lands subjected to acquisition and redistribution under CARL are excluded from the reclassification which LGUs may authorize by ordinance.
June 27, 1995
RECLASSIFICATION; CIRCUMSTANCES THAT AUTHORIZE RECLASSIFICATION
- Under Section 20 of RA 7160 (1991) or the "Local Government Code of 1991," a city or municipality may authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition under the following circumstances:
a) when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the DA; or
b) where the land shall have substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes, as determined by the sanggunian concerned.
DAR OPINION NO. 26, s. 2007
September 27, 2007
RECLASSIFICATION; EFFECT OF LAND RECLASSIFICATION
Should land use reclassification place the property outside the purview of CARP?
- Land use reclassification by itself does not place the subject property outside the purview of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program because it merely specifies how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, commercial, as embodied in the land use plan.
February 27, 1997
December 13, 1996
RECLASSIFICATION; LANDHOLDING EXCLUDED THERETO
What types of agricultural lands shall not be covered by reclassification?
- Malacañang Memorandum Circular No. 54 dated 8 June 1993 provides in part that: "In addition the following types of agricultural lands shall not be covered by said reclassification:
a. Agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries subject to Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657;
b. Agricultural lands already issued a notice of coverage or voluntarily offered for coverage under CARP;
c. Agricultural lands identified under Malacañang Administrative Order No. 20, Series of 1992 as non-negotiable for conversion:
1. All irrigated lands where water is available to support rice and other crop production;
2. All irrigated lands where water is not available for rice and other crop production but within areas programmed for irrigation facility rehabilitation by the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the National Irrigation Administration (NIA);
3. All irrigable lands already covered by irrigation projects with firm funding commitments at the time of the application for land use conversion or reclassification".
April 24, 1997
RECLASSIFICATION; LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS NOT AUTHORIZED TO RECLASSIFY AGRICULTURAL LANDS COVERED BY CARP
Does the Local Government Unit have the authority to reclassify agricultural lands subjected to acquisition and redistribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries?
- The authority of Local Government Units to reclassify agricultural lands does not cover those subjected to acquisition and redistribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries pursuant to CARL. This is expressly provided in the following:
1) Paragraph (e) Section 20 of RA 7160 which clearly provides that nothing in said Section shall be construed as repealing amending or modifying in any manner the provisions of R.A. No. 6657;
2) Article 39 (b) of Rule VII of the Implementing Rules and Regulations of the Code which provides that agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to Republic Act 6657 shall not be affected by the reclassification.
3) Section 1(d) nos. 1 & 2 of Memorandum Circular No. 54 dated June 8, 1993 of the Office of the President which provides that agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries as well as those already issued a notice of coverage or voluntarily offered for coverage under CARL shall not be covered by the reclassification made by LGUs.
June 27, 1995
RECLASSIFICATION; MEANING
Is reclassification synonymous with conversion under Sec. 65 of R.A. No. 6657?
- Reclassification is not synonymous with conversion under Section 65 of RA 6657 for while the authority to reclassify is lodged with the local government units, the authority to convert remains with the DAR.
December 13, 1996
What is land reclassification?
- Land reclassification is a power exercised by the municipal or city government through the town planning process subject to review and approval by the Provincial Sanggunian through the Provincial Land Use Council (PLUC).
March 27, 1996
RECLASSIFICATION; MINERAL TO AGRICULTURAL
What must be done before a land may be reverted to its previous classification?
- As to the issue of the necessity of a positive act of the government in order that a land may be reverted to its previous classification or converted into agricultural, proper determination thereof as to its suitability or non-suitability for agriculture should first be made and dealt certified as such by the Department of Agriculture before the DAR would resolve the question of exemption or coverage of said landholding.
October 9, 2000
RECLASSIFICATION; PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED
- RA 7160 mandates that the reclassification should be made after conducting public hearing and that it shall be limited to the following percentage of the total agricultural land area at the time of the passage of the ordinance: (a) for highly urbanized and independent component cities, fifteen percent (15%); (b) for component cities and third class municipalities, ten percent (10%); and (c) for fourth to sixth class municipalities, five percent (5%): Provided, further, that agricultural lands distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to RA 6657 shall not be affected by the said reclassification and the conversion of such lands into other purposes shall be governed by Section 65 of said Act. This percentage ceiling on the land area which the LGUs can reclassify is not absolute. The President may, when public interest so requires and upon recommendation of the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA), authorize a city or municipality to reclassify lands in excess of the limits cited above (Rep. Act No. 7160 [1991], sec. 20[b]).
DAR OPINION NO. 26, s. 2007
September 27, 2007
RECLASSIFICATION; REQUIREMENTS
What are the requirements for land reclassification?
- Lots surrounded by properties already classified into residential/commercial use are not deemed automatically classified as such. The following are the requirements for reclassification.
a. The city or municipal development council shall recommend to the Sangguniang Panglunsod or Sangguniang Bayan, as the case may be, the reclassification of agricultural lands within its jurisdiction.
b. Before enacting the ordinance reclassifying agricultural lands, the Sanggunian concerned must first secure the following certificates:
1. Certification from the Department of Agricultural (DA) indicating the total area of existing agricultural lands in the city or municipality; that such lands are not classified as non-negotiable for conversion or reclassification; and that the land has ceased to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes.
2. Certification from DAR indicating that such lands are not distributed, or not covered by a notice of coverage or not voluntarily offered for coverage under CARP.
March 22, 1999
November 10, 1998
December 2, 1998
RECLASSIFICATION; TENANTS-FARMERS NOT DIVESTED OF THEIR RIGHTS
Is the reclassification of lands to non-agricultural uses divest tenant-farmers of their rights over lands covered by P.D. 27?
- . . . . we believe that the reclassification thereof to non-agricultural uses did not operate to divest tenant-farmers of their rights, especially the transfer of ownership if applicable, over lands covered by Presidential Decree No. 27, which have already been vested prior to 15 June 1988 (Item II, 3rd paragraph, DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1994; Sec. 7, R.A. 3844 in conjunction with Sec. 75, R.A. 6657).
September 24, 1999
RECLASSIFICATION; WHEN MAY BE ALLOWED
- Reclassification may be allowed provided there is compliance with the requirement of DAR Certification that subject lands are not distributed or covered by a notice of acquisition/valuation and, provided further, that, said lands are not classified as non-negotiable for conversion. Be informed, however, that while ordinances reclassifying lands are not subject to DAR approval, finality of the ordinance reclassifying the land will not convert the agricultural areas covered thereby to non-agricultural uses. It is still the DAR which has the exclusive authority and jurisdiction to order the conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses as it is the DAR’s mandate to preserve and maintain agricultural lands with increased productivity and any act of changing the current use of a landholding is tantamount to conversion which requires a conversion order/clearance from DAR. Thus, an absence of said order/clearance is prohibited by law.
- The provision of Section 20 of R.A. No. 7160 is explicit when it provides a city or municipality may, through an ordinance passed by the sanggunian after conducting public hearings for the purpose, authorize the reclassification of agricultural lands and provide for the manner of their utilization or disposition in the following cases: (1) when the land ceases to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes as determined by the Department of Agriculture or (2) where the land shall have substantially greater economic value for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes, as determined by the sanggunian concerned.
DAR OPINION NO. 02, s. 2009
February 2, 2009
RECLASSIFICATION; WHEN MAY BE ALLOWED?
When may reclassification be allowed?
- Reclassification may be allowed provided there is compliance with the requirement of DAR Certification that subject lands are not distributed or covered by a notice of acquisition/valuation and, provided further, that, said lands are not classified as non-negotiable for conversion.
- It is worthy to note and it may be inferred that what is now being required under Presidential Administrative Order No. 363 is a Certification from DAR that such lands are not covered as yet by a Notice of Acquisition/Valuation under CARP and no longer a DAR Certification indicating that such lands are not covered by a Notice of Coverage. The earlier requirement that there should be no Notice of Coverage issued as yet under Memorandum Circular No. 54, series of 1993 of the Office of the President appears to have now been amended by the latter requirement that there should be no Notice of Acquisition/Valuation under Administrative Order No. 363, series of 1997, likewise of the Office of the President.
March 7, 2003
RECONVEYANCE; WHEN MADE TO GOVERNMENT FINANCING INSTITUTIONS (GFI)
Are properties turned over to DAR exempt from CARL coverage by virtue of their having been reclassified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of CARL?
- If the GFIs are convinced that the properties turned over to DAR are exempt from CARL coverage by virtue of their having been reclassified as non-agricultural prior to the effectivity of CARL, and would like their properties reconveyed, cancellation proceedings should be made at their instance and filed with the Provincial Adjudicator having jurisdiction thereon. Reconveyance to the GFI shall be made only after a final and executory decision has been rendered on the exemption of the property from CARL.
October 4, 1995
REDEMPTION RIGHT
What are the remedies available for the exercise of the tenant-lessees right of redemption?
- There are two (2) mutually exclusive remedies provided under the aforequoted Section 12 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended by Section 2 of R.A. No. 6389 for the exercise of the tenant-lessee's right of redemption. One is the filing of the corresponding petition or request with the Department, and, the other is the filing of a corresponding case in court (now DARAB), as herein resorted to.
February 21, 2002
REDEMPTION; TWO YEAR REDEMPTION PERIOD NOT WAIVABLE
Within what period can the spouse of the transferor-beneficiary be allowed to redeem the land?
- Section 27 of R.A. 6657 provides that if the land has been transferred to the government or to the Land Bank of the Philippines, the children or spouse of the transferor-beneficiary shall still have the right to repurchase the land within two (2) years from the date of transfer. From the mandatory tenor of said provision of law, giving the children or spouse the right to redeem the land within the two (2) year redemption period, it could readily be inferred that said right is not waivable for it would be unduly prejudicial to the beneficiary and his family.
January 9, 1998
REGIONAL DIRECTOR; AUTHORITY TO GRANT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A BARANGAY ROMAN CATHOLIC CHAPEL
Does the Regional Director have the authority to grant the construction of a Barangay Roman Catholic Chapel?
- The Regional Director is without authority to grant request for the construction of a Barangay Roman Catholic Chapel on a property under the administration of DAR. The specific duties and functions of a Regional Director has been clearly set forth under Sec. 24 of E.O. No. 129-A wherein the granting of such request is not among those mentioned in said section.
July 15, 1997
REGIONAL DIRECTOR; POWER TO CITE A PARTY IN CONTEMPT
- The power of the Regional Director to cite a party in contempt is implied and could be inferred under the aforequoted provisions of law, rules and regulations. This is particularly clear based on the 1st paragraph of DAR Administrative Order No. 03, Series of 2003 which provides that said guideline is issued pursuant to sections 49 and 50 of R.A. No. 6657. In Section 50, paragraph 3, last sentence of R.A. No. 6657, DAR is expressly vested with the power to punish direct and indirect contempts in the same manner and subject to the same penalties as provided in the Rules of Court.
- Moreover, a Cease and Desist Order issued by the Regional Director would possibly be without teeth and, hence, no force and effect if he could not cite a party in contempt. The authority of Regional Directors to cite a party in contempt can be deduced as an incident arising within their jurisdiction for the effective and orderly implementation of said Order, in particular and the Program, in general.
DAR OPINION NO. 08, s. 2004
March 11, 2004
REGISTER OF DEEDS; MINISTERIAL DUTY TO REGISTER FREE PATENT
What is the ministerial duty of ROD as regards free patent?
- It is ministerial for the Register of Deeds to register free patent title. However, if the subject property, together with other agricultural lands owned by the patentee, will exceed the 5-hectares ceiling, the excess has to be covered under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries.
November 8, 2000
REGISTRATION; BY LANDOWNERS WHO OWN AGRICULTURAL LAND; PROCEDURE
What is the procedure for the registration of landowners who own or claim to own agricultural lands whether in their names or in the name of others?
- Section 14. Registration of Landowners. — Within one hundred eighty (180) days from the effectivity of this act, all persons, natural or juridical, including government entities, that own or claim to own agricultural lands whether in their names or in the name of others except those who have already registered pursuant to Executive Order No. 229, who shall be entitled to such incentives as may be provided for by the PARC, shall file a sworn statement in the proper assessor's office in the form to be prescribed by the DAR stating the following information:
a. the description and area of the property;
b. the average gross income from the property for at least three (3) years;
c. the names of all tenants and farmworkers therein;
d. the crops planted in the property and the area covered by each crop as of June 1, 1987;
e. the terms of mortgage, leases, and management contracts subsisting as of June 1, 1987; and
f. the latest declared market value of the land as determined by the city or provincial assessor.
July 2, 1996
REGISTRATION; MINISTERIAL DUTY OF THE REGISTER OF DEEDS
What is the duty of the Register of Deeds where the instrument to be presented for registration complies with all the requisites for registration?
- Where the instrument to be presented for registration complies with all the requisites for registration, the Register of Deeds is duty-bound to immediately register said instrument. The duties enjoined upon the Register of deeds pursuant to Section 57 of P.D. No. 1529 (Property Registration Decree) are clearly ministerial and mandatory in character.
August 21, 2001
REGISTRATION; ON SALE OF FARMLOTS; DAR CLEARANCE MAY BE DISPENSED WITH
May the registration of the sale of farmlots be affected without prior DAR Clearance?
- The registration of the sale of the farmlots may be effected without prior DAR Clearance considering that the acquisition was undertaken by virtue of the expropriation powers of the government. This is anchored on the ruling of the Supreme Court in the case entitled "Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals".
August 31, 1995
REGISTRATION; OPERATIVE ACT TO CONVEY THE LAND REGISTERED
What is the effect of registration of a land?
- The five (5) year prohibitory period within which an awarded land should not be converted or reclassified as provided for under Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657 is reckoned from the date of registration of Emancipation Patents (EPs) or Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) with the Register of Deeds and not from the issuance of Certificates of Allocation. This is evident under Joint DAR-LRA Memorandum Circular No. 20, Series of 1997 which provides that the reckoning date of the registration of the EPs and CLOAs shall be the date of entry in the Primary Entry Book. The same reckoning date is likewise provided for under Item IV-B of DAR Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 1997. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Virginia Calalang vs. Register of Deeds of Quezon City (G.R. No. 76265, March 11, 1994), it is the act of registration of the deed of conveyance which serves as the operative act to convey the land registered. The act of registration creates constructive notice to the whole world of the fact of such conveyance.
June 23, 1998
REPEALING CLAUSE
Did DAR A.O. No. 7, Series of 1997 which deals with the rules and procedure governing conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses repeal DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1990 (Policy Guidelines and Operative Procedure in the Identification and Acquisition of Idle or Abandoned Lands)?
- Obviously, there could be no repeal to speak of because the implementing rules and regulations deal with different subject matters. Specifically, DAR A.O. No. 07, Series of 1997 deals with the rules and procedure governing conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses, whereas DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1990 deals with the policy guidelines and operative procedure in the identification and acquisition of idle or abandoned lands. As such, there could be no possible repeal of the previous implementing rules and regulations by the latter one. What the Department rightfully intends is to repeal or put an end to the efficacy of DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1994 since the two involves identical subject matters. Upon the discovery of this glaring error, DAR Administrative Order No. 10, Series of 1997 was immediately issued to rectify the error in the repealing clause of DAR A.O. No. 7, Series of 1997. As it is, the confusion is now a settled issue.
February 4, 1998
REPRESENTATION AND TRANSPORTATION ALLOWANCE (RATA)
Who are authorized to collect RATAs?
- Item No. 2 of the DAR Secretary's Memorandum dated 07 July 1997 provides, quote:
"xxx xxx xxx
2. Holders of the above mentioned positions who are reassigned or in full-time detail to another organization unit or special project for one full calendar month or more, which detail or reassignment is without consent or involuntary in nature are authorized to continue to collect commutable RATA chargeable against their mother units, provided that the duties and responsibilities they perform are comparable with those of their regular positions as certified by the Head of Office concerned. . ."
- The above Memorandum may be made to apply in the instant case. As per records and pertinent certifications of Regional Adjudicator Fe Arche Manalang along with that of Provincial Adjudicator Macario S. Bautista and the recommendation of the Committee on RATA, DAR Region IV, the full-time detail in issue of herein petitioner Honorato A. Victoria is without consent and involuntary in nature, and that he is performing the duties and responsibilities in his new assignment as officer-in-charge, Personnel Administration and Discipline and concurrently, as Deputy Regional Sheriff comparable with his regular positions as CARPO and Chief of the Legal Division in Boac, Marinduque.
June 23, 1998
REPRESENTATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE (RATA); PERSONNEL ASSIGNED TO FAP
Who are entitled to RATA to a Foreign Assisted Projects?
- DAR Memorandum Circular No. 21, dated 21 May 1997, which states:
"IV.1. Representation and Traveling Allowance. Personnel assigned to Foreign Assisted Projects (FAPs) who are entitled to Representation and Travelling Allowance (RATA) shall draw such allowance from GOP counterpart funds effective upon his assignment to FAPs."
- The abovecited provision would bring to light that not all personnel assigned to FAPs are entitled to RATA. The phraseology of the said provision was couched in very plain and simple term wherein there is no room for other interpretation. The wordings "personnel assigned to FAPs who are entitled to RATA……" presuppose that even prior to their assignment, said personnel subsequently assigned to FAPs were already entitled to receive RATA by virtue of their original permanent positions. Thus, conversely, if prior to their assignment to the FAPs, they are not entitled to receive RATA, their assignment to such project will not entitle them to receive the same. Accordingly, only those holding ratable positions are generally entitled to RATA. This is evident from the provisions of DBM National Compensation Circular No. 67, Series of 1992 as amended, particularly, Sections 2 and 3 and subsections thereof, and No. 1 of the Memorandum of the DAR Secretary dated 07 July 1997.
September 25, 1998
REPRESENTATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE (RATA); PERSONNEL WHO ARE ENTITLED THEREOF
- In the payment of RATA, the provisions of DAR Memorandum Circular No. 05, Series of 2000 [Payment of Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) to DAR Officials] and DAR Memorandum Circular No. 07, Series of 2000 (Addendum to MC No. 05, Series of 2000 on the Payment of RATA to DAR Officials) shall be observed.
DLR OPINION NO. 21, s. 2005
August 11, 2005
REPRESENTATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE (RATA); REASSIGNMENT OF OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
Are MAROs entitled to RATA?
- The MAROs may be allowed RATA if they are likewise performing the duties and responsibilities comparable with and interrelated if not higher in scope and latitude to their original official functions. Another reason is that, pursuant to the DAR Secretary's Memorandum dated 07 July 1997, specifically No. 6 thereof, a MARO position, although below Division Chief level, is classified by the Department of Budget and Management as equivalent to Chief of Division. Accordingly, holders of MARO positions who are on official and involuntary detail to another units may be entitled to RATA, and much more so if they are performing duties and responsibilities comparable with and interrelated to those of their regular functions.
September 4, 1998
- |It has to be emphatically stressed that this opinion should not be unduly used as a precedent or construed as an implied condonation or toleration of the obnoxious practice of purporting to detail involuntarily an employee or personnel for official reasons or exigencies (in order to continuously avail of the privilege of receiving a RATA) when in truth and in fact it is privately sought or initiated by the employee himself for some personal reasons of his own or is merely an accommodation made upon his request and is not actually in the official and/or to the best interest of the service. Such is not sanctioned and is strongly condemned in this jurisdiction. Accordingly, to foreclose commission and possible perpetuation in the Department of the aforesaid abominable practice, careful inquiry, evaluation and verification, on a case to case basis, must be conducted before the payment of RATA may be validly authorized.
September 4, 1998
REPRESENTATION AND TRAVELLING ALLOWANCE (RATA); SOURCES OF FUNDS THEREOF
What are the sources of fund for claims of RATA?
- As to the issue regarding the sources of fund for claims of RATA by employees assigned to FAPs (on the assumption that the foregoing rules and regulations are duly observed and complied with), the following provisions are instructive:
1. No. 11, Dar Secretary's Memorandum dated 07 July 1997:
"Commutable RATA shall be paid from the amount appropriated for the purpose under the personal services fund. Reimbursable RATA shall be charged against the amount appropriated under maintenance and operating expenses, i.e. transportation allowance to object classification code 02 and representation allowance to object classification code 29."
2. Section 4, DBM National Compensation Circular No. 67, Series of 1992 as amended:
"In all cases, commutable and reimbursable RATA shall be paid from the amount appropriated for the purpose and other personal services savings of the agency or project from where the officials and employees covered under this Circular draw their salaries. No one shall be allowed to collect RATA from more than one source."
3. IV.1, Memorandum Circular No. 21, Series of 1997:
"Representation and Travelling Allowance (RATA). Personnel assigned to FAPs who are entitled to Representation and Travelling Allowance (RATA) shall draw such allowance from GOP counterpart funds effective upon his assignment to FAPs."
- It necessarily follows that the source of fund for payment of RATA of said employees should come from the same source as that of regular employees of DAR holding ratable positions who are not detailed but discharging the actual duties and responsibilities of their positions, pursuant to the aforequoted provisions of No. 11 of DAR Secretary's Memorandum dated 07 July 1997, Section 4 of DBM NCC No. 67, Series of 1992 as amended and IV.1 of DAR MC No. 21, Series of 1997. In other words, both category of employees, whether detailed or not, shall be entitled to RATA in the same manner and from the same source for there is actually no substantial distinction between them so as to warrant a different or unequal treatment.
September 25, 1998
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657; REVISION OR AMENDMENT VESTED WITH THE CONGRESS
- With respect to the repeal of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), it is the Congress who can properly act on the revision or amendment since the legislative power of making laws, altering and repealing them is vested with the Congress of the Philippines as mandated by the 1987 Constitution.
- The separability clause or Section 77 of the CARL (R.A. No. 6657) also states that if there are sections or provisions of this act is declared null and void, the other sections or provisions shall stand and the same shall remain in full force and effect.
- Unless and until the court finds reasons to declare the law unconstitutional, Congress will have no basis to repeal the law.
DAR OPINION NO. 02, s. 2006
January 11, 2006
RESERVOIR; RESERVOIR LOT CANNOT BE PRIVATELY APPROPRIATED
Is a reservoir lot be a subject of award to private individual?
- Reservoir is a place where water collects naturally, or is stored for use when wanted, and since the subject lot is designated as reservoir lot and was not the subject of an award to private individual, we are of the opinion that the same cannot be appropriated by any private individual for his exclusive use. Moreover, the water that is contained therein or flows therefrom is considered as public waters for the use of the general public. No private individual, therefore, may monopolize its use, or obstruct its use by another. Construction of any form of structure thereon will require prior authorization from the proper government agency.
July 22, 1999
RETAINED AREA; NOT A BAR TO ACQUISITION OF ANOTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND; LANDOWNER MAY DISPOSE HIS RETAINED AREA
Is the transfer or disposition of the retained area a bar to acquisition of another agricultural land? May a landowner donate or dispose more than his retained area?
- Where the sale or disposition of agricultural lands retained by a landowner as a consequence of Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 is valid, there appears to be no legal impediment for such landowner to subsequently acquire another agricultural land provided, however, that, in all cases, the legally mandated 5-hectare aggregate landownership ceiling be observed.
- The area donated to DECS cannot be taken from that part of the agricultural land of the landowner in excess of the 5-hectare retention limit which is subject for acquisition and redistribution to qualified beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). In other words, a landowner could only validly donate or dispose that which constitutes part of his retained area and the rest shall be covered under CARP. Thus, the donated portion forms part of his retained area.
December 23, 1999
RETENTION
- The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subject to qualification by the legislature. The right serves to mitigate the effects of the program. A retained area is a land which is not supposed to leave the landowner’s dominion. R.A. No. 6657, Section 6 thereof provides 5 hectares as the landowners retention area.
DAR OPINION NO. 32, s. 2007
November 16, 2007
RETENTION/EXEMPTION; AUTHORITY TO APPROVE/DENY APPLICATION FOR RETENTION/EXEMPTION: UNDER PD 27
Which has authority to approve/deny application for retention/exemption under P.D.27?
- In the years 1977 to 1987, it was the DAR Secretary who approved or disapproved application for retention/exemption pursuant to P.D. 27. However, due to increasing backlog of unresolved cases which delayed the completion of the program, DAR Memorandum Circular No. 5, series of 1987 was issued delegating this authority to the Regional Director.
October 23, 1996
RETENTION LIMIT, UNDER R.A. NO. 6657
Can we issue a clearance or certification for the sale or disposition of agricultural lands in excess of the retention limit?
- Paragraph 1 and 4, Section 6, R.A. No. 6657
". . . . . In no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. . . . .
xxx xxx xxx
Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease management contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of this Act shall be null and void. . . . . " (emphasis supplied)
- Section 70, R.A. No. 6657
"Section 70. Disposition of Private Agricultural Lands. — The sale or disposition of agricultural lands retained by a landowner as a consequence of Section 6 hereof shall be valid as long as the total landholdings that shall be owned by the transferee thereof inclusive of the land to be acquired shall not exceed the landholding ceiling provided in this Act.
Any sale or disposition of agricultural lands after the effectivity of this Act found to be contrary to the provisions hereof shall be null and void." (emphasis supplied)
- Section 73 (a), R.A. No. 6657
"Section 73. Prohibited Acts and Omissions. — The following are prohibited:
(a) The ownership or possession, for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Act, of agricultural lands in excess of the total retention limits or award ceiling by any person, natural or juridical, except those under collective ownership by farmer-beneficiaries." (emphasis supplied)
- Item II.2.a of DAR A.O. No. 1, series of 1989
"2. The following transactions are not valid:
a) Sale, disposition, lease, management contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner prior to June 15, 1988, which are not registered on or before September 13, 1988, or those executed after June 15, 1988, covering an area in excess of the five-hectare retention limit in violation of R.A. No. 6657." (emphasis supplied)
- The above provisions of law and guideline, taken together, clearly delimit the ownership and/or transfer/sale of agricultural lands to not more than the legally mandated retention limit or landownership ceiling of five (5) hectares. Thus, to issue a clearance or certification for the sale or disposition of agricultural lands in excess of the 5-hectare retention limit or landownership ceiling would be violative of the aforequoted provisions of law and guideline.
May 9, 2003
RETENTION LIMIT; UNDER R.A. NO. 6657
What is the retention limit pursuant to R.A. No. 6657?
- Subject acquisition will be violative of the provisions of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) mandating a landownership ceiling and/or retention limit of not more than five (5) hectares (paragraphs 1 and 4, Section 6, Section 70 and Section 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657).
July 13, 2001
RETENTION LIMIT; UNDER R.A. NO. 6657
What is the retention limit pursuant of R.A. No. 6657?
- Under Section 6 of RA 6657, each landowner is entitled to retain a maximum of five (5) hectares of his agricultural land, while the rest shall be redistributed to qualified beneficiaries. Pursuant to said provision, if your parents died prior to 15 June 1988, your total landholdings, including the properties inherited by you, shall be computed and the area in excess of 5-hectare retention shall be redistributed under CARL. If your parents died on or after the effectivity of CARL, only 5 hectares of their total agricultural lands may be claimed as their retention and the excess shall be subject of redistribution.
January 26, 1994
- Under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657, it provides in part, quote: "Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, . . . . .but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: 1) the he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and 2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm….
September 16, 1994
June 27, 1994
August 22, 1994
September 22, 1994
September 25, 1995
September 29, 1995
May 20, 1997
March 20, 1997
RETENTION RIGHT
- Right of succession is transmitted from the moment of the death of the decedent, the right of ownership over their respective shares in the inheritance is automatically and by operation of law is vested in them (legal heirs). Further, applying the principle of law under the Civil Code of the Philippines that the relative nearest in degree excludes the more distant ones, the legal heir of the landowner who shall inherit pursuant to said principle of law shall be entitled to a maximum of five (5) hectares as retention area or payment of the land compensation, as the case maybe. The legal heir acquires the rights and obligations of a deceased landowner. Said legal heir shall now be considered as the new landowner.
DAR OPINION NO. 16, s. 2010
April 6, 2010
RETENTION RIGHT; EXTENT THEREOF
What is the extent of the right of retention?
- The right of retention must be confined only to landholdings which belong to them. It cannot extend to landholdings whose ownership belongs to different persons because the law restricts the landowners right of retention to their own landholding.
October 15, 1996
RETENTION RIGHT; WAIVER
When is a landowner deemed to have waived his right of retention?
- A landowner is deemed to have waived his right of retention if he performed any of the following acts:
a. Signing of the Landowner Tenant production Agreement and Farmer's Undertaking (LTPA-FU) covering the subject property;
b. Entering into a direct payment scheme agreement as evidenced by a Deed of Transfer over the subject property or
c. Signing/submission of other documents indicating consent to have the subject property covered such as the form letter of the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) on the disposition of the cash and bond portions of a land transfer claim for payment, and the Deed of Assignment Warranting and Undertaking executed in favor of the LBP.
February 8, 1996
RETENTION; BANKS AND GFIs NO RIGHT OF RETENTION OVER FORECLOSED PROPERTIES
- It is clear that Quedancor may acquire title to foreclosed agricultural properties regardless of area (that is, even more than the five (5) hectare retention limit). However, banks and other similar institutions, cannot exercise the right of retention over said foreclosed agricultural properties since they are subject to the aforeqouted provisions of existing laws and guidelines on their eventual compulsory transfer under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
DAR OPINION NO. 05, s. 2010
January 14, 2010
RETENTION; EXCEPTION
- There is no legal obstacle to the expropriation of the subject landholdings by the Province of Camarines Norte so long as the requisites of the exercise of the power of eminent domain pursuant to Section 19 of R.A. No. 7160 are met. It is to be stressed that the exercise of the power of eminent domain by LGUs must strictly follow the requirements provided for by law. Section 6-A creates an exception to the general rule on retention limits which govern agricultural lands and this, it must be followed in cases of expropriation of agricultural lands. In addition to the general requirements of the exercise of the power of eminent domain by LGUs, the requirements imposed by Section 6-A of R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 9700, must be strictly complied with.
- Pursuant to the first proviso of Section 6-A, what is required, prior to expropriation by an LGU, is that the agricultural land subject of expropriation must be first covered, awarded, and distributed to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to existing agrarian reform laws and regulations. Then pursuant to the last proviso of Section 6-A, the lawful ARBs shall receive just compensation from the LGU concerned as the lawful private owners thereon. From the very tenor of the first proviso of Section 6-A, it can be inferred that the acquisition and distribution of the land must first be complied with before expropriation may commence, to wit:
Provided, That lands subject to CARP shall first undergo the land acquisition and distribution process of the program.
The ineluctable conclusion therefore is that, by the explicit provision of substantive law, the expropriation of the agricultural landholding may not precede the coverage and award of the agricultural landholding sought to be expropriated.
DAR OPINION NO. 25, s. 2010
October 19, 2010
RETENTION; GFIs CANNOT EXERCISE RIGHT OF RETENTION OVER FORECLOSED AGRICULTURAL LANDS
- Banks may acquire title to mortgaged agricultural properties regardless of area (that is, even more than the 5-hectare retention limit) pursuant to Section 71 of R.A. No. 6657. However, banks cannot exercise the right over said foreclosed agricultural properties since they are subject to the aforequoted provisions of existing laws and guidelines on their eventual compulsory transfer and acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
DAR OPINION NO. 29, s. 2010
December 20, 2010
RETENTION; HEIRS SUCCEED TO RETAINED AREAS OF DECEASED PARENTS
- The heirs are not entitled to a retention area in their own right. They succeed to the retained area of their deceased parents which is seven or five hectares, as the case may be.
- Moreover, under the law on succession, only the property, rights and obligations of a decedent were transmitted to his/her heirs from the moment of death.
DAR OPINION NO. 09, s. 2008
April 14, 2008
RETENTION; LANDOWNER RIGHT OF RETENTION IS PERSONAL
- Owners of agricultural lands may voluntarily offer their private agricultural lands for coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) without exercising their rights of retention. The right of retention is personal to the landowner hence, said right can be waived.
DAR OPINION NO. 22, s. 2008
August 21, 2008
RETENTION; AGRICULTURAL LAND NOT MORE THAN FIVE HAS., LANDOWNER NOT REQUIRED TO APPLY FOR RETENTION
Are landowners owning less than five (5) hectares still need to apply for retention?
- Only landowners owning agricultural lands of more than five (5) hectares may apply for retention before they can sell or otherwise dispose of the same. As regards landholdings covering an area of five (5) hectares or less, the owners thereof are no longer required to apply for retention before they can sell or otherwise dispose of the same. It is sufficient that the evaluating officer (in this case the MARO) establishes with certainty the accuracy and truthfulness of the evidences presented, i.e., Listasaka, Ownership Title, Affidavit of transferor stating that the land subject of deed is a retention or portion of the retention area, Affidavit of the transferee that he/she has a total landholding inclusive of the land to be acquired of not more than five (5) hectares, as well as the Certifications of Assessors as to the total aggregate area of the landholdings to be acquired which do not exceed the 5-hectare retention limit. If he finds said documents to be in order, he shall forward the same to the PARO with his comments and recommendations. The PARO, upon examination of all the attached documents and finding the same to be in order, shall then issue a clearance for the registration of the subject deed.
September 4, 1998
RETENTION; APPLICATION FOR RETENTION INVOLVING LANDHOLDING FIVE (5) HAS. AND BELOW
Can there still be a need to issue Certificate or Order of Retention if the total landholding area is 5 hectares and below?
- While it is true that Administrative Order No. 11, Series of 1990 provides that a landowner who owns five (5) hectares or less may file an application for retention, the import of said provision in the filing thereof is only directory considering that the word "may" has been used. In other words, the implication of said provision is that the landowner has the option to file an application for retention before he can sell or dispose of the same provided it is established that he owns agricultural landholdings with an aggregate area of five (5) hectares and below. It goes without saying then that the Regional Director may still issue a Certificate or Order of Retention as regards lands of less than 5 hectares if the landowner opts to apply. This is so because retention right is a substantive right under the law and the Constitution. Thus, to mandatorily require all landowners actually owning less than five (5) hectares to apply for retention might constitute an undue limitation of their inherent right to dispose their lands.
February 9, 1999
RETENTION; APPLICATION FOR RETENTION MAY BE FILED WITH THE OFFICE OF THE MARO
May the application for retention be filed with the Office of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer?
- The application for retention may be filed with the Office of the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of the place where the property is situated. The Regional Director concerned has jurisdiction to issue the Order resolving the application, which is appealable to the Office of the DAR Secretary within 15 days from receipt of the party who wishes to file said appeal.
February 8, 1996
RETENTION; AREA SHALL BE COMPACT AND CONTIGUOUS
What is the maximum retention area of a landowner?
- The landowner may retain a maximum area of five (5) hectares as provided for under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 which shall be compact and contiguous. Three (3) hectares may likewise be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to qualifications provided for by law. The landowner's retained area is not subject to compulsory acquisition by the government for distribution to qualified beneficiaries.
December 24, 1998
RETENTION; CERTIFICATE OF RETENTION NOT A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT; AUTHORITY OF PARO TO ISSUE DAR CLEARANCE
Can the PARO issue DAR Clearance without the need for a Certificate of Retention?
- Section 70 of R.A. No. 6657 implies that Retention Order and/or Certificate of Retention are not mandatorily required before a retained area could be sold or alienated. It is enough that the total landholdings that shall be owned by the transferee thereof inclusive of the land to be acquired shall not exceed the landholding ceilings provided for by CARL. PAROs are intelligent, capable and trustworthy enough to arrive at a fair and honest finding as to what constitute the retention area from which finding he must necessarily base his decision on whether or not to issue the mandatorily required DAR Clearance to prevent circumvention of the Program.
- What is mandatory as far as the sale/alienation of agricultural lands less than five (5) hectares are concerned is the DAR Clearance and not the Retention Certificate or Order. As far as landowners who own more than five (5) hectares are concerned, the Regional Director is still the one authorized to issue the Certificate and/or Order of Retention. Accordingly, the provisions of A.O. No. 11, S. of 1990 are not actually negated by DAR Opinion No. 89, Series of 1998.
February 9, 1999
RETENTION; DAR CLEARANCE STILL NECESSARY
Is DAR Clearance still necessary before the sale of retained area could be validly effected?
- DAR Clearance is still necessary before the sale could be validly effected to foreclose possible circumvention of the CARL pursuant to Section 6 (4th paragraph), 70 and 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657 and DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989.
January 9, 1998
RETENTION; ESTATE OF DECEASED PARENTS ENTITLED TO THE RETENTION OF FIVE (5) HECTARES
- In no case shall retention limit or landownership ceiling of a landowner exceed five (5) hectares upon the effectivity of R. A. No. 6657 on 15 June 1988. Any agricultural landholding in excess thereof shall perforce, by operation of law, be acquired and distributed to a qualified agrarian reform beneficiary except only if the children of the landowner are qualified beneficiaries or awardees.
- If the parents died after 15 June 1988, the estate of the deceased parents is entitled to the retention of five hectares, the area in excess of the retention shall be distributed to qualified beneficiaries, following the provision of R.A. No. 6657 specifically Section 22. This is without prejudice to the preferential right of the landowner’s children to three (3) hectares each in the distribution of the land of their parents.
- Item II. C. 1 of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989 (Rules and Procedures Governing Land Transactions), what is considered as not a prohibited transaction (necessitating no prior clearance from DAR before registration) is a Deed of Extrajudicial Partition of the property of a deceased who died prior to June 15, 1988. Thus, conversely, we could infer that a Deed of Extra-Judicial Partition of the property of the deceased insofar as the excess of his/her 5-hectare retention limit or landownership ceiling is concerned, who died after June 15, 1988 is a prohibited transaction precisely because said agricultural landholdings are, by operation of law, immediately put under the coverage of CARP upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657. His heirs will thus only be entitled to the compensation for the land. To hold otherwise would be violative of the provisions of Sections 6 and 73 (a) of R.A. 6657 that in no case should the retention limit or landownership ceiling of landowner exceed five (5) hectares.
DAR OPINION NO. 18, s. 2007
April 3, 2007
RETENTION; EXECUTION OF FINAL AND EXECUTORY ORDER
Is it imperative to execute a final and executory Order of the Secretary?
- The issue on the alleged 25-hectare sugarland was never the subject of the Order after having verified the same with the Claims and Conflicts Division, Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance, DAR Central Office. However, considering that the Order of the Secretary dated 29 October 1998 may already be deemed as final and executory, it is believed that execution thereof in accordance with its express orders is now imperative to effect an orderly implementation of the Secretary's Order. This is without prejudice, however, to the eventual probable coverage under CARP of the alleged 25-hectare sugarland co-owned by Clemente and Maria Alipit pursuant to existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations.
April 13, 1999
RETENTION; EXERCISE OF RETENTION RIGHT UNDER CARP
Can landowners exercise their right of retention under R.A. 6657 if such right have not been availed of under P.D. 27?
- All landowners of private agricultural lands with a total area of more than five (5) hectares, except those who have already been granted full retention under Presidential Decree No. 27, may exercise their right of retention under Republic Act No. 6657. In no case, however, shall the total landholding exceed five (5) hectares, the ceiling prescribed under Republic Act No. 6657.
- Whether or not there is still a need to file application for retention as to the other 4-hectare property, a self-explanatory DAR Opinion No. 89, series of 1998, which, insofar as pertinent, is quoted as follows:
" . . . . . As regards landholdings covering an area of five (5) hectares or less, we submit that the owners thereof are no longer required to apply for retention before they can sell or otherwise dispose of the same. It is sufficient that the evaluating officer (in this case the MARO) establishes with certainty the accuracy and truthfulness of the evidence presented, i.e., Listasaka, Ownership Title, Affidavit of transferor stating that the land subject of deed is a retention or portion of the retention area, Affidavit of the transferee that he/she has a total landholding inclusive of the land to be acquired of not more than five (5) hectares, as well as the Certifications of Assessors as to the total aggregate area of the landholdings to be acquired which do not exceed the 5-hectare retention limit. If he finds said documents to be in order, he shall forward the same to the PARO with his comments and recommendations. The PARO, upon examination of all the attached documents and finding the same to be in order, shall then issue a clearance for the registration of the subject deed.
It has to be made clear, however, that any intended sale or disposition of agricultural lands by landowners, whether they are allegedly owning more or less than five (5) hectares, shall always be subject to DAR Clearance before the same could be validly registered with the Register of Deeds, to prevent possible circumvention of the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 and its related implementing guidelines." (Underscoring and emphasis supplied)
September 8, 1999
What is the retention limit of a landowner?
- Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 together with other pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 6657 (e.g., Section 73 (a) clearly restrict and limit the retention area and landownership ceiling of agricultural lands to only five (5) hectares without providing any alternative option to prevent actual land transfer and distribution thereof to qualified farmer-beneficiaries. In other words, labor administration cannot be resorted to as a subterfuge to spare a CARP covered property from distribution. The express provision of law diverting the acquisition and distribution of agricultural lands in excess of the retention area cannot be subordinated to nor rendered nugatory by any agreement purportedly to be entered into by and between the landowner on one hand and the farmer-beneficiaries on the other hand, because the same constitutes circumvention of the Program and is not sanctioned in this jurisdiction. The law mandates the acquisition of agricultural lands to effect a more equitable distribution and ownership thereof, with due regard to the rights of landowners to just compensation and to the ecological needs of the nation, in order to provide farmers and farmworkers with the opportunity to enhance their dignity and improve the quality of their lives through greater productivity of the agricultural lands they till.
April 23, 1998
- Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 expressly provides that "in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five hectares". The clear intent of the aforequoted provision suggest that all landholdings in excess of the retention area shall be the subject of compulsory acquisition by the Department of Agrarian Reform for distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries. The right of the farmer-beneficiaries to own directly or collectively the lands they till is premised on Section 2 of R.A. No. 6657 (Declaration of Principles and Policies) for them to enhance their dignity and improve the quality of their lives through greater productivity of agricultural lands.
June 26, 1998
RETENTION; FORECLOSED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES CANNOT BE PART OF BANKS RETAINED AREA
Whether or not the banks may exercise the right of retention over their foreclosed agricultural properties?
- It is explicit that banks may acquire title to mortgaged agricultural properties regardless of area (that is, even more than the 5-hectare retention limit) pursuant to Section 71 of R.A. No. 6657. However, banks cannot exercise the right of retention over said foreclosed agricultural properties since they are subject to the aforequoted provisions of existing laws and guidelines on their eventual compulsory transfer and acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
October 8, 2003
RETENTION; FORECLOSED AGRICULTURAL PROPERTIES CANNOT BE PART OF BANKS RETAINED AREA
Can banks exercise the right of retention over their foreclosed agricultural properties?
- Banks cannot exercise the right of retention over their foreclosed agricultural properties. Section 71 of R.A. 6657 mandates that foreclosed assets of private banks are subject to existing laws on compulsory transfer and acquisition.
October 23, 1996
RETENTION; FREE PATENT LAND
May a Free Patent holder retain his landholding?
- Moreover, even assuming arguendo, without necessarily admitting, that the provision of Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 on homestead patents could be made to apply by analogy to free patents, the indispensable requirement of PERSONAL CULTIVATION is a condition sine qua non in order that awardees of free patents may retain their landholdings. Said essential requirement of personal cultivation is likewise mandated under the provisions of P.D. No. 1529, amending C.A. No. 141 (Public Land Act), which requires that the free patent awardee should cultivate the subject landholding HIMSELF and that the employment or use of share tenants in whatever form for the purpose of complying with the requirements of the Public Land Act as regards cultivation is prohibited. This is so because it is the State's policy and objective to altogether abolish share tenancy which was declared as contrary to public policy (Section 4, R.A. No. 3844, Code of Agrarian Reform).
September 15, 1998
RETENTION; HOMESTEADS; REQUIREMENT OF PERSONAL CULTIVATION
Whether or not personal cultivation by landowner is required to tenanted lands.
- The cultivation required for the retention of homesteads is personal cultivation by the landowner, which includes the assistance of his immediate farm household. However, if the farmlot is the subject of an agricultural leasehold contract (that is, tenanted), one of the rights of the agricultural lessee is to manage the land. It follows that if a property is under agricultural leasehold, there can be no cultivation by the landowner to speak of. The requirement that the landholder should cultivate the homestead in order to retain the same could therefore not be satisfied if the land is tenanted. In fine, tenanted homesteads cannot be the subject of cultivation by landowners, except with respect to the five-hectare limit.
December 9, 1994
RETENTION; ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF RETENTION
Is a Certificate of Retention still required even if the aggregate area of the landholdings does not exceed 5 hectares?
- Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) expressly provides: "except as other provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land x x x but in no case shall retention by the landowners exceed five hectares." Corollarily, although the aggregate area of the subject landholdings does not exceed the maximum ceiling of five (5) hectares, landowners are still mandated to file an application for retention with the DAR Office having the jurisdiction over their landholdings for the purpose of issuance of a Certificate of Retention. This is pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 11, Series of 1990 which requires that landowners must execute an affidavit as to the aggregate area of their landholdings to prevent possible circumvention of R.A. No. 6657.
March 10, 1998
RETENTION; LANDOWNER'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE
May the landowner choose patches or portions from his agricultural lands to complete his retained area?
- The law requires that when the landowner chooses the area to be retained by him, it should not consist of portions or patches of his different agricultural lands, but rather should as far as practicable, constitute a separate landholding.
August 14, 1996
- The right to choose the retained area is a statutory right granted under the CARL. This being a statutory right, the landowners, whose landholdings are covered under CARP are bound to exercise such right within the period specified under A.O. No. 11, Series of 1990 (Rules and Procedures Governing the Exercise of Retention Rights by Landowners and Award to Children Under Section 6 of R.A. 6657). Otherwise, the DAR shall be the one to choose the retained area in their behalf in order to attain the purposes of the law.
February 27, 1997
RETENTION; NO RETENTION RIGHT OF A VENDEE OVER FORECLOSED ASSETS
Is the vendee of a foreclosed property entitled to retention?
- As regards private banks, Section 71 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that said foreclosed assets are subject to existing laws on their compulsory transfer (that is under the General Banking Act) and acquisition under Section 16 of said Act. This means that private banks may sell to third parties their foreclosed assets but still subject to acquisition under Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657. In such a case, it is submitted that the DAR Certification/Clearance required under A.O. No. 1, series of 1989, is no longer necessary as the buyer cannot legally exercise any retention right on the land purchased." (emphasis supplied)
March 26, 1999
RETENTION; OPTION AVAILABLE TO TENANT
What is the option given to a tenant?
- The law provides available options to the tenants of the subject 9-hectare agricultural land. Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the tenants may choose to remain in the retained area as lessees or may alternatively opt to be the beneficiaries in the excess portion thereof (i.e., beyond the retained area) or in another agricultural land. If the tenants choose the first option, the landowner may not eject them in the retained area since although the retained area is not covered by the land acquisition components of CARP, it is still covered by the leasehold provisions under existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations. On the other hand, in case the tenants choose to be the beneficiaries in the excess portion to be covered by CARP or in another agricultural land, they lose their right as leaseholders to the land retained by the landowner. The right to exercise this option must be done within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the area to be retained.
December 24, 1998
- In case the tenant 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. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner.
November 8, 1996
RETENTION; REGIONAL DIRECTOR; AUTHORITY THEREOF TO ISSUE A CERTIFICATE OF RETENTION
Who has the authority to issue a certificate of retention on landholdings covered under P.D. No. 27 or R.A. No. 6657?
- The authority to issue a certificate of retention on landholdings covered under P.D. 27 or R.A. 6657 lies exclusively with the Regional Director (AO 11, Series of 1990, AO 4, Series of 1991).
October 11, 1996
RETENTION; RETAINED AREA AS COLLATERAL FOR A LOAN
May a retained area be used as a collateral for a loan?
- So long as there is a DAR determination that it is a retained area pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 11, Series of 1990, the same may be used as a collateral for a loan, provided that in case of foreclosure the transferee does not own more than the landownership ceiling of 5 hectares including the property acquired, pursuant to Section 73 (a) of RA 6657.
October 16, 1995
RETENTION; RETENTION AREA DEFINED
What does retention area refer to?
- As defined in DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1989, retention area refers to that parcel of land selected by the landowner as such to remain under his full ownership and control after his landholding has been acquired by the government or covered by CARP and distributed to the beneficiaries , as evidenced by a Certificate of Retention issued by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of the province where the land is situated. Under Sec. 6 of R.A. 6657 said retention should not exceed five (5) hectares.
August 5, 1994
RETENTION; RETENTION LIMIT OF JURIDICAL PERSON
What is the retention limit of a corporation?
- Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 provides in part:
"SECTION 6. Retention Limits — Except as otherwise provided in this Act … in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm . . ."
- Section 73(a) of R.A. No. 6657 further provides that the ownership or possession, for the purpose of circumventing the provisions of this Act, of agricultural lands in excess of the total retention limits or award ceilings by any person, natural or juridical, except those under collective ownership by farmer-beneficiaries, is prohibited.
- From the foregoing, an individual can only own a maximum of five (5) hectares, a limit set forth by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). However under P.D. No. 27, landowners may be entitled to retain a maximum of seven (7) hectares under certain circumstances or conditions. As regards a corporation, since the same is in legal contemplation regarded as a person (juridical person) having a personality separate and distinct from its stockholders, it is thus likewise entitled to own an agricultural landholding not more than the maximum limit of five (5) hectares, provided it shall maintain the productivity of the land and any change in the nature of its use shall not be allowed except with the approval of the DAR under its rules on conversion or exemption.
March 22, 1999
December 24, 1998
RETENTION; RETENTION LIMIT OF THE VENDEE-CORPORATION
- R. A. No. 6657 grants a natural or juridical person a retention limit of not exceeding five (5) hectares of agricultural lands. As understood, this covers the total aggregate landholdings that a landowner may validly own. Hence, the request for DAR clearances on the above-mentioned landholdings may be given due course provided that the acquisition of the agricultural lands by the vendee-corporation does not exceed the five (5) hectares retention limits provided by law and such other requirements.
- On the other hand, please be informed that a corporation which is a juridical person, has a separate personality distinct from its stockholders and incorporators. What must be cautiously taken into consideration is the purchase of an agricultural land by the vendee-corporation in its own separate and distinct personality as such, although it is also a major stockholder of another corporation. Anyhow, possible circumvention of CARL must be guarded upon so as not to frustrate the aim of CARP.
DAR OPINION NO. 27, s. 2006
October 17, 2006
RETENTION; RETENTION LIMIT UNDER P.D. 27
What is the retention limit under P.D. No. 27?
- The retention area of the landowner under Presidential Decree No. 27 (Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants from the Bondage of the Soil Transferring to them the Ownership of the Land They Till and Providing the Instruments and Mechanism Therefor) is a maximum of seven (7) hectares. Specifically, DAR Administrative Order No. 04, Series of 1991 expressly provides that landowners covered by PD 27 are entitled to retain seven hectares, except those whose entire tenanted rice and corn lands are subject of acquisition and distribution under Operation Land Transfer (OLT).
May 7, 1997
RETENTION; RETENTION LIMIT; APPLICABLE TO A DOMESTIC CORPORATION
May a domestic corporation purchase agricultural lands outside of the 5-hectare retention?
- Section 6 of CARL provides that no person may own or retain directly or indirectly, any agricultural land in excess of five hectares. The term "person" includes both natural and juridical persons. The purchase by any person, natural or juridical of agricultural lands outside of the 5-hectare retention is null and void for being violative of CARL.
September 13, 1994
Are Filipino corporations allowed to retain or own private agricultural lands?
- Filipino corporations are allowed to retain or own private agricultural lands but only up to five (5) hectares. Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 expressly provides: "no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land x x x but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five hectares." The aforecited provision clearly limits the ownership or right of retention of corporations to only five (5) hectares regardless of whether it is titled or not. The term "person" has been interpreted in the generic sense so as to include both natural and juridical persons. However, qualified Filipino stockholders can likewise own a maximum area of five (5) hectares in their individual names or personal capacity since it is a settled rule in corporation law that a corporation has a personality distinct and separate from that of its stockholders. By Filipino ownership, it does not mean that the corporation must be one hundred percent (100%) Filipino capitalization; it is enough that at least sixty percent (60%) of the capital is owned by Filipino citizens (Section 2, Article XII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution).
June 5, 1997
RETENTION; RETENTION RIGHT
What is the legal interpretation of the provision of Section 6, R.A. No. 6657 vis-à-vis the provisions of DAR A.O. No. 6, series of 1997, in the light of Supreme Court rulings in Bagatsing vs. Committee on Privatization, 246 SCRA 334 and Land Bank of the Philippines vs. Court of Appeals, 249 SCRA 149?
- It is an elementary rule in administrative law that administrative regulations and policies enacted by administrative bodies interpretative of the law that was entrusted them to enforce have the force and effect of law and are entitled to great respect. They have in their favor a presumption of legality. However, administrative orders should not defeat the purpose for which a law (in this case, Republic Act No. 6657) was enacted. DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1997, which is an implementing rule should not be interpreted in a manner in conflict with the provision of Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657, on retention right. A landowner then who has voluntary offered his land should still be allowed to avail of the substantive right of retention that was conferred him under the aforecited Section 6.
- Moreover, Administrative Order No. 11, Series of 1990, particularly Item III.D.2 thereof, provides that a landowner who voluntarily offered his retained area for CARP coverage may be allowed to withdraw his offer.
- Likewise, DAR Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1998 (Compulsory Acquisition (CA) of Landholdings Covered by Voluntary offer to Sell (VOS)), a more recent guideline relative to DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1997, expressly acknowledges the retention right of a landowner who has voluntarily offered his land when it provided that:
"3. If after 15 days these documents have not been received, inform the LO that the property will be acquired under CA, that he/she may choose or pinpoint his/her retained area, otherwise, the DAR will choose his/her retained area (Sec. 6, RA 6657), and that he/she will no longer be entitled to an additional 5% cash payment (Sec. 19, RA 6657)." (underscoring and emphasis supplied)
November 15, 1999
RETENTION; RETENTION RIGHT OF JURIDICAL PERSON
- Pertinent are the provisions of Section 6 (1st and 4th paragraphs), 70 and 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) and Item II.2 (a) of DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1989 (Rules and Procedures Governing Land Transactions) quoted in DAR Opinion No. 06, Series of 2003 (copy attached). Based on the aforequoted provisions of law and guideline, we could infer that a landowner, whether a natural or juridical person (corporation), is only entitled to a maximum retention limit or landownership ceiling of five (5) hectares of agricultural lands upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 on 15 June 1988. Thus, what is prohibited is the retention or ownership of agricultural lands in excess of said retention limit or landownership ceiling.
- In the instant case, the Corporation is not anymore qualified to acquire the 1.5475-hectare land in question as this will exceed already the 5-hectare retention right of the Corporation.
DLR OPINION NO. 20, s. 2005
August 11, 2005
RETENTION; RETENTION RIGHT OF JURIDICAL PERSON
Can a cooperative legally acquire more than five hectares of agricultural land?
- As a general rule, a cooperative cannot legally acquire more than five (5) hectares of agricultural land. This is expressly provided in Section 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657 which prohibits the ownership or possession, for the purpose of circumventing CARL, of agricultural lands in excess of total retention limits or award ceilings by any person natural or juridical. The only exception to this is when the land is under collective ownership by farmer-beneficiaries pursuant to paragraph 3, Section 25 and paragraph 3 Section 29 of CARL.
July 6, 1995
January 29, 1997
June 2, 1997
RETENTION; RIGHT OF THE HEIRS OF LANDOWNERS
Are the heirs of the landowners who died after June 15, 1988, entitled to 5-hectare retention each?
- It is clear from the aforecited provisions of law and policy pronouncement that in no case shall the retention limit or landownership ceiling of a landowner exceed five (5) hectares upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) on 15 June 1988. Any agricultural landholding in excess thereof shall perforce, by operation of law, be acquired and distributed to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries except only if the children of the landowner are qualified beneficiaries or awardees.
- It is also worthy to note that pursuant to Item II.C.1 of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1989 (Rules and Procedures Governing Land Transactions), what is considered as not a prohibited transaction (necessitating no prior clearance from DAR before registration) is a deed. Extra-judicial Partition of the property of a deceased who died prior to June 15, 1988. thus, conversely, we could infer that a Deed of Extra-judicial Partition of the property of the deceased insofar as the excess of his/her 5-hectare retention limit or landownership ceiling is concerned, who died after June 15, 1988, is a prohibited transaction precisely because said agricultural landholdings are, by operation of law, immediately put under the coverage of CARP upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 on 15 June 1988. His/her heirs will thus only be entitled to the compensation for the land. To hold otherwise would be violative of the provisions of Sections 6 and 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657 that in no case should the retention limit or landownership ceiling of a landowner exceed five (5) hectares.
October 18, 2002
RETENTION; RULES AND REGULATIONS REGARDING THE SALE OF RETAINED AREA
What are the rules and regulations governing the sale of the retained area?
- DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1989 requires the landowner to execute an affidavit that the property sold is his retained area or is a portion of said retention. Moreover, the buyer must execute an affidavit that the aggregate area of his agricultural lands, together with the property acquired, does not exceed 5 hectares pursuant to the first paragraph of Section 70 of RA 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL). The landowner must likewise file an application for PARO Certification that the property involved is part of his retained area.
July 25, 1994
RETENTION; SALE OR DISPOSITION OF THE RETAINED AREA
Is the sale or disposition of the landowner's retained area valid?
- Section 70 of CARL provides that its sale or disposition shall be valid as long as the total landholdings that shall be owned by the transferee thereof inclusive of the land to be acquired shall not exceed the 5-hectare limit.
September 13, 1994
RETENTION; TENANTED RICE/CORN LANDS; WHEN LANDOWNERS ARE NOT ENTITLED TO RETAIN THEM
What are the situations when landowners are not entitled to retain any of their corn lands?
- If as of October 21, 1972 (the date of effectivity of PD 27) they owned 24 hectares or more of tenanted rice/corn lands;
- If as of 21 October 1976 (the date of effectivity of LOI 474) they owned other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from which they derived adequate income to support themselves and their families.
- Landowners who do not fall under either of the aforementioned situations are entitled to retain seven hectares of their tenanted rice/corn lands provided they registered their landholdings pursuant to LOI 41, 45 or 52 or they filed their application for retention under PD 27 on or before 27 August 1985, the deadline set by DAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 1985.
February 8, 1996
RETENTION; TOLERABLE LIMIT, APPLICATION THEREOF
How is "tolerable limit" defined?
- The term "tolerable limit" applies only to award to farmer beneficiaries and cannot be made to apply on the retention limit of a landowner as provided for under R.A. No. 6657 (CARL). This is in order to preclude the setting of a bad precedent and to foreclose possible circumvention of the Program.
September 4, 1998
RETENTION; UNDER P.D. 27
May lands that have been determined by DAR to be a retained area under PD 27 be used as collateral for loan?
- A property that has been determined by DAR to be a retained area under PD 27 may be used as collateral for a loan. However, in case of foreclosure, the transferee should not own more than the landownership ceiling of five hectares including the land acquired, pursuant to Section 73 (a) of CARL.
October 16, 1995
RETENTION; UNDER P.D. 27 IN RELATION TO LOI 474
May a landowner retain his 1-hectare landholding?
- A landowner may retain his 1-hectare landholding provided it is his only agricultural land. However, under P.D. 27 in relation to LOI 474, said one-hectare property cannot be retained if (1) it is tenanted; (2) planted to rice/corn; and (3) the landowner has "other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares in aggregate areas or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from which he derives adequate income to support himself and his familty". In such a case, the tenanted rice/cornland will be covered under P.D. No. 27 regardless of area.
September 21, 1994
RETENTION; WHEN MAY BE INCREASED WITHIN THE TOLERABLE LIMIT
May the retention limit of a landowner be increased within the tolerable limit?
- The mandate of the law is clearly to distribute CARP- covered lands to the landless or to qualified farmer-beneficiaries who have the aptitude, willingness and ability to make said lands as productive as possible. To increase the retention limit of a landowner within the so-called tolerable limit, though it may be perceived as negligible, would nonetheless defeat the very purpose for which the law (R.A. No. 6657) was enacted. Accordingly, in such excess area, the same should rather be allocated or awarded in favor of a qualified agrarian reform beneficiary.
March 20, 1997
RETENTION; WHEN NOT ALLOWED
When is retention not allowed?
- An owner of tenanted rice and corn lands may not retain those lands under the following cases:
a. if he as of 21 October 1972 owned more than 24 hectares of tenanted rice or corn land, or
b. by virtue of LOI 474, if he as of 21 October 1976 owned less than 24 hectares of tenanted rice or corn lands but additionally owned the following:
- other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares, whether tenanted or not, whether cultivated or not, and provided he derives adequate income therefrom; or
- lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes, from which he derives adequate income to support himself and his family.
July 4, 1997
What is the retention limit under P.D. 27?
- With regard to the retention right of landowners under P.D. No. 27, said law provides that the landowner may retain not more than seven (7) hectares if such landowner is cultivating such area or will now cultivate it. Under R.A. No. 6657, the retention right is limited to a maximum of five (5) hectares, provided, that landowners whose lands have been covered by P.D. No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder; further, original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs, who still own the original homestead as of 15 June 1988 (i.e., effectivity of R.A. No. 6657), are allowed to retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate the said homestead.
December 23, 1999
If the subject land is tenanted, can the landowner retain if he owns more than 24 hectares of tenanted rice or corn lands as of 21 October 1972?
- Considering the subject property is covered by Operation Land Transfer under Presidential Decree No. 27 and/or R.A. No. 6657, the applicable laws, rules and regulations are Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 474, dated 21 October 1976 and Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 1991. Under Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 1991, otherwise known as the "Supplemental Guidelines Governing The Exercise of Retention Rights by Landowners Under Presidential Decree No. 27", it expressly provides in its policy statements the following, quote:
"B. Policy Statements
1. Landowners covered by P.D. No. 27 are entitled to retain seven (7) hectares, except those whose entire tenanted rice and corn lands are subject of acquisition and distribution under Operation Land Transfer (OLT). An owner of tenanted rice and corn lands may not retain those lands under the following cases:
a) If he as of 21 October 1972 owned more than 24 hectares of tenanted rice or corn lands;
xxx xxx xxx"
February 11, 1999
February 4, 1998
January 9, 1998
When may a landowner sell his retained area?
- A landowner may sell the land within his retention right to anybody including to one not qualified to be a beneficiary except those prohibited under the law to be a transferee, provided that after the sale, the buyer will not own more than five (5) has. of agricultural land. However, the transferee may not convert the use of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural without the approval of the DAR through an Order of Conversion.
January 9, 1998
Is the sale or disposition of retained agricultural lands valid?
- Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 is very explicit by providing that in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Corollarily, Section 70 of the same law likewise provides that the sale or disposition of agricultural lands retained by landowner as a consequence of Section 6 hereof shall be valid as long as the total landholdings that shall be owned by the transferee thereof inclusive of the land to be acquired shall not exceed the landholding ceilings provided for in said Act. Taken together, the language of the aforementioned provisions of law are couched in mandatory terms, which means that any excess thereof is subject to compulsory acquisition by the government through the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) for distribution to qualified farmer beneficiaries. Clearly, the law sets the maximum ownership ceiling at only five (5) hectares.
September 4, 1998
RETRENCHMENT/SEPARATION; NOT NECESSARILY DISQUALIFY A FARMWORKER
Whether or not the retrenchment or separation of a farmworker prior to the award of the CLOA disqualifies a farmworker from being an ARB?
- Under II-A of DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 1993, qualified farmworkers include those found to be directly working on the land at the time the DAR conducts actual investigation and documentation. This means that the retrenchment or separation of a farmworker prior to the award if the CLOA does not necessarily disqualify him from being an ARB, provided he possesses the basic qualification of willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible.
March 17, 1997
REVERSION; PUBLIC LAND; CANCELLATION OF PATENT
Is reversion under the Public Land Act automatic?
- The reversion contemplated in Section 122 of the Public Land Act is not automatic. The government has to take action to cancel the patent and the certificate of title in order that the land involved may be reverted to it (Villacorta vs. Ulanday, 73 Phil. 655). Hence, until the government has taken steps towards reverting such land to the public domain, the ownership thereof by the registered owner must perforce still be recognized.
March 22, 1999
May pasture lands be the subject of reversion under the Public Land Act?
- The law which governs reversion of ownership of a parcel of land to the Republic of the Philippines is Section 122 of the Public Land Act. Under the said law, reversion is not automatic. The government, if there is legal and factual basis therefor, has to initiate an action to cancel the patent and certificate of title in order that the land involved may be reverted to it (Villacorta vs. Olanday, 73 Phil. 655).
September 8, 1999
RIGHT OF WAY; E. O. 1035
What does E.O. 1035 covers?
- E. O. 1035 clearly provides in Section 1 thereof that the same covers "all acquisitions of private real properties or rights of way (ROW) thereon needed for infrastructure projects and other development projects of the government which are undertaken by the ministry, agency, office or instrumentality of the government including government-owned or controlled corporations and state colleges and universities". Section 18 of the same Executive Order provides for the basis for determining the amount of financial assistance to be given to tenants/farmers of agricultural lands.
June 23, 1995
RIGHT OF WAY; REQUISITES AND CONDITIONS THEREOF
What are the requisites and conditions of an easement of right of way?
- Easement of right or way may be established between the owner of the dominant estate, in favor of which the easement is established, and the servient estate which is the estate subject of the easement. Article 613 of the New Civil Code provides that an easement or servitude is an encumbrance imposed upon immovable for the benefit of another immovable belonging to a different owner. Said provision of law may likewise be deemed applicable to awarded lands under the CARP. However, the legal easement of right of way shall only be established in favor of the dominant estate upon proof of existence of the requisites and compliance with the conditions as provided for under the New Civil code and in a long line of decisions by the Supreme Court, to wit:
In addition, said right of way shall likewise be subject to the following conditions:
a. there must be consent in writing by the CLOA holders;
b. the construction of the right of way should be limited and subject to the provisions of the Civil Code; and
c. the agricultural value of the land where easement of right of way may be established shall not be unduly affected unless a conversion order had been duly secured.
March 24, 1998
April 13, 2000
RIGHT TO HARVEST; WHEN MAY BE EXERCISED
When may the right to harvest be exercised?
- If the lease contract is precisely to exercise the right to harvest said crops, then this will not be in violation of the law. However, a clearance to this effect has to be secured from our Provincial Officer, pursuant to Adm. Order No. 01, S. 1989.
August 22, 1994
RUBBER TREES; CUTTING OF SAID TREES UNDER CARP COVERAGE
Can the landowner cut down rubber trees in the landholding subject of CARP coverage?
- Although the landowner may retain his share in the standing crops unharvested at the time the DAR shall take possession of the land and is given reasonable time to harvest the same, standing crops refer only to the harvestable agricultural produce or a portion thereof (e.g., fruits, sap, root) (Section 3 (o) of DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1998). Accordingly, only the sap of the rubber trees may be harvested but not the trees themselves.
December 23, 1999
S
SALE; AGRICULTURAL LAND OF MORE THAN FIVE HECTARES; VOID
Is the sale of an agricultural land of more than five hectares valid?
- The sale of an agricultural land of more than five hectares is void, even if said property is the subject of an application for conversion with complete supporting documents. This is with because prior to the issuance of the DAR approval for conversion, the property remains to be agricultural and is therefore subject to the prohibition against transfer under the last paragraph of Section 6, R.A. No. 6657.
September 2, 1994
SALE; AGRICULTURAL LANDS; NON-REGISTRATION THEREOF
- Sec. 6 of RA 6657 (CARL) expressly provides that "upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of this Act shall be null and void. Provided, however, that those executed prior to this Act shall be valid only when registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3) months after the effectivity of this Act."
- DOJ opinion No. 41, Series of 1992 allows registration of transactions even after the period prescribed by law for registration. The allowance for late registration is predicated on the theory that after all the excess in the retention area of the landowner will end in DAR hands anyway. There can be no circumvention of landholding in excess of retention area because the government thru the DAR will acquire the same for distribution to qualified-beneficiaries.
December 13, 1996
SEAFDEC – AQD; FUNCTION
What is the function of the SEAFDEC-AQD?
- The Southeast Asian Fisheries Development Center- Aquaculture Department was organized as one of the principal departments of SEAFDEC to be established in Iloilo for the promotion of research in aquaculture.
- Being an intergovernmental organization SEAFDEC including its Departments (AQD) enjoys functional independence and freedom from control of the state in whose territory its office is located.
September 27, 1995
SEASONAL FARMWORKERS; RIGHT TO INTERVENE
Whether or not seasonal farmworkers have the right to intervene?
- The Supreme Court ruling on the right of seasonal farmworkers over the subject land seem to pertain to the cases with similar facts. In the said case, the basis of the seasonal farmworkers for claiming a right to the subject land was premised on a "Win-Win" Resolution which was declared void. Since no right can emanate from a void resolution the seasonal farmworkers right to intervene must necessarily fail. However, given a different set of facts, it is submitted that the Supreme Court might have entertained the intervention in a positive note.
October 1, 2001
SECURITY OF TENURE
- Tenants are entitled to a security of tenure and they continue to enjoy it despite the sale of the property. The leasehold contract is not extinguished by the transfer of legal ownership of the land from one landowner to another. In such cases, the purchaser or transferee shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the original agricultural lessor.
DAR OPINION NO. 21, s. 2010
July 30, 2010
SECURITY OF TENURE
What is the tenant's security of tenure?
- Bawat magsasaka ay may karapatan na magpatuloy sa pagbubungkal sa kanyang lupang sinasaka. Siya ay pinagkalooban ng batas ng "security of tenure" na nagpapatibay sa kanyang karapatan bilang isang magsasaka (Section 7 ng R.A. No. 3844)
- Ayon pa sa Section 36 ng Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, ang isang namumuwisan sa pagsasaka ay mapapaalis lamang sa kanyang lupang sinasaka sa mga dahilang nakapaloob sa nasabing probisyon ng batas matapos ang masinsinang paglilitis. Isa sa mga dahilang nakasaad dito ay ang hindi pagbabayad ng upa sa takdang oras. Subalit kung ang dahilan ng hindi pagbabayad ay sa isang sakuna o "fortuitous event", ito ay hindi sapat na dahilan para mapaalis ang isang magsasaka. Ganoon pa man, ang kanyang pananagutan sa pagbabayad ay mananatili pa rin.
November 15, 2000
Is a lessee entitled to a security of tenure?
- The provisions of Section 7 of R.A. No. 3844 provides that the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes provided by law. It follows that tenants may not be ejected from their tillage unless authorized by the court, now the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board, and for causes provided by law. Moreover, since personal cultivation is no longer a ground to terminate tenancy relationship as the same has been deleted as a ground for ejectment of a tenant under Section 7 of R.A. No. 6389 which amended Section 36 (1) of R.A. No. 3844, a tenant may not therefore be dispossessed of his farmholding on the ground that the landowner will personally cultivate the same.
September 29, 2000
Are tenants entitled to security of tenure?
- A tenant enjoys security of tenure on his/her landholding. Section 7 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, provides that "the agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court for causes herein provided." Security of tenure is a legal concession to agricultural lessees which they value as life itself and deprivation of their landholding is tantamount to being deprived of their only means of livelihood.
April 24, 2000
SECURITY OF TENURE
Is the agricultural lessee entitled to security of tenure?
- "Sec. 7. Tenure of Agricultural Leasehold Relation — The agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the court for causes herein provided."
May 17, 1994
SECURITY OF TENURE
Can a tenant enjoys security of tenure?
- A tenant enjoys security of tenure on his landholding, which means that he/she cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the court for cause. Section 7 of R.A. No. 3844 provides that "the agricultural leasehold relation once established shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished." Time and again, the Supreme Court has guaranteed the continuity and security of tenure of tenant even in cases of a mere transfer of legal possession. As elucidated in the case of Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals (168 SCRA 439), security of tenure is a legal concession to agricultural lessees which they value as life itself and deprivation of their landholding is tantamount to deprivation of their only means of livelihood.
February 9, 1999
SECURITY OF TENURE; APPLICABLE IF THE RETAINED PORTION IS TENANTED
Is security of tenure applicable if the retained portion is tenanted?
- Since under Republic Act No. 3844, as amended (The Agricultural Land Reform Code) the tenant enjoys security of tenure, if the retained portion is tenanted, said tenancy shall continue unless the same is legally extinguished.
May 28, 1996
SECURITY OF TENURE; FUTURE SURRENDER OF THE LANDHOLDING; NOT ALLOWED
Is future surrender of the landholding allowed?
- Future surrender of the landholding is not allowed under Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844 as it is violative of the security of tenure of the tenant. In reiteration the tenant shall be dispossessed only in a judgment that is final and executory.
October 29, 1997
SECURITY OF TENURE; GROUNDS/CAUSES BY WHICH AN AGRICULTURAL LESSEE MAY BE DISPOSSESSED OF HIS/HER TILLAGE
- An agricultural lessee may be dispossessed of his/her tillage on the following grounds:
a. The lessee failed to substantially comply with the terms and conditions of the contract or with pertinent laws unless the failure is caused by a fortuitous event or force majeure;
b. The lessee planted crops or used the land for a purpose other than what has been previously agreed upon;
c. The lessee failed to adopt proven farm practices necessary to conserve the land, improve its fertility and increase its productivity taking into consideration the lessee’s financial capacity an the credit facilities available to him;
d. There has been substantial damage, destruction or unreasonable deterioration of the land or any permanent improvement thereon due to the fault or negligence of the lessee;
e. The lessee failed to pay lease rental on time except when such non-payment is due to crop failure to the extent of 75% as a result of a fortuitous event;
f. The lessee employed a sub-lessee; or
g. The landholding is declared by the DAR to be suited for residential, commercial, industrial or some other urban purposes subject to payment of disturbance compensation to the lessee.
- It is very explicit in the provisions of Sections 7 and 36 of R.A. No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code), as amended, that an agricultural lessee is entitled to security of tenure. He/she cannot be ejected unless authorized by the court (now, DAR Adjudication Board) for the abovementioned causes, in a judgment that is final and executory after due hearing. Thus, ejectment may be filed in the proper court against an erring tenant if any of the abovementioned causes exists.
DAR OPINION NO. 22, s. 2007
June 15, 2007
SECURITY OF TENURE; MEANING
What is the meaning of security of tenure?
- Security of tenure means that tenants cannot be ejected or removed from their tillage except upon final order of the court for cause. Said security of tenure continues even if the farmlot is sold, in which case the new owner takes the place of the former landowner vis-à-vis the tenant. The tenant may, however, choose to voluntarily surrender the farmlot, and this is one way of extinguishing his tenancy on the land.
March 8, 1996
SECURITY OF TENURE; TENANCY RELATIONSHIP
Can tenants be ejected from their tillage without Court Order?
- Under Section 7 of R.A. No. 3844, tenants are entitled to security of tenure, which means that they may not be ejected from their tillage unless authorized by the court for causes provided in said law. Moreover, personal cultivation is no longer a ground to terminate tenancy relationship because the same has been deleted as a ground for ejectment of the tenant under Section 7 of R.A. No. 6389 which amended Section 36 (I) of R.A. No. 3844. Such being the case, an agricultural lessor may not dispossess his/her tenant of his farmlot on the ground that former will personally cultivate your landholding.
April 08, 1998
SECURITY OF TENURE; TENANTED FARMLOT; EFFECT OF CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP
May the change in ownership of a tenanted farmlot affect the status of the tenant agricultural lessee?
- A change in ownership of a tenanted farmlot does not affect the status of the tenant/agricultural lessee he enjoys security of tenure thereon which means that he cannot be ejected or removed therefrom, except by final order of the court.
June 21, 1995
SECURITY OF TENURE; TENANTS ENTITLED THEREOF
May the tenants enjoy security of tenure?
- Moreover, Section 7 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, provides that agricultural leasehold relation, once established, shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished. The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court (now, DAR Adjudication Board) for causes provided for in said law. Section 36 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, further provides in part: ". . . . an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory . . . . ".
May 2, 2001
SECURITY OF TENURE; TENANTS ENTITLED THEREOF
May the tenants enjoy security of tenure?
- Under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3844, tenants are entitled to security of tenure, which means that they may not be ejected from their tillage unless authorized by the court for causes provided in said law.
February 2, 1994
SECURITY OF TENURE; TENANTS ENTITLED THEREOF DESPITE THE MORTGAGE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BY THE LANDOWNER
Are the tenants entitled to security of tenure on the farmholding when the same is mortgaged by the landowner?
- Mortgage of agricultural land by a landowner, as a rule, is not prohibited by law, it being an attribute of ownership. However, pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by R.A. 6389 (Code of Agrarian Reforms), the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding, and, he cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court (now, the DAR Adjudication Board) for causes provided under said law. As elucidated in the case of Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals (168 SCRA 439), security of tenure is a legal concession to agricultural lessees which they value as life itself and deprivation of their landholding is tantamount to deprivation of their only means of livelihood.
- More specifically, section 10 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended provides that the leasehold relation is not extinguished by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding. And, 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 (owner)
April 27, 2001
SECURITY OF TENURE; TENANTS ENTITLED THEREOF DESPITE THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY
Are tenants entitled to security of tenure on the farmholding when the same is subject of sale ?
- The tenant continues to enjoy security of tenure on the farmholding despite the sale of the property and he cannot be ejected therefrom by reason of said sale.
March 15, 1994
SELLING PRICE; DEFINITION
What is the definition of selling price?
- Selling price is defined as the "average price for the immediately preceding calendar year from the date of receipt of the claim folder by LBP.
April 25, 1994
SETTLEMENT PROJECTS; STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURE
What is the DAR Standard Operating Procedure on the disposition of lots in DAR Settlement Project?
- The provision of the DAR Standard Operating Procedure on the disposition of lots in DAR Settlement Projects states that with respect to portions of townsite lots designated as church and educational sites the same may be sold at private sales for such terms, conditions and stipulations and for such price as may be determined by Management.
Undated
SHARE TENANCY; CONVERSION TO AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD
Is agricultural share tenancy still valid?
- Agricultural share tenancy was declared to be contrary to public policy and was thereby abolished. Section 4 of R.A. No. 6389 mandates that agricultural share tenancy throughout the country shall automatically be converted to agricultural leasehold.
September 24, 1999
SHERIFF'S FEE; DISBURSEMENT THEREOF VALID IF IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCOUNTING RULES
Is Sheriff's Fee considered as an income?
- Sheriff's fee is not an income but a monetary allotment or payment which must be duly receipted for expenses incurred by reason, or as an incident, of the service of legal processes. Thus, disbursement thereof should always be in accordance with the usual accounting rules and regulations and approved by the Board/Adjudicator concerned. Should it be deemed advisable or necessary, deposits or withdrawals in a bank shall be at the instance and approval of the Board or Adjudicator and not of the interested party or sheriff concerned.
November 9, 1999
SOLICITOR GENERAL; ACTING AS COUNSEL FOR THE GOVERNMENT
Is the head of an executive department liable to a civil suit on account of official conduct?
- It is well-settled rule that the head of an executive department is not liable to a civil suit on account of official conduct made by him pursuant to law and in respect of matters within his authority. In cases wherein the head of an executive department or government officials are sued in their official capacity, it is mandatory upon the Office of the Solicitor General to act as counsel for the government official and agency. Pursuant to the provision of P.D. No. 478 entitled, "Defining the Powers and Functions of the Office of the Solicitor General", particularly Section 1(h) of the same law, the Solicitor General may deputize legal officers of the government, department, bureaus, agencies and offices to assist the Solicitor General and appear or represent the Government in cases involving the respective offices, brought before the courts.
March 25, 1999
SOLUTIO INDEBITI; PRINCIPLE
- Under the principle of solutio indebiti, Article 2154 of the Civil Code of the Philippines provides that if something is received when there is no right to demand it, and it was unduly delivered through mistake, the obligation to return it arises.
DAR OPINION NO. 31, s. 2008
November 28, 2008
SPANISH MORTGAGE LAW; ABOLITION OF THE SYSTEM OF REGISTRATION
What is the effect of the abolition of the system of registration under the Spanish Mortgage Law?
- Presidential Decree No. 892 which took effect on February 16, 1976 abolished the system of registration under Spanish Mortgage Law provides that all holders of Spanish Titles or grants should cause their lands covered thereby to be registered under the Land Registration Act (Act No. 496) within six (6) months from the effectivity of this Decree or until August 16, 1976. Otherwise, non-compliance therewith will result in a reclassification of their lands into unregistered private lands.
February 9, 1998
SPANISH TITLES; VALIDITY
Are Spanish titles still valid?
- P.D. No. 892 has outlawed all Spanish titles including possessory information titles, unless they were authenticated in appropriate registration proceedings before August 16, 1976.
DAR OPINION NO. 16, s. 1998
February 9, 1998
SPECIAL ORDER; DETAIL, TRANSFER OR REASSIGNMENT OF ANY OFFICIAL OR EMPLOYEE
- Special Orders are orders for special assignments or missions to be accomplished by officials and employees concerned. Department Special Order No. 284 and DAR M.C. No. 14-97 give special assignments to be performed by the concerned employees. Neither issuances have been repealed nor revoked, therefore, the same are still valid.
- General Memorandum Order No. 04 Series of 2005 (Delegation of Signing and other Financial and Administrative Authorities to Central and Field Offices), provides:
"D. Paragraphs 3 and 5, Item I D, General Memorandum Order No. 04 Series of 2005
Transfer or reassignment of any official or employee within the Department shall be made only with the concurrence of both heads of the original office/unit where the item belongs and the proposed office/unit of assignment.
xxx xxx xxx
All details, transfer or reassignments shall be subject to observance of and compliance with relevant standards and guidelines such as CSC MC 2, Series of 2005." (emphasis supplied)
DAR OPINION NO. 07, s. 2006
January 26, 2006
STANDING CROPS ; DISPOSITION OF UNHARVESTED STANDING CROPS
Should standing crops unharvested be disposed of in accordance with the agreement in force at the time the DAR acquired the property?
- 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 acquired 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.
December 28, 1995
STARE DECISIS; DOCTRINE
What is the doctrine of "stare decisis"?
- Under the doctrine of "stare decisis", when the court has once laid down a principle of law as applicable to a certain state of facts, it will adhere to that principle and apply it to all future cases where the facts are substantially the same, even though the parties may be different (Gov't. v. Jalandoni, 44 OG 1840).
July 8, 1994
STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION (SDO)
Is the PARC the appropriate forum to resolve issues of cancellation of the implementation of the Stock Distribution Option (SDO)?
- The stock distribution plan shall be agreed upon by both the corporate landowner-applicant and the qualified beneficiaries and subject to approval by PARC.
- Section 11. Implementation. — Monitoring of Plan. — The approved stock distribution plan shall be implemented within three (3) months from receipt by the corporate landowner-applicant of the approval thereof by the PARC and the transfer of the shares of stock in the names of the qualified beneficiaries shall be recorded in the stock and transfer books and submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) within sixty (60) days from the said implementation of the stock distribution plan.
- Section 12. Revocation of Certificate of Compliance. — Non-compliance with any of the requirements of Sec. 31 of R.A. No. 6657, as implemented by this Implementing Guidelines shall be grounds for the revocation of the Certificate of Compliance issued to the corporate landowner-applicant." (emphasis supplied)
- If PARC has the authority to approve the SDO plan, then it also has the power to review, monitor and cancel the implementation of said SDO scheme. The power to approve inherently carries with it the power to revoke or cancel.
March 23, 2004
STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION (SDO) PLANS; LIFESPAN OF SDO PLAN
Are the approved SDO plans held in perpetuity?
- SDO plan could not therefore be held in perpetuity considering that, as already mentioned, the Certificate of Compliance may be revoked on the ground of non-compliance with any of the requirements of Section 31 of R.A. No. 6657 as implemented by DAR A.O. No. 10, Series of 1988 (Section 12, DAR A.O. No. 10, Series of 1988).
February 3, 2004
STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION (SDO); COMPANY UNDER SDO SUBJECT TO PARC SUPERVISION
- A company under SDO may avail of the technical/financial service of a service company with a staff of not more than five (5) persons subject to the terms and conditions to be agreed upon by the concerned beneficiaries under the SDO plan. The proposal to avail such services must be duly approved by the PARC pursuant to Section 31 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law).
A corporation operating business under an approved SDO scheme shall be subject to the supervisory and monitoring authority by the PARC. The proposal of the company to avail of the technical/financial service of a service company, whatever the proposed terms and the condition would be, will definitely affect its operation and the interests of the beneficiaries. Thus, any proposal shall be subject to the approval by the PARC under its supervisory and monitoring authority over corporations under SDO. In short, operational matters of company under SDO affecting the interest of the beneficiaries shall be subject to the provisions of Section 31 of R.A. No. 6657 and its implementing rules.
DAR OPINION NO. 24, s. 2010
September 30, 2010
STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION (SDO); PRESUMPTION OF LAW MUST BE IN FAVOR OF ACQUISITION
- Compliance with the requirements of R.A. No. 6657, as mandated, and the agrarian reform program, through the SDO, is more of the exception rather than the rule. As such, the provisions regarding its requirements and availment must be strictly construed as it runs counter to the state policy on agrarian reform. As such, the presumption of law must be in favor of the acquisition and distribution of the land under CARP so that in cases of doubt between compliance by way of SDO or LAD under CARP, such doubt must be resolved in favor of the latter.
DAR OPINION NO. 28, s. 2010
December 9, 2010
STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION (SDO); THE PROVISION AUTHORIZING SDO IS AN EXCEPTION
- Section 2, Par. 3, R.A. No. 6657 explicitly mandates the state to undertake the distribution of all agricultural lands subject only to the priorities as enunciated by Section 7 of R.A. No. 6657 and the retention limits of landowners under Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657. To be sure, there exists no right, by law or by equity, which guarantees the entitlement of corporate landowners to be granted approval for their compliance of the CARP by way of SDO. More so, the mere filing of an application for SDO does not automatically mean that the same will be approved by the PARC, even with the unanimous support of the affected FWBs, for the simple reason that the applicable law on the matter, which should strictly construed, requires more than a colorable or substantial compliance with its provisions. To reiterate, the provision authorizing SDO as a means of complying with the CARP is but an exception and will only be granted on clearly meritorious grounds after full compliance with the requirements explicitly provided by law.
DAR OPINION NO. 28, s. 2010
December 9, 2010
SUCCESSION; WHAT IS INCLUDED IN THE INHERITANCE
- The Civil Code contemplates that inheritance includes all the property, rights and obligations of a person which are not extinguished by his death.
DAR OPINION NO. 17, s. 2008
June 30, 2008
SUCCESSION; FARMHOLDING COVERED BY OLT; LIMITATIONS
What are the limitations provided under the Civil Code as regards succession covered by Operation Land Transfer?
- Under Ministry Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1978, the succession to the farmholding covered by Operation Land Transfer shall be governed by pertinent provisions of the New Civil Code of the Philippines subject to the following limitations:
a) The farmholding shall not be partitioned or fragmented;
b) The ownership and cultivation of the farmholding shall ultimately be consolidated in one heir who is a full-fledged member of a duly recognized farmers' cooperative, capable of personally cultivating the farmholding and willing to assume the obligations and responsibilities of a tenant-beneficiary; and
c) Such owner-cultivator shall compensate the other heirs to the extent of their respective legal interest in the land, subject to the payment of whatever outstanding obligations of the deceased tenant-beneficiary.
- Item II.1 of DAR Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1995 categorically provides, quote: "lands awarded to ARBs pursuant to either P.D. No. 27 or R.A. No. 6657 may be transferred and registered by the Register of Deeds only after the issuance of a DAR Clearance." The purpose of said DAR clearance is to ensure that the productivity of awarded lands is maintained and to foreclose possible circumvention of existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations.
June 10, 1998
SUCCESSION; ITS EFFECTIVITY
When does succession takes effect?
- Under Article 777 of the Civil Code of the Philippines, the rights to the succession are transmitted from the moment of death of the decedent.
May 20, 1994
September 13, 1994
April 6, 1995
SUCCESSION; OWNERSHIP OF A PARCEL OF LAND OF A FORMER FILIPINO CITIZEN
May a former Filipino Citizen sell his agricultural lands in the Philippines?
- A naturalized American citizen who was formerly a natural-born citizen of the Philippines who remains to be the true and lawful owner of the property, can sell the same. Furthermore, by reason of succession, his spouse and children can also inherit the property notwithstanding the fact that the latter are already American Citizens since under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, private lands may be transferred through hereditary succession even if the person who inherits the property is not a person qualified to hold lands of the public domain.
July 15, 1997
SUCCESSION; PROVISIONS OF CARL WILL PREVAIL OVER THE WILL
Would the provision of CARL prevail over the last will and testament?
- The provisions of CARL will prevail over the last will and testament of the decedent if he dies after CARL became effective on 15 June 1988.
April 19, 1994
SUCCESSION; SUCCESSOR OF FBs AWARDED WITH COLLECTIVE CLOAs
Who will succeed the FB in the collective CLOA in case of his death or abandonment?
- In case a farmer beneficiary in a collective CLOA is no longer in possession by reason of his death or abandonment, the area awarded to him which does not exceed three (3) hectares should legally be allocated or titled in favor of any of his heirs who may be qualified to become a beneficiary himself and, provided, he is found to be directly working on the land. In other words, the order of priority provided for under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657 shall by implication of law be applied. It is, however, mandatory that said heir will judiciously use the land and make it as productive as possible. On the other hand, if the farmer beneficiary has no legal heir, his tillage might be transferred to another qualified beneficiary subject to the quasi-judicial process of listing and delisting to be properly undertaken through the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB).
March 4, 1999
SUCCESSION; TENANCY RIGHTS
Can the son of the deceased tenant-spouses succeed to the tenancy?
- The son of the deceased tenant-spouses can succeed to the tenancy, provided there is no other direct descendant more qualified to succeed in accordance with the order of priority mentioned in said Section 9 of RA 3844. Otherwise stated, the eldest child (son or daughter) who is willing and capable of performing the duties of a tenant on the farmlot may succeed to his/her parent's tenancy.
January 11, 1994
SUPPORT SERVICES FOR THE LANDOWNERS UNDER SECTION 16 OF R.A. NO. 9700
- Section 16 of R.A. No. 9700 enumerates the Support Services that shall be provided to the affected landowners. These include the following:
a. investment information, financial and counseling assistance;
b. facilities, programs and arrangements for exchange and marketing of LBP Bonds; and
c. other services designed to assist landowners in productivity utilizing the proceeds of the sales of the land for rural industrialization.
- In relation to these Support Services and in order for DAR to facilitate assistance to landowners, Special Order No. 172, Series of 1993 has mandated the creation of a Landowner’s (LO) Desk in every DAR provincial office. The LO desk will be handled by one full-time staff, and shall handle exclusively and specifically landowners’ problems, issues and concerns.
DAR OPINION NO. 23, s. 2009
December 11, 2009
SURVEY PROJECTS
Is a Survey Plan/Sketch Subdivision Plan more reliable than that of mere parcellany mapping?
- The area of the landholding shall be determined based on the duly approved survey plan or sketch subdivision plan of the property prepared and undertaken by legitimate authorities, for it is presumably more reliable than that of mere parcellany mapping. This is without prejudice, however, to more conclusive proofs or titles of ownership specifying the metes and bounds and the specific area of the landholding in issue as officially and duly validated and verified or declared by the courts.
April 8, 1998
SWEDE SURVEY CADASTRAL PROJECT; QUALIFIED BIDDERS ARE ALLOWED TO JUST ONE BID
What are the conditions before one qualifies to be a bidder?
- One of the instructions for bidders as a condition to the award for the Swede Survey Cadastral Project is that "participation is open on equal terms to all natural and legal persons, firms and companies in the Philippines as well as abroad". This unqualified invitation is designed to attract qualified bidders towards competitive bidding among the participants so as to yield the best possible desired bid. Implied from this instruction is that bidders must observe honesty, integrity and fairplay and, above all, the bidding process must be above suspicion so as to dispel any doubts incident thereto.
February 9, 1999
T
TASK FORCE ALA EH
What is the primary purpose of "Task force ala eh"?
- "Task force ala eh" was created to ensure the speedy and smooth implementation of CARL in the specified municipalities within the schedules outlined in Section 7 of S.O. No. 442 as well as to pinpoint responsibility therefor.
January 17, 1995
TAX DECLARATION; SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DATE OF ISSUANCE
Can it be determined if the transaction is in violation of the law?
- Under Joints DAR-DOJ Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1994, however, . . . the date of issuance of the tax declaration to the transferee of the property with respect to unregistered lands . . . shall be made the basis of any action to be filed against the violator". Agricultural lands covered by Tax Declaration though untitled are also private properties which may also be the subject of conversion. Clearly, Joint DAR-DOJ A.O. No. 5, Series of 1994 points out that the date of the issuance of the tax declaration to the transferee of the property with respect to unregistered lands is for the determination as to whether or not the transaction is in violation of the provisions of the law.
February 9, 1998
TAX; ESTATE TAX FOR PROPERTIES UNDER CARP
- There is no provision in the National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) exempting the payment of Estate Tax for properties under CARP.
- An Estate Tax is an excise tax on the right of transmitting property at the time of death and on the privilege that a person is giving in controlling to a certain extent the disposition of his property to take effect upon death. This is different from the exemption contemplated under Section 66 of R.A. No. 6657 which speaks of exemption from transfer taxes and fees of land transfer.
DAR OPINION NO. 10, s. 2010
February 1, 2010
TAXES AND FEES; EXEMPTED IF TRANSFER OF LAND IS CARP RELATED
What are those transactions and documents that are exempt from taxes and fees?
- Based on the foregoing, it is our considered opinion that transactions involving the transfer of lands which are CARP-related or connected are deemed exempt from the payment of taxes and fees contemplated therein. But with respect to the real property taxes from the time the landholdings are transferred to the Republic of the Philippines up to the time CLOAs are generated and registered in the name of the farmer beneficiaries, they shall be deemed exempt as, meanwhile, the owner is the government itself.
May 2, 2001
TAXES AND FEES; EXEMPTION OF LAND TRANSFERS FROM TAXES ARISING FROM CAPITAL GAINS
Are taxes and fees arising from capital gains exempt in cases of Land Transfers?
Section 66. Exemptions from Taxes and Fees of Land Transfers. — Transactions under this Act involving a transfer of ownership, whether from natural or juridical persons, shall be exempted from taxes arising from capital gains. These transactions shall also be exempted from the payment of registration fees, and all other taxes and fees for the conveyance or transfer thereof: Provided, That all arrearages in real property taxes, without penalty or interest, shall be deductible from the compensation to which the owner may be entitled. (underscoring supplied)
- Section 66 of R.A. No. 6657 speaks of arrearages in real property taxes to be deducted from the landowner's compensation. Once ownership has been parted with, it follows that there are no more arrearages in real estate taxes to be paid.
July 20, 2000
TAXES AND FEES; EXEMPTION THEREOF DOES NOT INCLUDE REAL PROPERTY TAXES
Are real property taxes deductible from the landowner's compensation?
- Section 66 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) provides, quote:
"Section 66. Exemption from Taxes and Fees of Land Transfers. — Transactions under this Act involving a transfer of ownership, whether from natural or juridical persons, shall be exempted from taxes arising from capital gains. These transactions shall also be exempted from the payment of registration fees, and all other taxes and fees for the conveyance or transfer thereof: Provided, that all arrearages in real property taxes, without penalty or interest, shall be deductible from the compensation to which the owner may be entitled." (underscoring supplied)
- Section 9 of Executive Order No. 229 should be read and interpreted in conjunction with Section 66 of R.A. No. 6657. The contemplated exemption from "other taxes and fees" as provided in both provisions of law refers specifically to other taxes and fees related to the subject conveyance or transfer under said laws and does not include real property taxes which are deductible from the landowner's compensation.
- It is clear under Section 66 of R.A. No. 6657 that arrearages in real property taxes, without penalty or interest, shall be deducted from the compensation due the landowner. Moreover, it should be noted that under Section 24 of R.A. No. 6657, the rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence from the time the DAR makes an award to him, which means that the FB is responsible for the payment of the real property taxes that accrue on the land only from the date of said award.
January 9, 2003
TAXES AND FEES; EXEMPTIONS IN THE PROCESS OF CARP IMPLEMENTATION; COVERAGE CONTINUES INSPITE OF NON-PAYMENT OF TAX DUE
What are those transactions and documents that are exempt from taxes and fees?
- Transactions and documents which are required or necessarily related to or connected with the implementation of the mandate under CARL to acquire and redistribute the land are exempt from taxes and fees. Otherwise stated, Section 66 of CARL exempts from taxes and fees all documents and certifications issued by all government agencies and instrumentalities which are required for the processing of the land transfer claim in pursuance of CARP implementation.
- CARP implementors can proceed in the processing of Land Distribution Folders. Moreover, even assuming that there is non-payment of taxes, where the same are due (e.g., estate taxes), CARP implementation should nonetheless continue. Taxes partake of the nature of a personal obligation which are legally due and demandable by the government from the landowner or his heirs, thus, the same should perforce be paid and settled by the latter to the former. Furthermore, as explicitly provided in the aforecited provision of law, all arrearages in real property taxes shall necessarily be deductible from the compensation of the landowner or his heirs.
December 2, 1998
TAXES: ARREARAGES
Are arrearages in taxes deductible from the compensation due the landowner?
- It is clear in Sec. 66 of RA 6657 that arrearages in taxes shall be deducted from the compensation due the landowner. Moreover, it should be noted that under Sec. 24 of RA 6657, the rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence from the time the DAR makes an award to him, which means that the FB is responsible only for the payment of the taxes that accrue on the land from the date of said award.
August 1, 1994
TAXES; ARREARS IN REAL PROPERTY TAXES
Who should pay the arrears in real property taxes?
- Section 66 of Republic Act No. 6657 provides:
"Section 66. Exemption from Taxes and Fees of Land transfers. — Transactions under this Act involving a transfer of ownership, whether from natural or juridical persons, shall be exempted from taxes arising from capital gains. These transactions shall also be exempted from the payment of registration fees, and all other taxes and fees for the conveyance or transfer thereof: Provided, that all arrearages in real property taxes, without penalty or interest, shall be deductible from the compensation to which the owner may be entitled." (underscoring supplied)
- It is clear under said provision of law that it is the previous landowner who should pay the arrearages in real property taxes. Thus, awardees/beneficiaries should not be penalized or made to suffer, through foreclosure by Local Government Units (LGUs) of their awarded lands, due to non-payment of said taxes by previous landowners. Such foreclosure is unwarranted.
September 21, 2001
TAXES; LANDOWNERS EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX
Is the landowner exempt from payment of capital gains tax?
- Presidential Decree No. 57 expressly provides that a "landowner shall be exempt from capital gains tax on the proceeds of the amortization paid him by the tenant-purchaser and likewise from income tax due on the accruing interest paid as an addition to the total cost of the land". As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramona R. Locsin vs. Honorable Judge Vicente P. Valenzuela dated 19 February 1991, the exemption of the old landowner from the capital gains tax on the amortization payments made to him by the tenants-purchasers, under P.D. No. 57, underscores the fact, referred to above, that ownership or dominion over the land moved immediately from landowner to tenant-farmer, rather than upon completion of payment of the price of the land. In general, capital gains are realized only when the owner disposes of his property.
May 22, 1998
TAXES; PAYMENT OF REAL PROPERTY TAXES OF LAND UNDER P.D. 27
Who should pay the real property tax under P.D. 27?
- With respect to landholdings covered by Operation Land Transfer, the pertinent guidelines are embodied in DAR Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1973 in relation to DOJ Opinion No. 35, Series of 1973. Under said guidelines, they provide that with respect to tenanted rice and/or corn lands consisting an area of 100 hectares or more, the tenant farmers should pay the real property taxes assessable on the said lands regardless of whether or not land transfer certificates have been issued because by then, they are deemed owners of the lands they till. However, with respect to lands with an area of less than 100 hectares, it is provided that all things considered, it would be more logical to conclude that pending implementation of P.D. No. 27 as to those lands (i.e., less than 100 hectares), the ownership of the land remain with present landowners, and as such, the real estate taxes should, accordingly, be paid by the landowners.
- By virtue of LOI No. 227, Series of 1974, in order to accelerate the implementation of the agrarian reform program, the present operations implementing the land reform program pursuant to P.D. No. 27 is now down to landholdings of over seven (7) hectares. This means that the tenant-farmers are now likewise deemed owners of the awarded areas in excess of the 7-hectare retention limit of a landowner. As such, they are legally bound to pay the real property taxes assessable on said lands.
March 22, 1999
TAXES; PAYMENT OF TAXES ON LANDS COVERED BY PD 27
Who has the duty to pay taxes on lands covered by PD 27?
- DAR Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1973 in relation to DOJ Opinion No. 35, Series of 1973 provide that with respect to tenanted rice and/or corn lands consisting an area of 100 hectares or more the tenant farmers should pay the real property taxes assessable on the said lands regardless of whether or not land transfer certificates have been issued because by then they are deemed owners of the lands they till. However with respect to lands with an area of less than 100 hectares, it is provided that all things considered it would be more logical to conclude that pending implementation of P.D. No. 27 as to those lands (i.e., less than 100 hectares), the ownership of the lands remains with the present landowners, and as such, the real estate taxes should, accordingly be paid by the landowner.
October 28, 1997
TAXES; REAL PROPERTY TAXES; OBLIGATION TO PAY IMPOSED ON EITHER THE LANDOWNERS AND TENANTS DEPEND ON THE EXTENT OF THEIR AGGREGATE LANDHOLDINGS
Who should pay the real property tax on tenanted rice and/or corn lands? And when is the duty to pay real estate tax begins?
- Obligation to pay estate, transfer and documentary taxes relative to the operation of P.D. No. 27 are imposed on either the landowners and tenants depending on the extent of their aggregate landholdings. DAR Memorandum Circular No. 5, Series of 1973 in relation to DOJ Opinion No. 35, Series of 1973 declares in unequivocal terms that with respect to tenanted rice and/or corn lands consisting an area of 100 hectares or more, the tenant farmers should pay the real property taxes assessable on the said lands regardless of whether or not land transfer certificates have been issued because by then they are deemed owners of the lands they till. However, with respect to lands with an area of less than 100 hectares, it is provided that all things considered, it would be more logical to conclude that pending implementation of P.D. No. 27 as to those lands (i.e., less than 100 hectares), the ownership of the lands remains with the present landowners, and as such, the real estate taxes should, accordingly, be paid by the landowners.
- By virtue of LOI No. 227, Series of 1974, in order to accelerate the implementation of the agrarian reform program, the present operations implementing the land reform program pursuant to P.D. No. 27 is now down to landholdings of over seven (7) hectares. This means that the tenant-farmers are now likewise deemed owners of the awarded areas in excess of the 7-hectare retention limit of a landowner. As such, they are legally bound to pay the real property taxes assessable on said lands.
- The duty of the landowner to pay real estate taxes ends from the time the ownership of the subject property is deemed transferred to the farmer beneficiaries, that is, even before the issuance of Emancipation Patents (EPs). Stated otherwise, the duty of the farmer beneficiaries to pay real estate tax begins when the property in issue is subjected under the coverage of OLT pursuant to P.D. No. 27 since from that time on they are already deemed owners thereof.
- Presidential Decree No. 57 expressly provides that a "landowner shall be exempt from capital gains tax on the proceeds of the amortization paid him by the tenant-purchaser and likewise from income tax due on the accruing interest paid as an addition to the total cost of the land". As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramona R. Locsin vs. Honorable Judge Vicente P. Valenzuela dated 19 February 1991, the exemption of the old landowner from the capital gains tax on the amortization payments made to him by the tenants-purchasers, under P.D. No. 57, underscores the fact, referred to above, that ownership or dominion over the land moved immediately from landowner to tenant-farmer, rather than upon completion of payment of the price of the land. In general, capital gains are realized only when the owner disposes of his property.
May 22, 1998
TAXES; RESPONSIBILITY OF BENEFICIARY TO PAY REAL PROPERTY TAXES
When shall payment of real property tax by CARP beneficiaries commence?
- Payment of the real property tax by CARP beneficiaries to LGUs shall commence from the time the DAR awards the lands to them. This is clear under Section 24 of R.A. No. 6657 which states, among others, that the rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence from the time the DAR makes an award of the land to him, which award shall be completed within one hundred eighty (180) days from the time the DAR takes actual possession of the land. On the other hand, prior to the award of the land to the CARP beneficiary, the landowners shall pay the real property tax to the LGUs. This is clear under Section 66 of R.A. No. 6657 which states that "all arrearages in real property taxes, without penalty, or interest, shall be deductible from the compensation to which the owner may be entitled."
March 22, 1999
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP; CONDITIONS
What are the conditions set for a tenancy relationship to exist?
- To establish tenancy relationship, the following conditions must be present: 1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; 2) the subject is agricultural land; 3) there is consent by the landowner for tenant to work on the land, given either orally or in writing, expressly or impliedly; 4) the purpose is agricultural production; 5) there is personal cultivation or with the help of the immediate household; 6) there is compensation in terms of payment of a fixed amount in money and/or produce. All the conditions set forth must be present and absence of any of said conditions would defeat the purpose and essence of tenancy relationship.
January 9, 1998
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP; DUTY OF AN OVERSEER
Is an overseer considered a tenant?
- Well-settled is the rule that the duty of an overseer is to manage and administer the landholding of the landowner. In the case of Nipolo vs. Janician, CA-G.R. No. 04605 – R, 22 September 1976, the Court of Appeals had ruled that an overseer is an extension of the personality and authority of the owner. However, if it could be duly established that aside from being an overseer, he himself is a tenant in his own right based on the requisites of tenancy relationship as enumerated above, then he may assert his right as a tenant.
March 25, 1999
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP; EFFECT OF CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP
What is the effect of discharge by the landowner of his landholding over the existing tenancy relationship?
- Discharge by the landowner of his landholding will not discharge the tenants (if any) therefrom. The change of ownership over the land will not make the tenancy relationship with the new owner cease to exist. The new owner merely steps into the shoes of the former owner and he is bound by the tenancy relationship existing prior to his acquisition of the land. It goes without saying that change of ownership over the landholding will not automatically amount to the displacement of tenants over the said landholding. The new owner has to recognize the tenants because they enjoy security of tenure.
February 4, 1998
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP; ESSENTIAL REQUISITES
- The following essential requisites of tenancy relationship as mentioned in Isidro vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 105586, December 15, 1993, to wit: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is sharing of harvests between the parties. All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties.
DAR OPINION NO. 05, s. 2007
February 7, 2007
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP; ESSENTIAL REQUISITES
What are the essential requisites of a tenancy relationship?
- It is a settled doctrine that mere cultivation without proof of the conditions of tenancy does not suffice to establish tenancy relationship. All the following conditions must be present for tenancy relationship to exist:
a. That the parties are the landholder and the tenant;
b. That the subject is agricultural land;
c. That there is consent by the landowner for tenant to work on the land, given either orally or in writing, expressly or impliedly;
d. That the purpose is agricultural production;
e. That there is personal cultivation or with the help of the immediate farm household; and
f. That there is compensation in terms of payment of a fixed amount in money and/or produce.
- Basic is the rule that in lands covered under P.D. No. 27, the supposed beneficiary should be a tenant or there should be a tenancy relationship which exists between the landowner and the farmer beneficiary.
September 4, 1998
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP; ESSENTIAL REQUISITES THEREOF
What are the essential requisites of a tenancy relationship?
- The Department of Agrarian Reform on several occasions, had opined that to support a claim of tenancy, all the essential requisites of tenancy relationship must be present. To repeat, the essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are as follows: 1) the parties are the landholder and the tenant; 2) the subject is agricultural land; 3) there is consent, given either orally or in writing, expressly or impliedly; 4) the purpose is agricultural production; 5) there is personal cultivation; and 6) there is compensation, either in terms of share in the harvest or payment of a fixed amount in money and/or produce. (DAR Opinion Nos. 25, S. 1994; 53, S. 1998, citing Graza vs. Court of Appeals, 163 SCRA 41). The above-cited DAR Opinion No. 53, S. 1998 further states in part, quote:
". . . In the absence of any of said requisites, an occupant of a parcel of land, or a cultivator thereof or a planter thereon, cannot claim tenancy relations over the landholding."
- It is clear that a farmworker may be considered a tenant if the above requisites are present.
March 25, 1999
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP; GROUND FOR EJECTMENT OF TENANT
Is personal cultivation a ground to terminate tenancy relationship?
- Personal cultivation is no longer a ground to terminate tenancy relationship because the same has been deleted as a ground for the ejectment of the tenant under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 6389 which amended Section 36 (1) of R.A. No. 3844. A landowner may not dispossess his/her tenant of his farmlot on the ground that you will personally cultivate your landholding.
February 9, 1999
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP; HOW CREATED
How is tenancy relationship created?
- Under Section 6 of RA 3844, as amended, tenancy relationship is created between the person who furnishes the landholding, either as owner, civil law lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor, and the one who personally cultivates the land. It follows that a person who is neither the owner, civil law lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor of a landholding cannot legally instituted a tenant thereon.
January 26, 1994
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP; HOW IT IS CREATED
How is tenancy relationship created?
- The farmer-beneficiary did not acquire ownership of the subject land by virtue of the award by the Department of Agrarian Reform. The Supreme Court, in the case of Angel Cunanan vs. Hon. Andres Aguilar, et al., 85 SCRA 47, has pronounced that tenancy relationship can only be created with the consent of the true and lawful landowner who is the owner, lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor of the land. It cannot be created by the act of a supposed landowner, who has no right to the land subject to the tenancy, much less by one who has been dispossessed of the same by final judgment.
September 4, 1998
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP; LANDOWNER'S RIGHT OF ASSIGNMENT
Has the duly authorized representative of a landowner the right to assign a tenant of the landholding?
- The landowner or his duly authorized representative has the right to assign a tenant of his landholding subject to prior rights of an incumbent de jure tenant and subject, further, to existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations.
March 25, 1999
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP; NOT EXTINGUISHED BY THE DONATION OF THE PROPERTY
Would the donation of the property extinguish the tenancy relations between the agricultural lessor and the agricultural lessee?
- The donation of the property will not result in the extinguishment of the tenancy relations between the agricultural lessor and the agricultural lessee. Under Section 10 of RA 3844, the agricultural leasehold 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.
June 30, 1994
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP; OUSTER OF TENANT BY COURT ORDER
What is the option available to a tenant in case he was ousted from the landholding by reason of a court order?
- The winning party can validly deprive the tenant of an ousted landholder of the subject riceland because without the consent of the lawful landholder, the alleged tenant could not validly say that his illegal possession has ripened into a legal one by reason of an assumed tenancy relationship. Said tenant can, however, file an action in court against the ousted landholder. Moreover, the ousted farmer-beneficiary may be considered a beneficiary not under P.D. No. 27 but under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657. Thus, he may opt to be a beneficiary in other lands that may be available for distribution provided he meets the basic qualifications of a beneficiary as enumerated in the aforesaid provision of law.
September 4, 1998
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP; REQUISITES
What are the requisites of a tenancy relationship?
- The following essential requisites must be present to establish a tenancy relationship, to wit:
1. the parties are the landowner and the tenant;
2. the subject is agricultural land;
3. the purpose is agricultural production;
4. there is consideration or compensation in terms of payment of a fixed amount in money and/or produce;
5. there is consent by the landowner for the tenant to work on the land; and
6. there is personal cultivation by the tenant.
- In Caballes vs. DAR, et al., G.R. No. L-78214, December 5, 1988, all these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties. The absence of one does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, or a cultivator thereof, or a planter thereon a de jure tenant.
- Considering that there is a consideration in the form of a fixed rental after each harvest, such constitutes as price certain for the cultivation and use of the land as contemplated in Section 166 (2&3) of R.A. No. 3844, as amended. Thus, there is tenancy which, however, under said law has been restructured as agricultural leasehold.
November 27, 2000
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP; REQUISITES
What are the requisites for tenancy relationship to exist?
- The Supreme Court in a long line of decisions held that to establish a tenancy relationships, the following essential requisites must be present, to wit:
a. the parties are the landowner and the tenant;
b. the subject is agricultural land;
c. the purpose is agricultural production;
d. there is consideration and that consideration consist of the sharing of harvests;
e. there is consent to the tenant to work on the land; and
f. there is personal cultivation by him (tenant)
- All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties. The absence of one does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, or a cultivator thereof, or a planter thereon a de jure tenant. Unless a person has established his status as de jure tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform program of the government under existing laws (Caballes vs. DAR, et al., G.R. No. 78214, December 5, 1988).
April 4, 1997
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP; SECURITY OF TENURE MAY BE INVOKED ONLY BY TENANTS DE JURE
Who may invoke security of tenure?
- A court judgment is enforceable against a person not actually a party to the case where he was instituted as tenant by the losing selling-landowner. The Decision/Order of the court, is binding upon the farmer-beneficiary. Thus, the cultivation and tenurial rights of the herein farmer-beneficiary shall necessarily cease since it is settled that security of tenure may be invoked only by tenants de jure and not by those who are not true and lawful tenants.
September 4, 1998
TENANCY RELATIONSHIP; SECURITY OF TENURE; NOT EXTINGUISHED BY EXPIRATION OF PERIODS, ETC.
Is tenancy relationship extinguished by expiration of the period?
- Isinasaad sa Seksyon 7 ng Batas Republika Blg. 3844 na sinusugan ng Batas Republika Blg. 6389 (ang mga batas na nagpapawalang bisa sa tinatawag na "agricultural sharing system" at automatikong paglilipat nito sa tinatawag na "agricultural leasehold") na pagkatapos maitatag o magkaroon ng ugnayan sa pagitan ng isang mananakahan at ng nagmamay-ari ng lupa sang-ayon sa itinakda ng batas (Tenancy Relationship), ang isang magsasaka ay may karapatang manatili sa lupang kanyang sinasaka at maaari lamang siyang tanggalan ng nasabing karapatan bilang isang nananakahan sa mga kadahilanang naaayon sa batas.
- Kaugnay nito, isinasaad din sa Seksyon 10 ng nabanggit na batas na kung sakali man na ipagbili o magkaroon ng paglilipat sa pagmamay-ari ng lupaing sinasaka, magpapatuloy ang ugnayan ng magsasaka at ng bagong nagmamay-ari ng lupa. Isinasaad sa Seksyon 10 ng nabanggit na batas ang mga sumusunod:
"Sek. 10. Ang Pagsasakang Buwisan sa Pagsasaka ay Di Nagwawakas sa Pagkatapos ng Takdang Panahon, atb. — Ang pagsasamahang buwisan sa pagsasaka sa ilalim ng Kodigong ito di magwawakas dahil lamang sa pagkatapos ng taning o takdang panahong nasa kasunduan sa pamumuwisan ni sa pagbibili, pag-aalis o paglilipat ng pag-okupang legal sa hinahawakang lupa. Sakaling ipagbili, ialis o ilipat ng nagpapabuwis sa pagsasaka ang pag-okupang legal sa hinahawakang lupa, ang nakabili o pinaglipatan niyon ay malalagay sa mga karapatan at mahahalili sa mga pananagutan ng nagpapabuwis sa pagsasaka."
October 28, 1999
TENANCY RIGHTS
- May higit na karapatan ang taong itinalaga ng kinatawan ng may-ari kaysa sa taong illegal na pumasok.
DAR OPINION NO. 18, s. 2010
Hunyo 21, 2010
TENANCY RIGHTS; HOW IS IT ACQUIRED
Can a buyer who acquires tenancy rights from the lessee without the consent of the landowner makes him a bona fide tenant?
- The buyer who acquires tenancy rights from the lessee without the consent and knowledge of the landowner does not make him a bona fide tenant entitled to security of tenure under RA 3844. In other words, his rights are nothing as he merely stepped into the shares of the lessee who cannot exercise rights higher or superior to that of the lessor.
- Briefly, his status is in consonance with the legal truism that "the spring cannot rise over its source". However, if the agricultural lessor eventually recognized the person to whom possession and cultivation of the farmlot was transferred, it is possible that his stay thereon has ripened into tenancy.
- The brothers and sisters of the buyer cannot devote subject landholdings for poultry or residential purposes. As the acquisition of said tenancy rights is tainted with illegality, the same cannot be validated by another illegal act by devoting it to poultry or residential purposes.
December 13, 1996
TENANCY RIGHTS; KARAPATAN NG NAMUMUWISAN SA PAGTUBOS
Is a lessee entitled to a right of redemption of land sold to 3rd persons?
- Isinasaad ng batas na kung sakaling ang lupa ay naipagbili sa ibang tao nang hindi alam ng namumuwisan sa pagsasaka, magkakaroon ng karapatan itong huli na tubusin ang naturan sa katamtamang halaga at kabayaran (Seksyon 12 ng B.R. Blg. 3844, sa sinusugan ng Seksyon 2 ng B.R. Blg. 6389, Karapatan ng Namumuwisan sa Pagtubos). Samakatuwid, naaayon sa batas na bago ipagbili ang lupa na mayroong nangangalaga ay dapat malaman muna ng huli.
- Isinasaaad sa Seksyon 10 ng Kodigo ng Repormang Pansakahan (R.A. No. 3844, na sinusugan ng R.A. No. 6389) na kung sakali man na ipagbili o magkaroon ng paglilipat sa pagmamay-ari ng lupang sinasaka, magpapatuloy ang ugnayan ng magsasaka at ng bagong nagmamay-ari ng lupa.
September 27, 2000
TENANCY RIGHTS; PROHIBITION
Can a tenant legally sell his tenancy right to another person?
- The tenant cannot legally sell the tenancy right as such to another person. As a tenant, he has the duty under Sec. 26 of RA 3844 as amended (Code of Agrarian Reform) to cultivate and take care of his farm, growing crops and other improvements on the landholding as a good father of a family and perform all the works thereon.
- If he sells the right as tenant and allows another person to cultivate the farm, the same would constitute abandonment of the landholding without the knowledge of the agricultural lessor which could be a good ground for ejectment. Such act of the tenant can be viewed as desertion of his right to cultivate the landholding.
December 13, 1996
TENANCY RIGHTS; SALE THEREOF PROHIBITED
Is the sale of tenancy right strictly prohibited?
- Sale of tenancy rights is strictly prohibited under R.A. No. 6657. Section 27 of said law provides in part, quote: "Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the Land Bank of the Philippines, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years: Provided, however, That the children or spouse of the transferor shall have the right to repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years…" The law is quite clear and exclusive as to whom transfer of acquired lands by the beneficiaries may be effected. Outside of those transfer provided for by law will make the same null and void. If the sale, transfer, or conveyance was made within the prohibited period and to other persons not mentioned in the above enumeration, such sale, transfer or conveyance would be rendered ineffective or without force and effect being violative of the provisions of R.A. No. 6657.
January 9, 1998
TENANCY RIGHTS; SUCCESSION
When does tenancy relationship exist?
- Section 9 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, providing that the leasehold relation between the agricultural lessor and the agricultural lessee is not extinguished by the death or permanent incapacity of the lessee, and, the leasehold shall continue between the agricultural lessor and the person who can cultivate the landholding personally, chosen by the agricultural lessor within one (1) month from such death or incapacity, from among the following: (a) the surviving spouse; (b) the eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; or (c) the next eldest descendant or descendants in the order of their age . . . . . Provided, further, That in the event the agricultural lessor fails to exercise his choice within the periods herein provided, the priority shall be in accordance with the order herein established. (underscoring and emphasis supplied)
November 27, 2000
TENANCY; AGRICULTURAL LEASEHOLD TENANCY NOT EXTINGUISHED BY DEATH OR INCAPACITY OF THE PARTIES
Is agricultural leasehold tenancy extinguished by the death or incapacity of the parties?
- Ayon sa seksyon 9 ng nasabing batas, na sinusugan ng Batas Republika Blg. 2263, isinasaad dito na kung sakaling mamatay ang isang tagapangalaga o gumagawa sa lupa, magpapatuloy ang pagsasaka o paggawa sa pamamagitan ng paglilipat o pagmamana ng karapatang magsaka sa malalapit na katulong na kasambahay na nauugnay sa namatay na tagapangalaga sa loob ng ikalawang digri ng pagka-kadugo na kung saan ay siya mismo ang personal na magsasaka sa lupa.
September 27, 2000
Is a farmworker qualified to be a Tenant in the landholding?
- The Court of Appeals in Viernes vs. Reyes, CA-G.R. No. SP-05989, February 24, 1977, has ruled that a person who does not work or till the land is not a tenant. Therefore, a farmworker can qualify as tenant of the landholding on account of his personal cultivation, coupled with his possession of the landholding for a period of years, and presence of all the other requisites constitutive of a tenancy relationship.
April 23, 1998
TENANCY; ALL REQUISITES MUST CONCUR
- The following six (6) requisites must be considered in order for a tenancy relationship to exist:
1. The parties are the landowner and the tenant;
2. The subject is agricultural land;
3. There is consent by the landowner for the tenant to work on the land, given either orally or in writing, expressly or impliedly;
4. The purpose is agricultural production;
5. There is personal cultivation or with the help of the immediate farm household; and
6. There is sharing of harvests.
- The Supreme Court emphasized in numerous cases that all of the above-elements must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship between the parties. The absence of one does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, or a cultivator thereof, or a planter thereon, a de jure tenant. This is so because unless a person has established his status as a de jure tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure nor he is covered by the Land Reform Program of the Government under existing tenancy laws. (Caballes v. DAR, 168 SCRA 254 [1988]).
DAR OPINION NO. 22, s. 2007
June 15, 2007
TENANCY; APPLICABLE LAWS
What law governs the sharing of tenants and owners?
- By virtue of Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code), which took effect on 08 August 1963, agricultural share tenancy was declared to be contrary to public policy and was, thereby, abolished. This was further strengthened in Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6389, which provided that agricultural share tenancy throughout the country shall be automatically converted to agricultural leasehold.
- Item III.D of DAR Administrative Order NO. 05, series of 1993 (Rules and Procedures Governing Agricultural Leasehold and the Determination of Lease Rental for Tenanted Lands) provides, quote:
"The lease rental to be paid by all agricultural lessees shall not be more than the equivalent of twenty-five percent (25%) of the average normal harvest during the three (3) agricultural years immediately preceding 15 June 1988, after deducting the amount used for seeds and the cost of harvesting, threshing, loading and processing, whichever is applicable."
June 7, 2002
TENANCY; PROOF OF TENANCY
Are proofs necessary to prove the allegation of non-tenancy?
- It requires clear and convincing proof apart from allegations to substantiate the same. Strictly speaking, mere allegations are not proof and have not probative value unless fully substantiated by the party alleging the same. Thus, proper proofs, investigations or ocular inspections are still necessary to prove said allegation of non-tenancy.
June 26, 1997
TENANCY; RECEIPTS OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR EVIDENCE
- In lieu of a leasehold agreement, and so long as there is consent by the landowner for the tenant to work on the land which is given either orally or in writing, a receipt or any other similar evidence may be presented by the claimants to prove their tenancy over the land.
DAR OPINION NO. 17, s. 2010
June 1, 2010
TENANT; DEFINITION
How is tenant defined under Sec. 5 (a) of R.A. No. 1199?
- In the case entitled "Matienzo vs. Servidad" (107 SCRA 276), the Supreme Court had occasion to explain that a tenant as defined under Section 5 (a) of R.A. No. 1199, is a person who himself and with the aid available from within his immediate household cultivates the landholding belonging to or possessed by another with the latter's consent for the purpose of production sharing the produce with the landholder under the share tenancy system or paying to the landholder a price certain or ascertainable in produce or in money, or both under the leasehold system.
August 1, 1995
May 28, 1996
TENANTS ; AS OCCUPANTS OF PUBLIC LANDS
Who are qualified/legal and disqualified/illegal tenants or occupants of a public agricultural land?
- In public agricultural lands, there is no distinction on legal or illegal occupants since any citizen of the Philippines can be a tiller thereof, provided he has the ability to make the land as productive as possible. This is so in view of the policy of the government to assist landless tenants in acquiring full ownership of the lands occupied or cultivated by them.
December 13, 1996
TILLER; EXPANDED CONCEPT OF TILLER
When does the expanded concept of tiller apply?
- If the tillers have no fixed farmlots, the expanded concept of tiller shall apply and the entire landholding shall be treated as a collective tillage, in which case, the awardees shall include not only those engaged in actual cultivation of the land but also those involved in processing, administrative, operations, medical and technical work (technical farmworkers). This is based on the principle that all individuals who contribute to making the land productive are considered tillers.
November 28, 1994
TITLE; ISSUANCE OF
- With the affectivity of R.A. No. 9700, titles generated and distributed pursuant to the agrarian reform program still form an integral part of the property registration and enjoy the same respect accorded to other modes of acquiring land titles pursuant to P.D. No. 1529 (Amending and Codifying the Laws Relative to Registration of Property and for Other Purposes). On the other hand, issuance of a derivative title emanating from voluntary transaction covered by EP or CLOA still lies with the ROD. Pertinent is Section 43 of Presidential Decree No. 1529 which provides, quote:
"Chapter IV-Certificate of Title
Section 43. Transfer Certificate of Title. — The subsequent certificates of title that may be issued by the Register of Deeds pursuant to any voluntary instrument relating to the same land shall be in like form, entitled "Transfer Certificate of Title", and likewise issued in duplicate. The certificate shall show the number of the next previous certificate covering the same land and also the fact that it was originally registered, giving the record number, the number of the original certificate of title, and the volume and page of the registration book in which the latter is found."
- Section 12 par 2 of said R.A. No. 9700 does not divest the ROD of its authority to issue titles to land pursuant to the land registration law. Said provision merely provides as additional requirement that title of the awarded land must indicate whether it is an EP or CLOA, including its subsequent transfer thereof, purposely to ensure a generation of farmers and preserve the classification of the land which is agricultural. This is in line with the policy of the state to pursue a comprehensive agrarian reform program.
DAR OPINION NO. 21, s. 2009
November 9, 2009
TITLE; ON AWARDED LANDHOLDING; WHEN DOES IT PASS TO THE AWARDEE
When does the title to the awarded landholding pass to the awardee?
- It is a recognized rule that when a landholding is awarded to qualified beneficiaries, title does not pass to the awardee unless the landowner is paid just compensation thereon.
November 5, 1996
TORRENS TITLE; TITLE ISSUED PRESUMED VALID
Is a title issued under the Torrens System valid?
- The Supreme Court has ruled that, a title issued under the Torrens System enjoys the conclusive presumption of validity (Ramos vs. Rogrigues, 244 SCRA 418). Hence, a registered owner thereof cannot be unjustly deprived of the same.
October 16, 2000
TRANSFER ACTION; AUTHORITY OF DARAB TO TAKE COGNIZANCE THEREOF
May DARAB take cognizance of cases involving transfer action?
- If, indeed, said "transfer action" cases fall within the contemplation of the aforecited provisions of Administrative Order No. 06, series of 2000, the remedy is explicitly provided for under Section 4 of the same guideline, quote:
"SECTION 4. Referral of Cases — If a case covered by Section 2 herein is filed before the DARAB, the concerned DARAB official shall refer the case to the proper DAR Office for appropriate action within five (5) days after said case is determined to be within the jurisdiction of the Secretary. . . ." (emphasis supplied)
February 21, 2002
TRANSFER CERTIFICATE OF TITLE; EVIDENCE OF SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER OF AWARDED LANDS FROM FARMER-BENEFICIARIES TO THIRD PERSONS
May the Transfer Certificate Title be issued for lands transferred by an awardee to a transferee?
- The subsequent transfer of awarded lands from farmer-beneficiaries to third persons shall be evidenced by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) and no longer that of Emancipation Patent. Specifically, the Policy Statement (No. 7) of DAR Administrative Order No. 08, Series of 1995 expressly provides that Transfer Certificate of Title shall be issued by the Land Registration Authority (LRA) for lands transferred by an awardee to a transferee (P.D. No. 27 as amended by E.O. No. 228). However, this presupposes that the transfer from original awardee to third person was made with the prior written consent of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). Absent of such consent taints the transfer with invalidity.
March 10, 1997
TRANSFER OF AWARDED LAND; PROHIBITION
- The foregoing, and under Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 as amended, explicitly prohibit the transfer of an awarded land or a portion thereof within ten (10) years from award except through hereditary succession, to the government, to the Land Bank of the Philippines or to other qualified beneficiaries. It is very clear that in all transactions involving transfer or sale of awarded land by farmer beneficiaries to their persons is allowed only with the consent of the DAR. Absent such consent taints the transfer with invalidity. This in view with the DAR policy to prevent possible circumvention and its amendatory laws, related implementing guidelines.
DAR Opinion No. 02, s. 2010
January 5, 2010
TRANSFER OF MEMBERS' LAND SHARES
Under "transfer through hereditary succession", who will succeed?
In case of transfer in land share, how can we effect the change in the title?
- In case a beneficiary dies, his land share shall be transferred and registered in the name of the heir who gets the land as his/her share in the inheritance as stipulated in the Settlement of Estate among the heirs. However in case the estate is not yet settled, the land share shall be transferred and registered collectively in the names of all the heirs of the deceased beneficiary. In the latter situation, the heirs shall choose among themselves who will represent the deceased beneficiary in the cooperative. Such representative-heir should qualify as beneficiary and as member of the cooperative.
- However, where the surviving heir or heirs are minors and could not yet qualify as beneficiary/ies, he or they, as the case may be, shall be represented by the guardian in cultivating or directly managing the land until the eldest minor, or if he shall not qualify, the next eldest, and so on, shall have qualified.
- In the following cases, where the land has not yet been fully paid and the 10-year period from award has not yet lapsed, the land shall be reallocated by DAR to a deserving ARB:
(1) where the beneficiary dies without an heir; and
(2) except where the surviving heir or heirs are minors and not yet qualified as beneficiary/ies, where no surviving heir is a qualified beneficiary.
- In the second case above, the deceased member's land share shall, however, be monetized for distribution to his heirs. The rationale behind the aforestated reallocation is to uphold the time-honored principle and policy of land-to-the-tiller/owner-cultivatorship and to foreclose a return of absentee landlordism which is the very social problem sought to resolved by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
- In case of transfer of member's land share, the title (TCT-CLOA) may be corrected through a petition for administrative correction of registered EP/CLOA filed before the DAR Adjudication Board where the land is located (DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1994).
July 14, 1999
TRANSFER; CONDITIONS
- Although transfer of awarded lands under Presidential Decree No. 27 may be allowed if amortization thereof has been fully paid, such transfer is still subject to the compliance with the provisions of Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1995 [Rules and Procedures Governing the Transferability of Lands Awarded to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 as Amended by Executive Order No. 228 and Republic Act No. 6657].
DAR OPINION NO. 29, s. 2008
November 14, 2008
TRANSFER; FORECLOSED PROPERTIES
- Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 7881 allows banks to dispose to third parties their properties which were foreclosed on or after the effectivity of R.A. No. 7881, on March 12, 1995. Nonetheless, they may be eventually acquired by the government through DAR for distribution to qualified farmer beneficiaries as mandated under R.A. No. 6657, as amended.
DAR OPINION NO. 30, s. 2010
December 22, 2010
TRANSFER; 10-YEAR PROHIBITORY PERIOD
- Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 which provides that lands acquired by beneficiaries under said Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, to the Land of Bank of the Philippines (LBP), or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years. Furthermore, the provisions of Executive Order N0. 228 dated July 17, 1987 and DAR A.O. No. 08, Series of 1995 [Rules and Procedures Governing the Transferability of Lands Awarded to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 as Amended by Executive Order No. 228 and Republic Act No. 6657], when taken together provide that ownership of lands acquired by farmer-beneficiary may be transferred after full payment of amortizations.
- The transfer of awarded lands is allowed only after full payment of land amortization and provided further, that the conditions laid down in said Administrative Order are observed.
DAR OPINION NO. 02, s. 2009
February 2, 2009
TRANSFER; 10-YEAR PROHIBITORY PERIOD
- Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), provides that lands acquired by beneficiaries under said Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years.
DAR OPINION NO. 24, s. 2006
August 2, 2006
TRANSFER; 10-YEAR PROHIBITORY PERIOD
Are lands awarded to CARP beneficiaries be sold or transferred?
- Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6657 explicitly provides that lands awarded to beneficiaries of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years. Said provision of law allows, as an exception to the rule, the transfer of awarded lands to the government even within the 10-year prohibitory period. However, a careful analysis of Section 27 would indubitably bring us to the conclusion that the contemplated transfer to the "government" may be accorded meaning only within the context of agrarian reform and without withdrawing it therefrom.
- Be it that as it may, the government can, nonetheless, expropriate agricultural lands if the intended purpose is for public use or welfare as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals (222 SCRA 173) and in accordance with Presidential Administrative Order No. 50, series of 1999 (Guidelines for the Acquisition of Certain Parcels of Private Land Intended For Public Use Including the Right-Of-Way Easement of Several Public Infrastructure Projects). It should, however, be limited to such area actually needed for the purpose and there is no other alternative route.
November 8, 2000
TRANSFER; AWARDED LANDS
- The provisions of Executive Order No. 228 dated July 17, 1987 and DAR Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1995 [Rules and Procedures Governing the Transferability of Lands Awarded to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 as amended by Executive Order No. 228 and Republic Act No. 6657], when taken together provide that ownership of lands acquired by a farmer-beneficiary may be transferred after full payment of amortizations.
- It is clear that the transfer of awarded lands is allowed only after full payment of the land amortization, which you failed to disclose however in your letter, and provided further, that the conditions laid down in A.O. No. 8, Series of 1995, copy attached, are observed. The procedures in the transfer of awarded lands are laid down in the said Administrative Order.
DAR OPINION NO. 24, s. 2006
August 2, 2006
TRANSFER; AWARDED LANDS
- The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), Section 27 thereof, explicitly prohibits the transfer of an awarded land or a portion thereof within ten (10) years from award except through hereditary succession or to the government, Land Bank of the Philippines or other qualified beneficiaries. The provisions of Executive Order No. 228, dated 17 July 1987 and DAR Administrative Order No. 08, Series of 1995 [Rules and Procedures Governing the Transferability of Lands Awarded to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 as amended by Executive Order No. 228 and Republic Act No. 6657], when taken together, provide that ownership of lands acquired by a farmer-beneficiary may be transferred after full payment of the amortizations, provided the following shall be observed:
a) that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
b) that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landownership ceiling provided by law; and
c) that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall be imposed.
- Accordingly, the transfer of awarded land can be allowed provided that the conditions stated above shall be complied with in order that the same shall be considered valid and legal. This is in accordance with the mandate of law and consistent with the government's policy to preserve prime agricultural lands. Moreover, the conditions thus enumerated shall apply not only to first transfers made but also to the subsequent ones, as long as the agricultural condition of the land continue to exist. This is based on the principle that agricultural lands should rightfully be considered a finite natural resource, further exhaustion of which would threaten national food security.
DAR OPINION NO. 03, s. 2006
January 20, 2006
TRANSFER; AWARDED LANDS
What are the conditions required before transfer of awarded lands are allowed?
- Transfer of awarded lands under P.D. No. 27, as amended by E.O. No. 228 and R.A. No. 6657 may be allowed after full payment of amortizations. However, in order to effect valid transfer thereof, DAR A.O. No. 8, Series of 1995 provides for certain conditions that must be met, to wit:
a) that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
b) that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landowner ceiling provided by law; and
c) that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall be imposed.
September 24, 1999
Is the transfer of awarded land is allowed?
- Transfer of awarded land is allowed only after full payment of the land amortization and provided the conditions laid down in A.O. 8, Series of 1995 are observed.
October 1, 1996
TRANSFER; BY VIRTUE OF THE POWER OF EMINENT DOMAIN
May the transfer by virtue of the power of eminent domain contravenes P.D. No. 27?
- Considering that the transfer of the farmlots covered by P.D. 27 was made by virtue of the power of eminent domain, the same does not contravene P.D. 27 and its implementing guidelines, hence, an ordinary title may be issued in favor of the NPC by the Register of Deeds.
March 15, 1996
TRANSFER; CONDITIONS
What are the conditions for transfer of agricultural lands?
- The following are the conditions:
1) The total agricultural land owned by the transferee, inclusive of the land to be acquired, shall not exceed the 5-hectare landownership ceiling provided in RA 6657;
2) No conversion of the farmholding for purposes other than agricultural shall be undertaken without a DAR Order of Conversion; and
3) Under Administrative Order No. 20, Series of 1992 of the Office of the President, all irrigated and economically irrigable lands covered by irrigation projects with firm funding commitments shall be non-negotiable for conversion.
August 16, 1994
TRANSFER; CONDITIONS REQUIRED BEFORE TRANSFER OF AWARDED LANDS ARE ALLOWED
- Pursuant to the aforequoted provisions of Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 in relation to Item II.1.d of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989, it is clear that the government (which includes LGUs) falls under the exceptions and should not be interpreted in the light of those falling under the 10-year prohibitory period. However, under the aforequoted provisions of DAR Administrative order No. 08, Series of 1995, the transfer contemplated is that which will maintain the use of the land for agricultural production or purposes where the buyer should not exceed the aggregate landownership ceiling of five (5) hectares. This is to preclude possible violation and/or circumvention of agrarian laws, rules and regulations.
- Thus, since the transfer of awarded lands to the government may be allowed provided the productivity of the land be maintained, and, considering that the transfer of said lands appears to be through a private transaction and not through expropriation, DAR land transfer clearance may be issued but only up to the maximum/aggregate 5-hectare landownership ceiling pursuant to Sections 6 and 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657 and the abovequoted provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 08, Series of 1995.
DAR OPINION NO. 04, s. 2004
February 4, 2004
TRANSFER; DAR CLEARANCE REQUIRED
Is DAR Clearance required for a valid transfer?
- In all transactions involving the transfer or sale of agricultural land to another, the issuance of a DAR Clearance is an essential requisite in order that it may be considered a valid transfer. This is so in view of the DAR's policy to protect the rights of the tenants and other farmworkers who may be displaced therein.
December 23, 1996
- Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that upon the effectivity of said law (15 June 1988), transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of the CARL shall be null and void. Furthermore, in all transactions involving the transfer or sale of agricultural lands to another, the issuance of DAR Clearance is an essential requisite in order that it may be considered a valid transfer. This is in view of DAR's policy to protect the rights of tenants and other farmworkers. Moreover, Section 70 of R.A. No. 6657 allows the sales or disposition of agricultural lands retained by a landowner provided that the total landholdings that shall be owned by the transferee thereof inclusive of the land to be acquired shall not exceed the landholding ceiling of five (5) hectares.
DAR OPINION NO. 66(A), s. 1997
June 5, 1997
TRANSFER; FORECLOSED ASSETS
Is the transfer by banks of foreclosed assets permitted?
- Section 71 of CARL provides that banks may acquire title to mortgaged properties, subject to existing laws on compulsory transfer of foreclosed assets and acquisition as prescribed under Section 16 of said Act. Moreover, Section 6 of RA 7881 provides that the transfer by banks of such foreclosed assets is permitted. Taken together, these legal provisions means that while there is no prohibition against the transfer of foreclosed assets of private banks to third persons, said assets are subject to acquisition and redistribution pursuant to CARL.
August 9, 1995
TRANSFER; FORECLOSED ASSETS
Is the transfer by banks of foreclosed assets permitted?
- Section 71 of CARL provides that banks may acquire title to mortgaged properties, subject to existing laws on compulsory transfer of foreclosed assets and acquisition as prescribed under Section 16 of said Act. Moreover, Section 6 of RA 7881 provides that the transfer by banks of such foreclosed assets is permitted. Taken together these legal provisions mean that while there is no prohibition against the transfer of foreclosed assets of private banks to third persons, said assets are subject to acquisition and redistribution pursuant to CARL.
August 9, 1995
TRANSFER; IN FAVOR OF A COOPERATIVE
May the transfer of the farmlot in favor of a cooperative be favorably considered?
- The transfer of the farmlot within a settlement site in favor of a cooperative may be favorably considered provided that the following are duly established:
1. That the cooperative is authorized under its Articles of Cooperation to engage in the business for which the lot is to be used;
2. That the cooperative has financial capability to engage in said business;
3. That the intended use of the farmlot is agricultural in nature or will benefit the settlers and CARP beneficiaries within the area; and
4. That the area to be transferred should correspond to the intended use.
March 22, 1995
TRANSFER; INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE PROVISION OF PD 27 AND THE PROVISION IN SECTION 6, EO 228
How do you reconcile the inconsistency between the provision of PD 27 and the provision in Sec. 6 of EO 228?
- Since both PD 27 and EO 228 cover rice/corn lands awarded to tenants thereof, and EO 228 is the later law, it is believed that the provision in Section 6 thereof allowing the transfer of said lands after full payment repeals the inconsistent provision in PD 27 prohibiting said transfer.
January 3, 1994
TRANSFER; LOT COVERED BY CLOA
Can a lot covered by CLOA be transferred?
- The lot covered by CLOA No. 00011688 cannot be transferred in favor of the Municipality of Dupax Del Monte, Nueva Vizcaya. Said CLOA clearly provides that the parcel of land covered thereby "shall not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the Government, or to the Land Bank of the Philippines, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years".
September 5, 1994
TRANSFER; MADE IN FAVOR OF THE GOVERNMENT
Is the transfer of agricultural lands made in favor of the government, DAR or the LBP valid?
- Paragraph II-A-2 of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989 (Rules and Procedures Governing Land Transactions) which provides that transfer of agricultural lands made in favor of the government, DAR or the Land Bank of the Philippines are valid does not cover all transactions made in favor of the government but refers only to those transactions made for agrarian reform purposes that is, those transfer which are in pursuance of the land redistribution program of the government.
May 28, 1996
TRANSFER; NECCESITY OF DAR CLEARANCE FOR ITS REGISTRATION
Is DAR Clearance necessary for the registration of transfer of agricultural lands?
- All transfers or disposition of agricultural lands must be evaluated by DAR to determine whether or not the same are in conformity with RA 6657. Should DAR find the transfer to be in violation of CARL, no clearance for its registration will be issued.
July 28, 1995
TRANSFER; PROHIBITION
Is the transfer of awarded land or a portion thereof prohibited?
- Section 27 of CARL explicitly prohibits the transfer of an awarded land or a portion thereof within ten years from awarded except through hereditary succession or to the government or to the Land Bank of the Philippines or to other qualified beneficiaries.
October 11, 1996
TRANSFER; PROHIBITION
Is transfer made in favor of the government within the 10-year period from award allowed?
- One of the exceptions to the prohibition against the transfer of lands acquired under R.A. 6657 within the 10-year period from award is the transfer made in favor of the government. Hence, the contemplated transfer to the DAR for donation to the DECS to be used as a school site to serve the students in the community may legally be undertaken.
June 23, 1995
TRANSFER; PROHIBITION OF CORPORATION TO BE TRANSFEREE OF LOTS IN LANDED ESTATES
Are corporations qualified to be transferee of lots in landed estates?
- Corporations are not qualified to be transferee of lots in landed estates considering that the same were intended for distribution to bona-fide tenants; occupants or private individuals who will work the lands themselves.
July 2, 1996
TRANSFER; TAX EXEMPT
Is the transfer of ownership tax exempt?
- Transactions involving a transfer of ownership under Republic Act No. 6657 is tax exempt.
September 17, 1997
TRANSFER; THRU HEREDITARY SUCCESSION
May the landholding acquired under the Agrarian Reform Code be transferred thru hereditary succession?
- Section 62 of RA 3844, as amended allows the transfer of landholdings acquired under the Agrarian Reform Code thru hereditary succession. Since the provisions of a will take effect upon the death of the testator, the transfer of farmlot by will may legally be done. However, it should be noted that the law allows transfer in favor of one heir only. This must be so, because transferring the farmlot to more than one heir would result in a fragmentation of the property and defeat the intent of the law to distribute economic family size farms.
December 7, 1994
TRANSFER; UNDER PD 27
May the land acquired pursuant to P.D. No. 27 be transferred?
- Transfer of title to land acquired pursuant to PD 27 and other agrarian laws, EO 228 provides that ownership of lands acquired by the farmer-beneficiary may be transferred after full payment of amortizations. However, aforesaid provision for the indiscriminate transfer of awarded lands, and certain criteria which are set forth in RA 6657 must be satisfied in order that transfer over awarded lands can be effected. On the other hand, if the land has not yet been fully paid, the rights to the land may be transferred or conveyed, with prior approval of the DAR, to a qualified beneficiary who shall cultivate the same.
December 11, 1995
TRANSFER; VALIDITY THEREOF
Is transfer valid?
- The validity of the transfer depends on the provisions of the law under which the award was made. For example, of the award was made pursuant to RA 6657, said sale is valid. This is because Sec, 27 of said law provides that lands acquired by beneficiaries under said Act "may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years", which means that after said 10-year period, the land awarded may be transferred to persons other than the heirs, the government, LBP or other qualified beneficiaries.
October 6, 1994
TRANSFER; WHEN ALLOWED
What are the requirements for transfer to be valid?
- Policy Statement No. 2 of DAR A.O. No. 8 which clarifies that although the transfer of awarded lands is allowed the productivity of the land shall be maintained, and any change in the nature of its use shall not be permitted except with the approval of the DAR under its rules on conversion or exemption.
July 15, 1996
TRANSFER; WHEN EFFECTED
When is transfer of property effected?
- Once it has been ascertained that full payment has been made, and the property does not fall under A.O. No. 20, the transfer may be effected. However, the transferee must file an application for conversion with DAR.
May 12, 1994
- The last sentence of Section 6 of E.O. 228 providing that the ownership of lands acquired by beneficiaries may be transferred after full payment of amortization does not operate as a blanket authority for the indiscriminate transfer of OLT lands and that certain criteria (other than full payment) which are set forth in CARL must be satisfied in order for said transfer to be legally effected.
March 23, 1995
TRANSFER; WHEN SUBJECT TO CAPITAL GAINS TAX
When is the transfer of property subject to capital gains tax?
- If the transfer is under an approved Voluntary Offer to Sell, a landowner need not pay capital gains tax pursuant to Sec. 66 of CARL. However, if it is not made in favor of a CARP beneficiary then each sale is subject to capital gains tax.
July 25, 1994
TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LAND; CONDITIONS THEREOF
Are transfer of awarded lands to government entities allowed through ordinary sale?
- Administrative Order No. 08, Series of 1995, specifically, Item II.2 and 3 thereof, in relation with Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657, although the transfer in favor of the government is one of the exceptions to the prohibition against transfer within ten (10) years from award, the transfer contemplated is that which will maintain the use of the land for agricultural production or purposes. It follows therefore that any transfer through ordinary sale in favor of government entities in their private capacity within the 10-year prohibitory period for a purpose other than that contemplated is not allowed as expressly enunciated under Items II.2 and 3 of DAR Administrative Order No. 08, Series of 1995.
March 25, 1999
Are transfer of awarded lands to government entities allowed through ordinary sale?
- If the transfer to government entities is for public use through expropriation proceedings in the proper exercise of their delegated power of eminent domain and not in their proprietary capacity, the same may be allowed even in the absence of approval by the DAR to convert or reclassify agricultural properties from agricultural to non-agricultural use, upon payment of just compensation to the affected ARBs (Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 173). In fairness to the CLOA or EP awardees whose lands shall be expropriated, they should, however, still be entitled as agrarian reform beneficiaries or awardees in other landholdings.
March 25, 1999
TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LANDS; TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LANDS A MINISTERIAL DUTY
- Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988) provides that lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession. Said provision of law is an exception on the non-transferability of awarded lands under P.D. No. 27 and R.A. No. 6657.
- DAR Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1995 (Transferability of Lands Awarded to ARBs Pursuant to PD 27 as Amended by EO No. 228 and RA 6657) particularly Item No. II (1) thereof provides that lands awarded to ARBs pursuant to either P.D. No. 27 or R.A. No. 6657 may be transferred and registered by the Register of Deeds only after the issuance of DAR clearance.
- The only requirement needed for the transfer of an awarded land is the DAR clearance which may be issued by the DAR Regional Director. Nothing is mentioned in said guideline that there shall be prior declaration/order of the DAR-Adjudication Board (DARAB) for the cancellation of the Emancipation Patent before the same should be transferred.
- A petition before the DARAB is no longer necessary and that it is ministerial on the part of the Register of Deeds to cause the transfer of the title after compliance with the documentary requirements and upon showing that all the conditions/limitations/proscriptions prescribed by law in the disposition of agrarian reform awarded lands have been complied with.
DAR OPINION NO. 10, s. 2008
April 28, 2008
TRANSFERABILITY OF LAND ACQUIRED UNDER P.D. 27
Are lands acquired under PD 27 be transferred?
- Lands acquired under P.D. 27 may be transferred to anyone, even if not qualified beneficiaries, provided the amortizations have been fully paid and even within the 10-year period from the award thereof. There are exceptions, however, to the foregoing rule as provided for under Policy Statements Nos. 5 and 6 of A.O. No. 8, Series of 1995, quote:
5) If the land was identified as tenanted after 1972, the transfer may be allowed only after the lapse of ten (10) years from the date of recognition of the tenants as stated in the Order of Placement issued pursuant to DAR M.C. No. 2, Series of 1978.
6) If awardee is a transfer action reallocatee pursuant to an Order of Reallocation, transfer may be allowed provided ten (10) years have lapsed from the date of recognition of the reallocatee or stated in the final Order of Reallocation issued by the Regional Director/DAR Secretary. However, transfer to a reallocatee by virtue of succession by an heir shall not be subject to the ten (10) year period prohibition.
March 10, 1998
TRANSFERABILITY; AWARDED LAND
Are lands awarded pursuant to PD 27 and RA 6657 be transferred, sold or conveyed? What are the exceptions?
- Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) expressly provides that lands acquired by beneficiaries under said Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP), or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years. Moreover, the provisions of Executive Order No. 228 dated July 17, 1987 and DAR A.O. No. 8, Series of 1995, when taken together, provide that ownership of lands acquired by a farmer-beneficiary (whether under P.D. No. 27 or R.A. No. 6657) may be transferred after full payment of amortizations, provided the following conditions shall be observed:
a. that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
b. that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landownership ceiling provided by law;
c. that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall be imposed.
March 10, 1998
TRANSFERABILITY; AWARDED LAND; OWNERSHIP TRANSFERRED FROM THE DATE OF REGISTRATION
When shall ownership of an awarded land deemed transferred to farmer-beneficiaries?
- It is only from the date of registration of EPs and CLOAs with the Register of Deeds by which the five (5) year prohibitory period should commence to run since it is only then that the ownership of the awarded land has been legally and actually transferred in the name of the farmer-beneficiaries. Ownership is not transferred upon mere issuance of Certificate of Allocation for the same does not constitute as proof of ownership unlike that of EPs and CLOAs.
June 23, 1998
TRANSFERABILITY; AWARDED LAND; TRANSFERABILITY ALLOWED ONLY AFTER THE ISSUANCE OF A DAR CLEARANCE; PENALTY FOR WILLFUL VIOLATIONS OF THE SAME
May an ARB legally and validly sell the land awarded to him without prior DAR clearance?
- Item II.1 of DAR Administrative Order No. 08, Series of 1995 clearly provides that lands awarded to ARBs pursuant to either P.D. No. 27 or R.A. No. 6657 may be transferred and registered by the Register of Deeds only after the issuance of a DAR Clearance. The issuance of a DAR Clearance is therefore an essential requisite before a valid transfer could be effected. Otherwise, the sale or transfer is void.
- The issuance of a DAR clearance does not validate what is otherwise an invalid sale or transaction. Rather, it serves as a safeguard that only valid transactions pursuant to P.D. No. 27 and R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) could be registered to foreclose possible circumvention of agrarian laws.
- The transfer from the original awardee to third person presupposes that the same was made with prior consent of the DAR. Absent such consent taints the transfer with invalidity. Section 74 of R.A. No. 6657 provides for penalties in cases of willful violations of the provisions thereof, quote:
"Any person who knowingly or willfully violates the provisions of this Act shall be punished by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month to not more than three (3) years or a fine of not less than one thousand pesos (P1,000.00) and not more than fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the court."
October 6, 1999
TRANSFERABILITY; AWARDED LANDS: APPLICABILITY OF PROHIBITION RELATIVE TO TRANSFERABILITY EXTENDS TO QUALIFIED CHILDREN AS PREFERRED BENEFICIARIES
What is the extent of the prohibition relative to transferability of awarded lands?
- The prohibitions embodied in Sec. 27 of R.A. No. 6657 relative to transferability of awarded lands shall likewise apply and operate even on the non-amortizing qualified heirs/children of the landowner as preferred beneficiaries.
April 14, 1997
TRANSFERABILITY; AWARDED LANDS; REQUIREMENTS FOR A VALID SALE OR TRANSFER; CANCELLATION OF EPs OR CLOAs IN CASE OF NON-COMPLIANCE; DISPOSITION OF AWARDED LAND DISQUALIFIES ONE TO BECOME AN ARB
What are the requirements for a valid sale or transfer of awarded lands?
- Section 6 of Executive Order No. 228 provides that ownership of lands acquired by farmer-beneficiaries under P.D. No. 27 may be transferred after full payment of amortizations. However, this provision does not serve as a sweeping authority for the injudicious transfer or sale of awarded lands as there are certain criteria that must be satisfied in order that a valid transfer thereof can be made. DAR Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1995 provides that lands awarded to ARBs pursuant to either P.D. No. 27 or R.A. No. 6657 may be transferred and registered by the Register of Deeds only after the issuance of a DAR Clearance (Item II.1). Moreover, said guideline enumerates the criteria that must be observed in the transfer of awarded lands, to wit:
"a. that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
b. that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landowner ceiling provided by law; and
c. that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall be imposed."
- If a farmer-beneficiary and a transferee satisfy all the conditions set forth under DAR A.O. No. 8, Series of 1995, the former could validly transfer or sell the awarded land to the latter. However, non-compliance or violation of any of the conditions may be deemed a valid ground to cancel the EP or CLOA (Item IV-B.5, DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1994) and/or to forfeit the sale or transfer, the same being null and void, hence, the lands shall be reacquired by DAR for redistribution to other qualified farmer-beneficiaries. Likewise, an awardee who shall dispose of his/her landholding shall no longer be qualified to become a beneficiary under CARP (Item II.9, A.O. No. 8, Series of 1995).
- The foregoing conditions and guidelines would ensure that the productivity of awarded lands is maintained, to foreclose possible circumvention of existing agrarian laws, rules and regulations, and to provide sanctions in case of violations thereof.
June 23, 1998
TRANSFERABILITY; AWARDED LANDS; RIGHT TO TRANSFER
May awarded lands under P.D. No. 27 be transferred?
- Under DAR Administrative Order No. 8, series of 1995 as supplemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1996, it expressly allows the transfer of awarded lands but the same is not absolute.
- Section 6 of Executive Order No. 228 provides that ownership of lands acquired by farmer-beneficiaries may be transferred only after full payment of amortization. Moreover, the aforesaid implementing rules and regulations likewise provide that transfer of awarded lands under P.D. No. 27, as amended by E.O. No. 228 and R.A. No. 6657 may be allowed, provided the following shall be observed:
a) that the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
b) that the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landowner ceiling provided by law; and
c) that the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall be imposed.
March 11, 1997
TRANSFERABILITY; CONDITIONS FOR THE TRANSFER OF AWARDED LANDS
What is required to effect valid transfer of awarded lands?
- Transfer of awarded land is allowed pursuant to the provisions of DAR A.O. No. 8, Series of 1995. However, the conditions stated thereon shall be complied with in order that the same shall be considered valid and legal. This is in accordance with the mandate of law and consistent with the government's policy to preserve prime agricultural lands. Moreover, the conditions thus enumerated shall apply not only to first transfers made but to subsequent ones as well for as long as the agricultural condition of the land continues to exist. This is based on the principle that agricultural lands should rightfully be considered a finite natural resource, further exhaustion of which would threaten national food security. Any change, therefore, in the nature of the awarded lands' use shall not be allowed except with the approval of the DAR under its rules on conversion or exemption.
October 4, 1999
TRANSFERABILITY; OF AWARDED LAND UNDER CARP
Can awarded lands acquired under R.A. No. 6657 be the subject of a valid transfer or conveyance within the ten (10) year prohibitory period from the award notwithstanding the prohibition under Sec. 27 of said law?
- The prohibition relative to transferability of awarded lands under Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657, which provides that lands acquired by beneficiaries under said Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years, is mandatory and absolute. This simply means that the prohibition relative to disposition shall stand during the ten (10) year period from the award even if the supporting documents have been complied with, and even if the conditions laid down under Item II-3 of Administrative Order No. 08, Series of 1995 shall be observed and the subject landholding has already been fully paid by the farmer-beneficiaries.
- To immediately allow the transfer or conveyance during the ten (10) year prohibitory period would circumvent R.A. No. 6657 on the non-transferability of awarded lands, render nugatory the social justice purposes for which the said law had been enacted, and would likewise run counter to the well-entrenched concepts of land to the tiller and owner-cultivatorship. While DAR A.O. No. 08, Series of 1995 as supplemented by DAR A.O. No. 06, Series of 1996 allows the disposition or transfer of awarded lands, the same clearly refers only to transfers or dispositions after the ten (10) year prohibitory period has elapsed. Moreover, even assuming arguendo that said Administrative Order allows the disposition or transfer of awarded lands within the 10-year prohibitory period, it was categorically held by the Supreme Court in the case of Vassar Industries Inc. vs. Vassar Industries Employees Union, 177 SCRA 323, that administrative regulations issued by government agencies to implement a law cannot by any means expand nor supplant a law. The rules must be in harmony with the law and cannot operate to amend it.
November 11, 1998
TRANSFERABILITY; OF AWARDED LANDS UNDER CARP
May awarded lands under PD 27 be transferred?
- Pursuant to Section 27 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Transferability of Awarded Lands), it provides the following, quote:
"Lands acquired by beneficiaries under this Act may not be sold, transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to the government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries for a period of ten (10) years."
- Moreover, the provisions of Executive Order No. 228 dated 17 July 1987 in relation with DAR Administrative Order No. 8, Series of 1995 provide that ownership of lands acquired by a farmer-beneficiary (whether under P.D. No. 27 or R.A. No. 6657) may be transferred after full payment of amortizations, provided the following conditions shall be observed:
(a) That the productivity of the land shall be maintained;
(b) That the buyer will not exceed the aggregate landownership ceiling provided by law; and
(c) That the ownership ceiling of five (5) hectares shall be imposed.
January 9, 1998
December 2, 1998
TRANSFERABILITY; PD 27
When may transfer of PD 27 awarded lands be allowed?
- P.D. No. 27 expressly provides that title to lands acquired pursuant thereto or the Land Reform Program of the Government shall not be transferable except by hereditary succession or to the Government. However, Section 6 of E.O. No. 228 provides that ownership of lands acquired by farmer-beneficiaries may be transferred after full payment of amortizations.
January 28, 1997
TRANSFERABILITY; PROHIBITION TO SELL; TRANSFER OR CONVEY LANDS
Who are the persons qualified to purchase the land after 10 years from the award made by the government?
- Sec. 27 of RA 6657 prohibits for a period of ten years from award, the sale, transfer or conveyance of lands except (1) through hereditary succession or (2) to the government, or (3) to the LBP, or (4) to other qualified beneficiaries. If the sale is made in favor of a qualified beneficiary, it may be done even during the ten year period from award.
October 6, 1994
TRANSFERABILITY; PROHIBITION TO TRANSFER; EXCEPTION
What are the exceptions on the prohibition to transfer pursuant to R.A. No. 6657?
- Section 27 of RA 6657 provides that lands awarded to agrarian reform beneficiaries may not be sold, transferred to conveyed within ten years. However, the same Section makes an exception as regards transfer to government institutions.
October 3, 1995
TRUST ACCOUNTS; OPENING OF
Is the opening of a trust account considered actual payment?
- The opening therefore of a trust account is not considered actual payment. However, if emancipation patents were already issued to the farmer-beneficiaries, the trust account shall be considered a deposit account as of the date of the opening of the trust account.
December 13, 1996
TRUST ACCOUNTS; WHEN CONVERTED TO DEPOSIT ACCOUNTS
Should trust accounts covering landholdings not yet transferred in the name of the Republic of the Philippines be converted to deposit accounts?
- DAR Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1996 provides that, "all trust accounts issued pursuant to Administrative Order No. 1, S. 1993 covering landholdings not yet transferred in the name of the Republic of the Philippines as of July 5, 1996 shall immediately be converted to deposit accounts in the name of the landowners concerned.
December 12, 1996
TRUST FUND ACCOUNT; DECLARED INVALID
Is a trust fund account valid?
- Since there was still no valid payment made to the landowners when they decided to withdraw their VOS, then they should be allowed to do so pursuant to A.O. No. 5, S. 1992 considering that there are several landowners of the subject lands consisting of 28.0012 hectares and their shares on these lands will just be a part of their retained area of not more than five (5) hectares.
April 4, 1997
U
UNTITLED A & D LANDS WHICH LACKS THE REQUIRED 30 YEARS OR MORE UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE DENR
Are untitled A & D lands under the jurisdiction of DENR?
- Pursuant to Joint DAR-DENR M.C. No. 19, Series of 1997, untitled alienable and disposable lands, which lacks the required 30 years or more continuous occupancy, whether tenanted or not, shall be under the jurisdiction of the DENR. But if the lands are found to be suitable for agriculture, the DENR shall transfer the same to DAR for CARP coverage pursuant to the mandate of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) to distribute lands to qualified beneficiaries.
- Joint DAR-DENR Memorandum Circular No. 19, Series of 1997 further provides, quote:
"in the case of an entire municipality or portion thereof which was classified as A & D after 16 April 1960, the MARO concerned shall immediately exclude from his land acquisition and distribution (LAD) scope such landholdings as may be located therein and report the matter to the DAR Undersecretary for Field Operations through the PARO and DAR Regional Director, copy furnished the DENR CENRO."
- Following the procedures laid down under said circular, the DENR shall make available to DAR officials concerned all the records necessary to implement the circular while the latter, on the other hand, shall provide the DENR the list of untitled properties identified or documented for CARP coverage. As soon as the DAR and DENR are able to jointly identify specific properties that may be covered under CARP, the DENR shall issue the certification required and the MARO shall initiate the compulsory acquisition process, proceed to generate CLOAs in accordance with existing guidelines, register the same with the Register of Deeds and, thereafter, distribute them to qualified beneficiaries.
- Until such time, therefore, the above procedure is followed, any and all issued or to be issued titles will be of doubtful validity.
December 23, 1999
UNTITLED ANCESTRAL LAND; CARP COVERAGE
Does the DAR have the jurisdiction to determined the coverage of untitled ancestral land pursuant to CARP?
- Considering that the landholding is located in a province within the ARMM, it is not the DAR but the DAR-ARMM that has jurisdiction on the CARP coverage thereof. Moreover, the 3rd paragraph of Section 9 of CARL provides:
- "Any provision of law to the contrary notwithstanding the PARC may suspend the implementation of this Act with respect to ancestral lands for the purpose of identifying and delineating such lands. Provided that in the autonomous regions, the respective legislatures may enact, their own laws on ancestral domain subject to the provisions of the Constitutions and the principles enunciated in this act and other national laws."
June 3, 1996
URBAN CENTERS AND CITY LIMITS UNDER SEC. 73 (e) of R.A. No. 6657
Does Sec. 73 (e) of R.A. No. 6657 apply to agricultural lands situated inside urban centers and city limits?
- A categorical statement made by Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao appearing in the DAR Infoline dated 23 October 1996, it says that the subject provision (Section 73 (e) of R.A. No. 6657) does not apply to agricultural lands situated inside urban centers or city limits.
April 14, 1997
V
VALUATION; AMENDMENTS ON; NO RETROACTIVE EFFECT
Does the amendments made on the valuation of the properties as determined by BCLP have retroactive effect?
- The average gross production for three normal crop years as determined by Barangay Committee on Land Production (BCLP) on July 12, 1988 shall remain effective. Any amendment made thereto shall have no retroactive effect to said valuation. Rather, amendments made thereto shall only have prospective effect. It goes without saying that Resolution No. 06-94 passed by the BCLP of Sefaran, Dinaig, Maguindanao on 24 November 1994, will not affect the annual gross production for three normal crop years as determined by said BCLP on July 12, 1988.
January 16, 1997
VALUATION; BASIS
What is the basis for the valuation of lands?
- Executive Order No. 228 which took effect on 18 August 1987 mandates that the valuation of rice and corn lands covered by PD 27 which were unvalued as of said date shall be based on the AGP determined by the BCLP, in accordance with Department Memorandum Circular No. 26, s. 1973 and related issuances and regulations of the DAR pursuant to said provision, DAR A.O. No. 2, Series of 1987 provides that the production agreement between the landowner and the tenants shall be the basis for land compensation only if said agreement had been forwarded to DAR Central Office as of 18 August 1987.
November 14, 1995
VALUATION; FISHPONDS AND PRAWN FARMS
What is the guidelines for the valuation of fishponds and prawn farms covered by CARP prior to the effectivity of RA 7881?
- Valuation of fishponds and prawnfarms covered by CARP prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 7881 shall be covered under DAR Administrative Order No. 05, series of 1998 entitled, "Revised Rules and Regulations Governing the Valuation of Lands Voluntarily Offered or Compulsorily Acquired Pursuant to Republic Act No. 6657",
December 24, 1998
VALUATION; FORMULA
Which has the authority to determine land valuation?
- DAR Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992 (as amended by DAR A.O. 11, Series of 1994) provides that basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by Voluntary Offer to Sell or Compulsory Acquisition pursuant to CARL. Under Executive Order No. 405, the Land Bank of the Philippines has the primary responsibility of determining the land valuation and compensation for all lands covered under RA 6657.
November 28, 1994
How does the valuation of properties apply?
- The valuation of properties subject to CARP coverage is fixed by law and invariably applies without distinction. This valuation holds true regardless of whether the acquisition of the subject property is the result of Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) or Compulsory Acquisition (CA).
February 27, 1997
VALUATION; GRANT OF 6% INCREMENT
Is the landowner entitled to a 6% increment?
- Pursuant to Administrative Order No. 13, Series of 1994, it provides for the grant of an increment of six percent (6%) yearly interest compounded annually based on the land value as determined under existing valuation formula. This means that landowners who have not yet been paid for the value of their lands are entitled to the 6% increment in addition to the compensable value of the land, and this applies to a case wherein a landowner have not yet received any amount of compensation. On the other hand, if he has been given the partial payment thereof, the yearly interest of six percent (6%) compounded annually shall be applied to the unpaid balance.
December 24, 1998
VALUATION; GUIDELINES UNDER A.O. 6, S. 1989 AS AMENDED BY A.O. 6, S. 1992
Are the existing valuation guidelines applicable to all agricultural lands enumerated under Section 4 of RA 6657?
- DAR Administrative Order No. 06, Series of 1989, as amended by Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1992 and other succeeding guidelines on valuation, explicitly provides that this valuation guideline shall apply to all agricultural lands as enumerated under Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Laws), which includes all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture, more specifically, as applied in the instant case, Section 4 (c) thereof covering all other lands owned by the government devoted to or suitable for agriculture.
June 23, 1998
VALUATION; HIGHER PRICE FOR LAND COVERED BY P.D. 27
What does the law provide as the factors to be considered in the valuation of lands?
- The valuation of lands covered by PD 27 is governed by Sec. 2 of EO 228 which expressly provides that "the valuation of rice and corn lands covered by PD 27 shall be based on the average gross production determined by the Brgy. Committee on Land Production in accordance with Memorandum Circular No. 26, Series of 1973 and related issuances and regulation of the DAR.
- The average gross production per hectare shall be multiplied by two and a half (2.5) the product of which shall be multiplied by thirty five pesos (P35.00), the government support price for one cavan of 50 kilos of palay on October 21, 1972, or thirty one pesos (P31.00), the government support price for one cavan of 50 kilos of corn or rice and corn lands, as the case may be, for the purpose of determining its cost to the farmer and compensation to the landowner.
- To address the problems of landowners who are complaining of the lower valuation of their landholding, DAR issued A.O. No. 13 Series of 1994 granting the increment of six percent (6%) yearly interest compounded annually on lands covered by PD 27 and EO No. 228.
December 13, 1996
VALUATION; HOW IS IT DONE
How is valuation done?
- If the sale is made in favor of private individuals, the landowner may sell it at the price agreed upon between him and the vendees. However, under VOS, valuation shall be determined by the Land Bank of the Philippines according to DAR Administrative Order No. 06, Series of 1992.
July 25, 1994
VALUATION; LAND VALUATION AND DETERMINATION OF JUST COMPENSATION
How is just compensation determined?
- The basic provisions of law on land valuation and the determination of just compensation are embodied in Sections 16, 17 and 18 of R.A. No. 6657 in relation to DAR Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1998. Furthermore, Executive Order No. 405 dated 14 June 1990, has vested in the Land Bank of the Philippines the primary responsibility to determine land valuation and compensation of all lands covered under R.A. No. 6657.
December 23, 1999
VALUATION; LANDS COVERED BY P.D. NO. 27 (EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 228)
What is the valuation formula to lands covered by PD 27?
- Executive Order No. 228 has provided a fixed valuation formula applicable to all lands covered by P.D. No. 27 which shall be based on the Average Gross Production (AGP) as determined by the Barangay Committee on Land Production (BCLP). Land value is computed using the following formula:
Rice Lands LV = AGP x 2.5 x P35*
Corn Lands LV = AGP x 2.5 x P31**
* government support price for one cavan of 50 kilos of palay on 21 October 1972
** government support price for one cavan of 50 kilos of corn on 21 October 1972
July 17, 2000
VALUATION; LANDS COVERED UNDER P.D. 27
How are lands covered under P.D. No. 27 valued?
- Lands covered under P.D. 27 were valued by the DAR in accordance with the formula specified therein, to wit: "two and one-half (21/2) times the average harvest of three normal crop years immediately preceding the promulgation of the Decree." In lieu thereof, landowners and tenants were allowed to enter into Landowner-Tenant Production Agreements and the valuation of the lands covered thereby was made in accordance therewith. For PD 27 lands not yet valued as of the effectivity of E.O. No. 228 on 18 August 1987 Section 2 of said E.O. provides that "the valuation of rice and corn lands covered by P.D. 27 shall be based on the average gross production determined by the Barangay Committee on Land Production in accordance with Department Memorandum Circular No. 26, Series of 1973 and related issuances and regulation of the Department of Agrarian Reform. The average gross production per hectare shall be multiplied by Thirty Five pesos (P35.00), the government support price for one cavan of 50 kilos of palay on October 21, 1972, or Thirty One Pesos (P31.00) the government support price for one cavan of 50 kilos of corn on October 21, 1972, and the amount arrived at shall be the value of the rice and corn land, as the case may be, for the purpose of determining its cost to the farmer and compensation to the landowner.
September 21, 1994
What laws shall govern the valuation of land under P.D. 27?
- The valuation of rice and corn lands covered by the decree is governed by Executive Order No. 228, Section 2 which provides that it "shall be based on the average gross production determined by the Barangay Committee on Land Production in accordance with Department Memorandum Circular No. 26, series of 1973 and related issuances and regulation of the Department of Agrarian Reform.
October 15, 1996
VALUATION; LANDS PLANTED TO SUGARCANE
What is the law governing the valuation of lands planted to sugarcane?
- We could infer that the valuation of lands planted to sugarcane is still based on the same basic formula as established in DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1992 and as amended under DAR Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1998. Said basic formula and the attendant provisions of the aforementioned guidelines were not repealed by Joint DAR-LBP Memorandum Circular No. 15, series of 1999. The coverage of the latter guideline focuses on the specific procedures prescribed therein for the uniform application in the computation of the Capitalized Net Income (CNI) factor, which is just one of a number of factors to be considered in land valuation, and, where the computed CNI shall still be applied in the applicable land value formula under DAR Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1998.
- Moreover, basic is the principle in statutory construction that where two or more acts/rules cover the same subject matter, the latter act or guideline will not operate as a repeal of the earlier one if by any reasonable construction they can be reconciled. The language of the statute/guideline must be construed in relation to the subject matter with which it deals. While DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1992, as amended by DAR Administrative Order No. 05, series of 1998, covers the basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by voluntary offer to sell and compulsory acquisition, joint DAR-LBP Memorandum Circular No. 15, series of 1999 merely included the effect of ratooning in the valuation of sugar lands.
- Accordingly, the "whichever is lower" provision of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1992, which was later reworded as "shall in no case exceed" in case of VOS under DAR Administrative Order No. 5, series of 1998, remains.
March 7, 2003
VALUATION; MEMBERS' LAND SHARES
Will DAR be involved in the determination of the value of members' land shares? If yes, how will DAR value land shares of the transferee and the transferor.
- Within the ten (10) year prohibitory period under Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657, the DAR shall be involved in the determination of the value of member's land shares to safeguard possible abuse in the transfer of awarded lands. The qualified transferee may assume the rights of the transferor or outgoing cooperative member, where the transferee shall be obliged to pay the transferor's land share based on the regular amortization cost of the land at six percent (6%) interest rate per annum reckoned from the date of award of the land.
July 14, 1999
VALUATION; OBJECTION; REMEDY THEREOF
What is the recourse of the landowners in case he disagrees with the valuation of his landholding?
- The proper action in case the landowner is not amenable to the valuation is to file a petition for the determination of just compensation before the DARAB. The compensation for the land shall be the amount agreed upon by the DAR, LBP and the landowner in accordance with the criteria provided for in Sections 17 & 18 and other pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 6657 and existing guidelines, or the value set under summary administrative proceedings conducted by DAR pursuant to Section 16 (d) of R.A. No. 6657 and the DAR Adjudication Board Revised Rules of Procedures, or as may be finally determined by a competent court.
February 9, 1999
VALUATION; REMEDY IF THE LANDOWNER IS NOT SATISFIED
What is the remedy of the landowner who is not satisfied with the valuation of his landholding?
- As for lands falling under the coverage of RA 6657, the responsibility of determining compensation rests with the Land Bank of the Philippines pursuant to E.O. No. 405 , Series of 1990. DAR Administrative Order No. 06 series of 1992 provides a basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by Voluntary Offer to Sell and Compulsory acquisition pursuant to CARL, taking into account the factors enumerated in Section 17 thereof. If the landowner is not satisfied with the valuation of his property, he may file a case questioning the same before the Provincial Adjudicator of the place where the property is situated. Should he still not be satisfied with the decision of the DAR Adjudication Board, he may petition the Special Agrarian Court to resolve the issue of valuation.
September 21, 1994
VALUATION; UNREALISTIC VALUATION, WHERE TO APPEAL
Where to appeal in case of unrealistic valuation of the landholding?
- If the valuation is unrealistic, it can be appealed to the Office of the Secretary pursuant to DAR Memo Circular No. 01, Series of 1995, which provides:
"2. All land valuation cases which involve just compensation issues under Presidential Decree No. 27, may upon proper motion be returned to the LBP for recomputation, in accordance with the mandate under Administrative Order No. 13, s. 1994. We would like to inform all Adjudicators that the DARAB does not have jurisdiction to hear and decide valuation cases relative to PD No. 27, such matters being considered as part of the Administrative implementation of PD 27, and therefore cognizable exclusively by the Office of the Secretary . . . "
and may later appeal to the Special Agrarian Court concerned for the final determination of just compensation.
December 24, 1998
VENUE; SUMMARY PROCEEDING OF REFERRED CASES
- Section 7 (2) of Administrative Order No. 04, Series of 2009 explicitly stated that the venue of the proceeding shall be in the province where the property involved is located. However, the venue may be transferred to the Regional Office if the parties to the referred case may move for the transfer of venue for the conduct of the summary proceeding and provided that said transfer will not cause delay in the issuance of the certification.
DAR OPINION NO. 19, s. 2010
June 29, 2010
VENUE; AGRARIAN DISPUTE
Where is the proper venue for agrarian dispute?
- Lahat ng usapin na may kaugnayan sa pagpapatupad ng repormang pansakahan ay maaaring idulog sa pinakamalapit na Tanggapan ng Repormang Pansakahan sa lugar na kung saan ang lupain ay matatagpuan at doon ay maaaring humingi ang isang magsasaka ng libreng serbisyo ng abogado para kumatawan sa mga usaping may kaugnayan sa pagpapatupad ng repormang pansakahan.
October 28, 1999
VLT; PROCESSING
- Processing of VLT transactions submitted by June 30, 2009 are still governed by RA 6657. Thus, issuance of collective CLOAs can still be made, provided that the VLT had been submitted by June 30, 2009 by the concerned landowners, and the masterlist of ARBs has been finalized on or before July 1, 2009, the effectivity of R.A. No. 9700.
DAR OPINION NO. 22, s. 2010
September 9, 2010
VOLUNTARY LAND TRANSFER; INVOLVING LANDS COVERED BY FREE PATENT
May lands covered by Free Patents be the subject of VLT-Direct Payment Scheme under CARP?
- Lands covered by Free Patents may be the subject of Voluntary Land Transfer – Direct Payment Scheme under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the government, even within the 5-year prohibitory period from and after the issuance of said patent.
August 14, 1996
VOLUNTARY LAND TRANSFER; MEANING
What is a Voluntary Land Transfer?
- Voluntary Land Transfer (VLT) is one of the scheme legally recognized under R.A. No. 6657 which validly transfers the ownership of an agricultural land. Pursuant to this scheme, the landowner and the qualified beneficiaries agree to the direct transfer of the ownership of land, as provided for under Sec. 20 and 21 of R.A. No. 6657. The efficacy of VLT is, however, subject to the terms to be mutually agreed upon by both parties, which shall be binding upon registration and approval of the DAR. Obviously, the approval of the DAR is a pre-condition to the validity of said scheme to ensure that the terms and conditions of the VLT shall not be less favorable to the ARB than those of the government's standing offer to purchase from the landowner and to resell to the beneficiary, of such offer has been made and is fully known to both parties. In any case, it is incumbent upon the DAR to ensure that the ARB's are made fully aware of and understand the options available to them.
March 5, 1998
What does the VLT/DPS refer to?
- Acquisition of the property is clearly mandated by law and that VLT/DPS Agreement only refers to the mode by which the beneficiaries have chosen to pay the compensation on the land.
October 10, 1994
VOLUNTARY LAND TRANSFER; REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTED BY THE HEIRS OF THE DECEASED LANDOWNER TO SIGN DOCUMENTS
- The children are the primary heirs of their deceased parent and that the rights and obligations are automatically transmitted to the children from the moment of the death of their parents. (Art. 774 of the Civil Code of the Philippines) Since the children acquire ownership by operation of law, they may appoint anyone of them or any qualified person thru a Special Power of Attorney to act as their representative in any transaction that they may enter into particularly in the administration of their deceased parent's property.
- The representative appointed by the children may sign the documents i.e., Notice/Application for VLT/DPS (Form No. 1, VLT/DPS Agreement, Form No. 2) in case of Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Land Transfer (VLT/DLT). Accordingly, said acts of representation by the representative shall produce the same legal and binding effects as if they were personally done by the other children.
DAR OPINION NO. 33, s. 2007
December 20, 2007
VOLUNTARY LAND TRANSFER; VLT/DPS ALTHOUGH LEGAL IS NOT ABSOLUTE
Is Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme (VLT/DPS) absolute?
- Although Sections 20 and 21 of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) allow VLT/DPS scheme as valid and legal, the same is not absolute. Specifically, DAR Administrative Order No. 02, series of 1995 expressly provides that "land titles with existing liens and encumbrances shall not be covered under the VLT/DPS scheme". Moreover, DAR Administrative Order No. 8, series of 1997 categorically provides that lands mortgaged with banking and/or financial institutions may not be the subject of VLT/DPS (Item II. L). This prohibition was incorporated by the DAR to simplify VLT/DPS transactions, particularly to facilitate the immediate transfer of title to the Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs). Without this safeguard, tenants might enter into VLT/DPS agreements with banks which might sell agricultural lands foreclosed by them under a selling price or terms and conditions grossly disadvantageous and prejudicial to the tenants, which is violative of Section 20 (b) of R.A. No. 6657.
December 24, 1998
VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL (VOS) APPLICATION; INSTANCES IN WHICH THE DAR MAY REJECT
What are the instances in which the DAR may reject a VOS application?
- "The DAR may reject a voluntary offer to sell under the following instances:
There are no takers or willing agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) for valid reason (e.g., peace and order situation prevailing in the area). This is without prejudice to future coverage of the area under the CARP." (emphasis supplied)
February 27, 2002
VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL (VOS) APPLICATION; WHEN MAY DAR REJECT A VOS?
- "The DAR may reject a voluntary offer to sell under the following instances:
There are no takers or willing agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) for valid reason (e.g., peace and order situation prevailing in the area). This is without prejudice to future coverage of the area under the CARP." (emphasis supplied)
DAR OPINION NO. 13, s. 2002
February 27, 2002
DAR OPINION 2001-2006
April 25, 2006
VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL (VOS); AMENDMENT
Is amendment of VOS allowed?
- Amendment of VOS shall not as a matter of policy be allowed or condoned except for just and valid ground in order that CARP implementation will not be unduly delayed or derailed. Furthermore, in no case should amendment of VOS be allowed upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or after deposit in cash or in LBP bonds had been made. Section 16 (e) of R.A. No. 6657 is explicit that in such cases, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines and thereafter proceed with the distribution of the land to qualified beneficiaries.
February 9, 1999
VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL (VOS); PROPERTY WITH ADVERSE CLAIMANT
- It is settled that registration under the Cadastral Act and under Act 496 (An Act to Provide for the Adjudication and Registration of Titles to Lands in the Philippine Islands), both fall within the purview of the Torrens System.
- A Torrens title is incontrovertible against any "information possessoria" or title existing prior to the issuance thereof not annotated on the title. Also, in Rodriguez vs. Toreno, G.R. No. L-29596, October 14, 1977, the High Court pronounced that claims and liens of whatever character are cut off by such certificate if not noted thereon, and the certificate so issued binds the whole world, including the government.
- If it is clear that no matter what the outcome of the litigation may be, the land is still covered under CARP, then the documentation of the Voluntary Offer to Sell may proceed.
DAR OPINION NO. 14, s. 2007
February 21, 2007
VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL (VOS); WITHDRAWAL, WHEN ALLOWED
- As a general rule, withdrawal of VOS shall no longer be allowed after the receipt by the DAR of the letter offer for VOS. This is pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 06, Series of 1997 (Revision of Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1992, Entitled: "Clarificatory Guidelines and Amendments to Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990). However, DAR may allow the withdrawal of voluntary offer to sell if the withdrawal of VOS is for the purpose of acquisition and compensation through the Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme (VLT/DPS), provided, that the claim folder has not yet been forwarded to the LBP for the computation of the land value (Item II[A] 2nd par.)
DAR OPINION NO. 18, s. 2009
July 30, 2009
VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL; AGRICULTURAL LANDHOLDINGS ACQUIRED ON OR AFTER 15 JUNE 1988
Whether or not agricultural landholdings transferred on or after 15 June 1988 may be offered and subjected under the VOS Scheme?
- We have to qualify, clarify and make distinctions with respect to agricultural landholdings subject of VOS acquired and/or transferred on or after 15 June 1988 (effectivity of R.A. no. 6657):
1. If what is transferred/acquired is the retention area and the transferee will not own an aggregate of more than 5 hectares, and, where there is a DAR clearance issued pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989, the transfer is legal and proper. The 3-month grace period is immaterial/not applicable even if the execution and/or registration of the deed of transfer is within or after the 3-month period. The 3-month period mentioned under paragraph 4, section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 contemplates only those transfers executed prior to 15 June 1988. Thus, subsequent VOS of said lands is legally allowed.
2. However, if what is transferred/acquired is more than the 5-hectare retention area and/or the transferee will own an aggregate of more than five (5) hectares, the transfer is null and void insofar as the excess of the 5-hectare retention limit or landowner ceiling is concerned (Section 6, 1st and 4th paragraphs, 70, 73 (a) and DAR A.O. No. 1, series of 1989).
September 23, 2003
VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL; AMENDMENT OF VOS DUE TO TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR
When is amendment to a VOS allowed?
- The landowner could be considered estopped from claiming typographical error as a ground in amending its earlier offer (Article 1431, Civil Code of the Philippines). Hence, cogent and convincing proof must be presented to show that the typographical error was indeed an honest oversight. We should not just take the landowner's word for it for the same might have been resorted to in order that a higher compensation for the land might possibly be arrived at. It is worth noting that it is eventually the determination of just compensation pursuant to existing laws, rules and regulations and not the amendment of a VOS offer which should be the controlling guide or factor in the resolution of the valuation of the property in the instant case. The landowner should therefore wait for the revaluation by the LBP and if it is not yet satisfied, it may file with the Special Agrarian Court a petition for final determination of just compensation since the DARAB had already initially acted thereon.
February 9, 1999
VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL; APPLICATION FOR VOS INVOLVING RETAINED AREAS
- "III. STATEMENT OF POLICIES
xxx xxx xxx
Applications for VOS involving retained areas or those landholding with an aggregate area of five (5) hectares and below per landowner shall not be accepted."
- The above provision shall apply only to cases where the total aggregate landholdings involved is 5 hectares and below. In other words, its applicability would depend on the total aggregate landholdings being offered for sale. If it is 5 hectares and below, the application for VOS shall be denied.
- In the example given, it appears that the landowner owns 10 hectares. He is willing to offer entirely the 10 hectares under the VOS Scheme without any intention of retaining even just a portion of it. Under such circumstance, the entire 10 hectares shall be accepted for VOS. This is the intrinsic meaning of Section 2, Title III of A.O. No. 2, Series of 2005.
DAR OPINION NO. 29, s. 2006
October 18, 2006
VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL; AS A WAIVER OF THE RIGHT OF RETENTION OVER AGRICULTURAL LANDS FORECLOSED OR ACQUIRED
What does voluntary offer to sell constitute?
- With the issuance of A.O. No. 6, Series of 1997, the voluntary offer to sell constitute a waiver of the right of retention over agricultural lands foreclosed or acquired by them because said lands are covered under CARP through the compulsory acquisition scheme pursuant to Section 71 of R.A. No. 6657. Said provision of law provides that banks may acquire title to mortgaged properties, subject to existing laws on compulsory transfer of foreclosed assets and acquisition as prescribed under Section 16 of said Act.
January 09, 1998
- A landholding could not be the subject of VOS scheme since the alleged landowner has no valid title over the land, the same being still within the presidentially proclaimed agrarian resettlement area owned by the state. Accordingly, said landholding should be titled and distributed to qualified beneficiaries, without prejudice to the improvements introduced and right becoming a beneficiary if likewise qualified pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1989. Said guideline implements and is in keeping with the legally mandated principle that land has a social function and there is a social responsibility in its ownership, hence, the land shall be distributed to the actual tillers thereof within the award limits as established by law.
May 6, 1998
VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL; INSTANCES WHERE LANDOWNERS ARE ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW THEIR APPLICATION FOR THE COVERAGE OF THEIR LANDHOLDING UNDER THE VOS SCHEME
Are landowners allowed to withdraw their application for the coverage of their landholding under the VOS scheme?
- DAR Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 1992 provides the instances under which landowners are allowed to withdraw their application for the coverage of their landholding under the VOS Scheme, to wit:
1. if the subject landholding is part of the landowners retained area, provided the landowner has not yet received any payment;
2. if the landowners want to shift the mode of acquisition from VOS to Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme.
3. if the offered land is to be covered in 1994 and the landowner wants to wait for the compulsory coverage under Phase III-B. If the Notice of Valuation has been served, however, the withdrawal may no longer be allowed.
4. if the DAR determines the landholding to be more suitable for a town site, resettlement or institutional site to address a calamity situation. It should be noted that this case is limited to calamity situations. Further, the approval of the withdrawal of the VOS does not automatically authorize the land use conversion of the land. The owner must still apply for conversion.
May 28, 1996
VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL; LAND PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED BY THE GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO P.D. NO. 27
May land previously distributed by the government pursuant to P.D. No. 27 be voluntary offered for sale?
- The following are the pertinent provisions of R.A. No. 6657, P.D. No. 27 and DAR Administrative Order No. 8, series of 1995 (Rules and Procedures Governing the Transferability of Lands Awarded to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) Pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 as Amended by Executive Order No. 228 and Republic Act No. 6657), to wit:
Section 4 (d), R.A. No. 665
"Section 4. Scope. —
xxx xxx xxx
(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon." (Emphasis supplied)
Section 7, R.A. No. 665
"Section 7. Priorities. — The DAR, in coordination with the PARC shall plan and program the acquisition and distribution of all agricultural lands through a period of ten (10) years from the effectivity of this Act. Lands shall be acquired and distributed as follows:
Phase One: Rice and corn lands under Presidential Decree No. 27; all idle or abandoned lands; all private lands voluntarily offered by the owners for agrarian reform; all lands foreclosed by government financial institutions. . . . (emphasis supplied)
Section 19, R.A. No. 6657
"Section 19. Incentives for Voluntary Offers for Sale. — Landowners, other than banks and other financial institutions, who voluntarily offer their lands for sale shall be entitled to an additional five percent (5%) cash payment." (emphasis supplied)
Paragraph 13, P.D. No. 27
"Title to land acquired pursuant to this Decree or the Land Reform Program of the Government shall not be transferable except by hereditary succession or to the Government in accordance with the provisions of this Decree, the Code of Agrarian Reform and other existing laws and regulations." (emphasis supplied)
Item 1, 1st paragraph of DAR Administrative Order No. 08, series of 199
"I. PREFATORY STATEMENT
Presidential Decree No. 27 provides that title to lands acquired pursuant thereto or the Land Reform Program of the Government shall not be transferable except by hereditary succession or to the Government." (emphasis supplied)
- In view of the aforementioned provisions of law, the voluntary offer for sale to the government of lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture may be allowed and given due course.
May 9, 2003
VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL; RECOGNIZED MODE OF ACQUISITION, PURPOSE
What is the purpose of VOS?
- VOS as one of the recognized modes of acquisition under RA 6657 is highly favored and encouraged because it ensures the cooperation of landowners in having their properties covered. Their cooperative acts as shown by their willingness save not only the government valuable time in acquiring agricultural lands for distribution to qualified-beneficiaries but also from incurring tremendous expenses incident thereto.
January 29, 1997
VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL; WITHDRAWAL
May the withdrawal of Voluntary Offer to Sell be allowed?
- Under the governing rules of Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1997 (Revision of Administrative Order No. 05, Series of 1992, Entitled "Clarificatory Guidelines and Amendments to Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990") the same provide that "withdrawal of VOS shall no longer be allowed after the latter of VOS, i.e., CARP Form No. 1 (Annex "A") is received by DAR. However, the DAR may allow the withdrawal of VOS if the withdrawal of VOS is for the purpose of acquisition and compensation through the Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme (VLT/DPS); provided that, the claimfolder has not yet been forwarded to the Land Bank of the Philippines for the computation of the Land Value". Landholding subject of a VOS can no longer be withdrawn under the aforestated Administrative Order considering that the documentation of the claimfolder have already been completed. Moreover, if the reason for the VOS withdrawal does not fall under the legally allowed exceptions since his justification was the expropriation of the subject landholding by the provincial government.
February 23, 1998
November 27, 1995
- Letter B and C of item No. III of DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1990, provides that all lands which are voluntary offered for sale to the government, may no longer be withdrawn and shall immediately fall under Phase I, as provided for in Section 7 of R.A. No. 6657. If the land is tenanted, the farmer beneficiaries shall continue to pay lease rental based on leasehold agreement until such time as the landowner signs a Deed of Transfer or the Land Bank of the Philippines makes a deposit in cash or in LBP bonds. Moreover, Administrative Order No. 6, Series of 1997 further provides that withdrawal of VOS shall no longer be allowed after the letter offer of VOS is received by DAR. However, the DAR may allow the withdrawal of the VOS if the same is for the purpose of acquisition and compensation through the Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme and provided that, the claim folder has not yet been forwarded to the LBP for the computation of the land value.
January 9, 1998
VOS AS DISTINGUISHED TO VLT
- The Department had the occasion to elucidate on VLT in DAR Opinion No. 32, Series of 1998 dated March 5, 1998.
"Voluntarily Land Transfer (VLT) is one of the scheme legally recognized under R.A. No. 6657 which validly transfers the ownership of an agricultural land. Pursuant to this scheme, the landowner and the qualified beneficiaries agree to the direct transfer of the ownership of land, as provided for under Sec. 20 and 21 of R.A. No.6657. The efficacy of VLT is, however, subject to the terms to be mutually agreed upon by both parties, which shall be binding upon registration and approval of the DAR. Obviously, the approval of the DAR is a pre-condition to the validity of said scheme to ensure that the terms and conditions of the VLT shall not be less favorable to the ARB than those of the government’s standing offer to purchase from the landowner and to resell to the beneficiary, if such offer has been made and is fully known to both parties. In any case, it is incumbent upon the DAR to ensure that the ARB’s are made fully aware of and understand the options available to them."
This is different from VOS which is a scheme wherein landowners come forward and offer their agricultural lands for coverage under the agrarian reform program of the government.
DAR OPINION NO. 05, s. 2009
March 24, 2009
VOS; WITHDRAWAL OF RETAINED AREA OFFERED UNDER VOS
May a landowner who voluntarily offered his retained area for CARP coverage be allowed to withdraw his offer?
- Administrative Order No. 11, Series of 1990, particularly Item III.D.2 thereof, provides that a landowner who voluntarily offered his retained area for CARP coverage may be allowed to withdraw his offer.
- Likewise, DAR Memorandum Circular No. 2, Series of 1998 (Compulsory Acquisition (CA) of Landholdings Covered by Voluntary offer to Sell (VOS)), a more recent guideline relative to DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1997, expressly acknowledges the retention right of a landowner who has voluntarily offered his land when it provided that:
"3. If after 15 days these documents have not been received, inform the LO that the property will be acquired under CA, that he/she may choose or pinpoint his/her retained area, otherwise, the DAR will choose his/her retained area (Sec. 6, RA 6657), and that he/she will no longer be entitled to an additional 5% cash payment (Sec. 19, RA 6657)." (underscoring and emphasis supplied)
November 15, 1999
W
WRIT OF GARNISHMENT; ITS PURPOSE
What is the purpose of the writ of garnishment?
- The writ of execution issued by the DARAB Central Office and the Notice of Garnishment issuance pursuant thereto by the RTC-Manila cannot be primarily charged against the assets of the Land Bank of the Philippines. While the writ of garnishment is intended to protect the prevailing party against possible fraudulent disposition of the bank's assets to the prejudice of its creditors, the same is not exclusive. Specifically, the satisfaction of the judgment should necessarily be charged primarily against the ARF as provided for by law and any other obligations which remain unsettled, if any, may be satisfied against the asset of LBP.
February 9, 1998