February 8, 1996

DAR OPINION NO. 06-96

Ms. Felba R. Bordios

150 Woodpecker St.

Ecoland Subdivision,

Matina, Davao City

Dear Ms. Bordios:

This refers to your letter requesting clarification regarding the coverage of a 6.0632-hectare rice/corn land under PD No. 27. You state that said 6.0632-hectares land, which is the only property of the landowner, was covered under PD No. 27 without the landowner having been informed of his right to retain, and that titles were issued in favor of four farmer-beneficiaries without payment of the value of the land.

Your queries relative to the instant case are:

1)        Can said landowner still recover his 6.0632 hectare agricultural land in view of his entitlement to retention of 7 hectares under PD No. 27?

2)        If the answer is in the affirmative, what Office has jurisdiction to entertain such complaint?

3)        What is the nature of the proceeding (Administrative, Quasi-judicial, or Judicial)?

4)        Will the enclosed form (Application Retention Form No. 1 under P.D. 27) satisfy the legal requirements of the law as to formalities?

5)        What proper action or procedure should be taken?

DAR AO No. 4, S. of 1991 (copy attached for ready reference) explains the circumstances under which retention may be exercised by landowners on their tenanted rice/corn lands. Under the following circumstances, landowners are not entitled to retain any of their tenanted rice/corn lands:

a)         If as of October 21, 1972 (the date of effectivity of PD No. 27) they owned 24 hectares or more of tenanted rice/corn lands;

b)         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 AO No. 1, Series of 1985.

Landowners who, though entitled to retain under PD 27, failed to comply with the registration requirement or the application for retention within the deadline are not entitled to retain seven hectares but only five hectares, as held by the Supreme Court in the case "Association of Small Landowners of the Philippines vs. the Secretary of Agrarian Reform (175 SCRA 343). Moreover, 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, Warranties and Undertaking executed in favor of the LBP.

As applied to your first query, assuming that as of 21 October 1972, the only tenanted rice/corn land owned by the landowner is the 6.0632-hectare property subject of your letter, he may retain the same provided:

a.         He complied with the registration requirement as explained above, or he filed his application for retention on or before August 27, 1985.

b.         He did not own, as of 21 October 1976, other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial, or other urban purposes from which he derived adequate income to support himself and his family; and

c.         He did not perform any of the acts constituting a waiver of his right to retain.

As regards your second query, your 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.

Anent your third query, the issue of retention under PD 27 is a matter that involves strictly the administrative implementation of said law. However, the cancellation of registered titles shall be made by virtue of an order issued by the Agrarian Reform Adjudicator concerned.

As to your fourth query, the form you have attached is Retention Form No. 1 which is actually the suggested form for retention appended to DAR AO No. 4, S. of 1991.

Lastly, we advise that you follow the procedures outlined in DAR AO No. 4, S. of 1991. We wish to add, however, that the foregoing merely clarifies the rules on the issues raised but does not constitute a decision of any case that may be filed regarding the matter.

We hope to have been of assistance to you.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) HECTOR D. SOLIMAN

Undersecretary
LAFMA