July 2, 1996
DAR OPINION NO. 52-96
Mrs. Florencia A. Pison
85 Longbeach St.
Merville, Parañaque
Metro Manila
Dear Mrs. Pison:
This has reference to your request for clarification regarding a 27,036-sq.m. irrigated riceland and a 2,263-sq.m. residential land both located at Cambio, Pinambaran, San Miguel, Bulacan.
You state the following as a background to your queries:
The said riceland and residential lot were both inherited by five persons from Ignacio Morales who died 21 years ago. The tenant of the riceland passed away last February 1996, and the tenant's children continued to work thereon. The owners receive a total of 50 cavans of palay a year from the tenant for two croppings. The riceland and residential lot are adjacent to each other and are separated by a barrio road. The tenant and his family built their houses and a camarin on the residential lot. In addition, three other houses of relatives of the tenant were erected on said residential lot. The owners are now working on the transfer of the properties in their names and had the residential lot surveyed for the purpose of subdividing the same. The surveyors encountered resistance and threats from the tenant's children and relatives, who contend that in view of the length of time the tenant has been working on the land — which they estimate to be around 70 years — they already own the residential lot and a certain portion of the riceland. You further state that last year, without the owners' knowledge and approval, the tenant mortgaged his leasehold to the riceland for P50,000.00.
Under the aforecited circumstances, you pose the following:
1. Is the mortgage of the tenant's leasehold on the riceland legal?
2. Can the owners cancel the tenant's leasehold and apply for retention of the riceland?
3. What are the rights of the owners as well as the tenant to the riceland and to the residential lot, if any?
4. Which government agency can help settle the dispute between the landowners and tenant?
Anent your first query, please be informed that the tenant cannot legally mortgage his leasehold on the riceland under his tillage. This is because under Section 26 of RA 3844, as amended (The Agrarian Reform Code) the agricultural lessee (tenant) 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 be remiss in his obligation to work thereon and may be held liable for abandonment of his farmlot.
The answer to your second query is that since under Section 6 of RA 6657 (The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law or CARL) every landowner is entitled to a maximum retention of five hectares, and the 2.7036-ha. riceland is owned by five persons, the same may be retained by them or be chosen as their retention (in case they own other agricultural lands). However, they cannot remove the tenant on the ground of said retention. This is because paragraph 2 of the same Section 6 of CARL provides that the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain in the retained area or be a beneficiary in another agricultural land with similar or comparable features; that in case he chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under CARL; and that if he chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as a leaseholder to the land retained. This means that it is only when the tenant exercises his option to be an awardee of a farmlot under CARL that he loses his right as a tenant on the land retained. If he chooses to remain as a tenant on the area retained, he shall continue to enjoy all the rights appurtenant thereto.
As regards your third query, Sections 23, 24 and 29 of RA 3844, as amended, provide:
"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.
Sec. 24. Right to a Home Lot. — The agricultural lessee shall have the right to continue in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of any home lot he may have occupied upon the effectivity of this Code, which shall be considered as included in the leasehold.
Sec. 29. Rights of the Agricultural Lessor. — It shall be the right of the agricultural lessor:
(1) To inspect and observe the extent of compliance with the terms and conditions of their contract and the provisions of this Chapter.
(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;
(3) To require the agricultural lessee, taking into consideration his financial capacity and the credit facilities available to him, to adopt in his farm proven farm practices necessary to the conservation of the land, improvement of its fertility and increase of its productivity: Provided, That in case of disagreement as to what proven farm practice the lessee shall adopt, the same shall be settled by the Court according to the best interest of the parties concerned; and
(4) To mortgage expected rentals."
In connection with the tenant's right to a home lot, Section 22(3) of RA 1199 (The Agricultural Tenancy Act) provides that the homelot should not exceed one thousand square meters. It is therefore submitted that the tenant cannot claim more than 1,000 square meters as his homelot.
The answer to your last query is that it is the DAR that has jurisdiction to settle the differences between the landowners and the tenant. Section 50 of CARL provides that 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, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Matters involving strictly the administrative implementation of CARL and other agrarian laws (such as retention, exemption) fall within the jurisdiction of the DAR Secretary. 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. We advise that the landowners consult with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of San Miguel, Bulacan regarding their problems on the property. Should the MARO be unable to mediate in the settlement of the differences between the parties, an action may be filed either with the MARO's Office (if the case involves strictly the administrative implementation of CARL or other agrarian laws), or with the Bulacan Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (for other cases).
We hope to have been of assistance to you.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LORENZO R. REYES
OIC-Undersecretary
LAFMA
Copy furnished:
OSEC
Doc. No. 96050469