April 14, 1997

DAR OPINION NO. 42-97

Mr. Roy P. Mahinay

National Federation of Sugar Workers

Food & General Trades (NFSW-FGT)

P.O. Box 3875 CPO

Manila, Philippines

Dear Mr. Mahinay:

This has reference to your letter requesting for opinion on certain queries posed therein, to wit:

1.         Whether or not petitioners who have been separated from the hacienda and received the corresponding separation pays before the final documentation stage and who have voluntarily waived their rights to the land and refused to enlist as CARP beneficiaries during the process of documentation, be still allowed inclusion to the collective CLOA?

2.         Whether or not the right to be included in the collective CLOA has prescribed once the documentation process, identification and enlistment of CARP beneficiaries have been complied with by MARO before the generation of the CLOA?

3.         Whether or not the fact of inadequacy of land for each legitimate co-holder of collective CLOA, with each member tilling only an average of 1.7 hectares, instead of 3 hectares as prescribed by CARL, sufficient basis to deny petitions for inclusion by those who have already waived their rights thereto.

At the outset, please be clarified that this Office renders legal opinions only on general queries relative to the implementation of agrarian laws, rules and regulations and not with respect to specific cases. It is noted that the queries raised in your letter relate to specific cases of petitions for inclusion as CLOA beneficiaries. Such being the case, the same fall within the jurisdiction of the office vested with authority to decide thereon (that is, the Regional Director having jurisdiction on the properties involved). We shall, however, render general information regarding the matters raised.

As regards your first query, considering that under par. 4, Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657 (otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), a basic qualification of a beneficiary is his willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible, it follows that 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. Willingness to make the land as productive as possible is obviously absent, thus disqualifying him to become an agrarian reform beneficiary (ARB).

Anent your second query, it cannot readily be concluded that the right to be included in the collective CLOA has prescribed once the documentation process, identification and enlistment of CARP beneficiaries have been complied with by MARO before the generation of the CLOA. It is possible that grounds exist to support said inclusion, such as fraud and excusable neglect.

As regards your third query, the fact that the area covered by the collective CLOA comprises only an average of 1.7 hectares for each co-holder does not automatically constitute a ground for denial of the petition for inclusion. This must be so, as it is possible that the petitioner is really entitled and qualified to be included in the collective CLOA. It must be noted that 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.

We wish to reiterate that the foregoing merely provides general clarifications on the issues raised and does not constitute a decision on the specific petitions for inclusion. Said petitions should still be evaluated for resolution by the proper forum concerned based on the merits thereof.

As regards however to your request that you be furnished a copy of all pleadings and documents relative to cases affecting DAMBA-NFSW-FGT, please be informed that we have referred the same to the Litigation Division, BALA for appropriate action.

We hope to have enlightened you on the matter.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) ARTEMIO A. ADASA, JR.

Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning

Copy furnished:

Clifford C. Burkley

Assistant Secretary

Policy, Planning and Legal Affairs Office