Department of Agrarian Reform

This template may serve as a guide for resolving protests against the coverage (AFTER RECEIPT OF NOC) over certain landholding under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

II. CHECKLIST OF DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS

The following material documents and facts are for consideration in assessing whether or not a protest from coverage under the CARP may be given due course:

A. Verified Protest clearly indicating the specific/particular ground(s) relied upon, with a disclosure statement;

B. The Protest must show/reveal the following:

b.1 Legal capacity/standing of the protestor to prosecute the case (i.e., if filed not by the Registered Landowner (RLO), the protest must include the legal authority (SPA, Board Resolution, in case juridical persons, executor, legal guardian);

b.2 The fact and date of actual receipt of the Notice of Coverage (NOC) or (NLVA) served on the RLO, and the date of filing the RLO's manifestation to file the Protest;

b.3 Proof of payment of the requisite filing fees, if any; and

b.4 The protest must include material and substantial proof of the grounds invoked by the protestor.

The following are material information or facts for verification/consideration:

[ ] Name of RLO or person, who was served by the NOC;

[ ] Aggregate agricultural landholdings of the protestor-landowner within the Philippines;

[ ] Grant of retention area or exemption order, DAR Clearance issued pursuant to DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 1 s. 1989, in favor of landowner-protestor, if any;

[ ] Location of property, area, present standing crops, and occupants or actual tillers, if any;

[ ] If titled:

• Certified true copy of the Original Certificate of Title (OCT) or

• Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) on file with the proper Register of Deeds.

[ ] If untitled: (Common Documentary Requirements in all ALI Cases involving unregistered agricultural land)

• Certification of the DENR-CENRO/PENRO or RTD, LMS, that the tract of land covered by the survey is within an area classified as A&D pursuant to DAR-DENR-LBP JMC No. 12, S. of 1994 as reconciled with R.A. No. 9176;

• Certified True Copy of the latest Tax Declaration from the Assessor's file in the name of the claimant with verified and correct lot numbers and area per approved survey plan (ASP);

• Certification of the Assessor concerned showing the Tax Declaration issued, to the declarant/s, the area covered, and the history of the issuances and cancellations thereof up to the Tax Declaration issued in the name of the claimant, as well as any existing liens on the current and previous Tax Declaration, where applicable;

• Certification from the Clerk of Court concerned indicating whether or not the property/ies identified in the ASP is/are covered by land registration proceedings or any civil case, and if the same has been used as a bond in any court actions;

• Certification from the Assessor's Office concerned that per their records, the property/ies as appearing in the ASP is/are free from all liens and encumbrances;

• Certifications from the concerned CENRO or PENRO showing that:

(a) the landholding forms part of alienable and disposable land of public domain;

(b) that the one claiming ownership thereof, or his predecessors-in-interest, have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious occupation of the property;

(d) If later than 12 June 1945, the occupation must be at least 30 years which must be counted from the time the land is declared alienable and disposable and there must be a declaration by the DENR that the land is no longer intended for public service or development of national wealth (see: Republic vs. Rizaldo, G.R. No. 172011, March 7, 2011)

[ ] On-Site Investigation Report/MARO's Investigation Report indicating the following: (date and persons who attended or were present)

• Actual land use;

• Existence of agricultural activity;

• Photographs of the subject landholding;

• Name(s) of actual occupants or tillers (nature and length of stay on the land).

[ ] BARC report as to the number of tenants or tillers on the subject landholding;

[ ] Land Classification documents available;

[ ] Other information vital to the determination of the ground(s) invoked by the protestor, in assailing the coverage of the land or portions thereof under CARP; and

[ ] Findings and Recommendation from the MARO and/or PARO on whether or not the protest is meritorious.

III. JURISDICTION

A. Regional Director or Secretary has the jurisdiction to resolve protest.

B. Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is an agrarian law implementation (ALI) case and is thus governed by DAR A.O. No. 03, Series of 2003, in relation to DAR A.O. No. 07, Series of 2011.

C. Protest against coverage must be filed before the PARO where the land is located. (If located in several provinces, the PARO who first took cognizance of the protest, or the PARO of the province where the larger area is located, shall have preferential jurisdiction over the case).

D. Despite the pendency of a protest against coverage, the land acquisition process shall nevertheless continue until the issuance of the Memorandum of Valuation (MOV) with the attached Land Valuation Worksheet (LVW) by the LBP, unless otherwise suspended sooner through a Cease and Desist Order (CDO), issued by the RD or the Secretary.

E. Notwithstanding a Petition for Certiorari filed with the courts, the PARO shall issue and serve the Notice of Land Valuation and Acquisition (NLVA) and shall proceed with the land acquisition and distribution process, as soon as the protest against coverage or petition for exemption or exclusion has been denied by the RD, even if RD's Order is appealed to the Secretary, and to the President of the Republic of the Philippines, unless otherwise restrained or suspended by the Supreme Court.

IV. STANDING

Legal standing or authority of the person initiating/filing the protest must be ascertained before the protest may be given due course. The absence thereof will be a ground for outright denial/dismissal of the protest.

V. TIMELINESS

A. Within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from his/her/its/their receipt of the NOC, the LO may manifest protest against the coverage of his landholding. Such protest must be filed before the PARO and should contain the substantial bases thereof. Thereafter, the concerned LO must file the formal protest within sixty (60) days, by clearly and distinctly indicating the grounds relied/invoked in the protest consistent with the pertinent and applicable rules and regulations implementing CARPER.

B. The failure to do any of the foregoing within the abovementioned reglementary periods shall be construed as a waiver on the part of the LO concerned, the right to protest coverage. All protests made after this period shall no longer be accepted, except those involving lands which by its nature are non-CARPABLE as provided by law.

VI. DETERMINATION OF THE APPROPRIATE ACTION

(Basis: R.A. No. 6657, as amended)

A. In resolving cases of this character, the decision maker must always remember:

General Rule:

All public and private agricultural lands are subject to CARP coverage pursuant to Section 4 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, as amended.

Exception:

When there is a clear showing that the land is exempted or excluded from the coverage of the CARP under the law.

B. In all cases where there is a letter-complaint or petition asking the DARMO/DARPO/RD to subject a certain landholding or a portion thereof to coverage under agrarian reform law:

1. All letter-complaints or petitions for coverage will be treated as summary in nature;

2. Concerned DAR official must answer the letter within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof:

• indicate therein the reason(s) why the property subject of the request cannot be covered, or

• forthwith issue a Notice of Coverage if coverable under CARP.

C. Approve the petition only when the following facts clearly exist or substantially established:

1. The Notice of Coverage was not properly served to the registered landowner (RLO) as stated in the Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) or Original Certificate of Title (OCT), or, in case of untitled private agricultural lands.

• In case the RLO stated in the TCT or OCT is different from that stated in the Tax Declaration, the NOC shall be served to the RLO stated in the TCT or OCT.

In the determination of Proper Service of NOC (please be guided accordingly):

i. The NOC must state the periods for the LO to file a protest on coverage, nomination of preferred beneficiary/ies, manifestation for exemption/exclusion, and manifestation to exercise the right of retention, as well as to submit a duly attested list of the agricultural lessees, regular farmers, and/or tenants in his/her/its landholding. The NOC must explicitly warn the LO that failure on their part to exercise their right during the said periods shall be regarded as a waiver on their part to exercise these.

ii. Modes of service of NOC:

• Personal Service: NOC shall be served primarily by personally handing a copy of it to the "person authorized to receive" as enumerated in the succeeding section hereof.

o Effected when the person authorized to receive affixes his signature or thumb mark on the receiving copy of the NOC in the presence of a witness who also affixes his signature.

o Shall be done by the Bureau of Land Acquisition and Distribution (BLAD) in the DAR Central Office, if the last known address of the person authorized to receive is within Metro Manila; or the MARO who has jurisdiction over the last known address of the person authorized to receive, if living in a province outside Metro Manila.

• Substituted Service: If the "person authorized to receive" is not present in his/her last known address, or refuses to receive the NOC:

o The MARO shall immediately avail of substituted service and serve the NOC by leaving a copy of the NOC at the residence of the person authorized to receive with some person of suitable age and discretion residing therein, or by leaving a copy of the NOC at the RLO's office or regular place of business with some competent person in charge thereof.

o The MARO shall thereafter immediately prepare and send a Return of Service of the NOC to the concerned PARO who has jurisdiction over the subject landholding the fact of completed/failed substituted service.

o The PARO shall thereafter immediately inform the BLAD the fact of substituted service and send it a copy of the NOC. The BLAD shall thereafter publish the NOC.

• Extraterritorial Service: If upon diligent investigation, the MARO who has jurisdiction over the subject landholding finds out that the last known address of the persons authorized to receive is outside the territory of the Philippines:

o He shall send a copy of the NOC to the last known address of the person authorized to receive abroad by registered mail.

o The MARO shall immediately prepare and send a Return of Service of the NOC to the concerned PARO and request the latter for the publication of the NOC through the BLAD. The BLAD shall then cause the publication of the NOC in accordance with Section 18 hereof.

• Immediate Publication: If the address of the person authorized to receive is unknown, or substituted person is not available:

o The MARO who has jurisdiction over the subject landholding shall immediately file a written report as to the investigation made and the failure to know the address of the LO to the PARO, and the latter shall send a copy of the NOC to the BLAD. The BLAD shall thereafter cause the publication of the NOC.

o Immediate publication shall also be effected if the person authorized to receive the NOC is covered by Section 17 (vii) (b) hereof. As such, the PARO who has jurisdiction over the subject landholding shall also send a copy of the NOC to the BLAD. The BLAD shall thereafter publish the NOC in accordance with Section 18 hereof.

• In instances where publication is required, publication shall be made in a newspaper of general circulation. The affidavit of the editor-in-chief or circulation/advertising manager as proof of publication.

iii. The MARO or any DAR personnel authorized by the PARO shall serve the NOC to the following persons:

• If RLO is a natural person — serve NOC to the RLO;

• If RLO are co-owners — serve NOC upon each and every registered co-owner;

o unless one co-owner is specifically authorized or cloth with legal personality to receive the NOC for and in behalf of the other co-owners;

• If minors — serve NOC upon his/her father and/or mother, whoever has lawful custody of the said minor:

o If the RLO has no parents, serve NOC upon his/her legal guardian if he/she has one, or, if none, upon his/her guardian ad litem whose appointment shall be applied for by the DAR.

• If insane or otherwise incompetent — serve NOC upon his/her legal guardian if he/she has one, or, if none, upon his/her guardian ad litem whose appointment shall be applied for by the DAR;

• If entity without juridical personality — i.e., persons associated through an entity without juridical personality are issued an NOC under the name by which they are generally or commonly known, serve NOC upon:

o all the RLOs by serving upon any one of them;

o or upon the person in charge of the office or place of business maintained in such name;

o such service shall not individually bind any person whose connection with the entity has, been severed before the proceeding was brought;

• If domestic private juridical entity — i.e., RLO is a corporation, partnership, or association organized under the laws of the Philippines with a juridical personality, serve NOC upon:

o president

o managing partner

o general manager

o corporate secretary

o treasurer, or in-house counsel

• If heirs of a deceased RLO — If the RLO has died prior to the service of the NOC, the NOC shall be served to:

o if the settlement of the Estate is currently pending with the court, the Executor or the Administrator of the Estate; or

o if the settlement of the Estate is not pending with the court or if there is no executor or administrator, the NOC shall be served to all known heirs and shall also be published.

iv. In all cases, the MARO or any authorized DAR Personnel shall post a copy of the NOC at a conspicuous place at the subject landholding, and ensure that the notice is clearly visible.

• For this purpose, waterproof and environmentally-friendly materials, measuring two (2) by three (3) feet, shall be used. The BARC Chairman or his authorized representative shall thereafter issue the corresponding Certification of Posting Compliance.

• A certified true copy of the NOC shall also be posted for seven (7) days at the bulletin board of the Municipal/City Hall and the Barangay Hall where the land covered is located.

• The Municipal/City Administrator and the Barangay Secretary shall thereupon issue their corresponding Certification of Posting Compliance.

Special Cases regarding Protests against improper service of NOC

Sales of Agricultural Land

i. Sale of agricultural land prior to June 15, 1988

Prior considerations:

• If agricultural land was tenanted rice and corn — Sale is null and void for violation of MAR M.C. No. 2, Series of 1973, M.C. No. 2-A, Series of 1973 and M.C. No. 8, Series of 1978 (Heirs of Batongbacal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125063, September 24, 2002, 389 SCRA 517, Taguinod v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 154654, September 14, 2007)

• If land is untenanted or is not rice and corn, consider if the land is registered or unregistered land and if the sale was registered or unregistered:

o If land was registered in the Register of Deeds and the sale was annotated on the title prior to issuance of NOC — NOC should be/have been served to the vendee.

o If land was registered in the Registry of Deeds but the sale was not registered — NOC should be/have been served to the vendor. Unregistered sale does not bind third parties, including the state. (See Calalang v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, G.R. Nos. 76265 and 83280, 11 March 1994, 231 SCRA 88; Villasor v. Camon, 89 Phil. 404)

o If land was unregistered but the sale was registered in the Registry of unregistered property and the NOC was issued to the vendor — NOC should be served to the vendee.

• Note: Proceed with caution as the right of the vendee is without prejudice to one who has a better right over the property. The mere registration of a sale in one's favor does not give him any right over the land if the vendor was no longer the owner of the land having previously sold the same to somebody else even if the earlier sale was unrecorded. (See Radiowealth Finance Company v. Palileo, 274 Phil. 516, May 20, 1991; Spouses Abrigo v. De Vera, G.R. No. 154409, June 21, 2004)

• Grant protest only if the right of the vendee over the land is apparent and that the due process rights of the vendee as the owner was violated. However, the improper service of NOC does not, of itself, justify the cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs). It merely amounts to a violation of procedural due process by the vendee the DAR must be given the chance to correct its procedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings. (See Roxas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127876, December 17, 1999, 321 SCRA 106) The improper service will only affect the determination of just compensation of the landowner as the taking will be determined from the proper service of NOC as to him. (See Sta. Monica Industrial Corporation v. DAR Regional Director III, G.R. No. 164846, June 18, 2008, 555 SCRA 97)

o If land was unregistered and the sale was likewise unregistered. — NOC should be served to the claimant. (See Presidential Decree No. 1529, Sections 112-113; Spouses Dadizon v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 159116, September 30, 2009, 601 SCRA 351)

• In case of doubt, issue it to both the vendor and vendee.

ii. Sale of agricultural land after June 15, 1988

Prior considerations

• If the sale was done without the requisite DAR clearance as required by DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989, the sale is null and void for a violation of Section 73 (e) of R.A. No. 6657 and the protest must forthwith be denied.

• Apply rules in A.O. 8, series of 2011 in the service of NOC to subsequent transferees.

2. Coverage was made during the proper phase.

Schedule Phases

Phase 1 includes:

Starting July 1, 2009 • All large single private agricultural lands above
up to June 30, 2012 fifty (50) hectares (with or without Notice of Coverage)

                                            •        All large aggregate private agricultural lands
                                                     (PALs) of landowners with a total area greater
                                                     than 50 hectares with Notice of Coverage
                                                     (NOC) as of December 10, 2008

• P.D. 27 lands (rice and corn), regardless of size

• All idle or abandoned agricultural lands, regardless of size

• All lands offered under Voluntary Offer to Sell
(VOS), regardless of size

• Lands covered by Voluntary Land Transfer
(VLT) submitted as of June 30, 2009

• Government Financial Institutions (GFI)-foreclosed lands, regardless of size

• PCGG-acquired lands, regardless of size

• All other government-owned alienable and
disposable agricultural lands, regardless of size

Phase 2A

a. All remaining large single agricultural lands
with an area of 24 to 50 hectares (with or without NOC)

                                         b.      All PALs of landowners with an aggregate
                                                     area of above 24 to 50 hectares with NOC as
                                                     of December 10, 2008

c. All alienable and disposable public agricultural
lands, regardless of size

Phase 2B

Starting July 1, 2012 a. All remaining PALs of landowners with an
up to June 30, 2013 aggregate area in excess of 24 hectares with or without NOC

b. All alienable and disposable public agricultural
lands, regardless of size

Phase 3A

                                         a.      All PALs with an aggregate area of above 10
                                                  hectares up to 24 hectares, with respect to the
                                                  excess above 10 hectares

b. All alienable and disposable public agricultural
lands, regardless of size

Phase 3B

Starting July 1, 2013           a.      All PALs with an aggregate area from above
up to June 30, 2014                     5 hectares up to 10 hectares, with respect to
                                                     the excess above 5 hectares

b. All alienable and disposable public agricultural
lands, regardless of size

NOTE:

• In case a landholding is co-owned due to the non-settlement of the estate of a deceased LO: the phase shall be based on the aggregate size of all the landholdings of the deceased LO;

• If the landholding is co-owned due to other reasons:

o if the aggregate size of all the landholdings of each co-owner coincidentally belongs to the same phase: the phase shall be based on the aggregate size of all the landholdings of one of the co-owners; or

o if the aggregate size of all the landholdings of each co-owner belongs to different phases: the co-owners, as a group, shall be treated as a single LO for the sole purpose of determining the phase that that particular landholding shall be acquired and distributed

• Provided that the share of a co-owner to that landholding shall be incorporated in determining his/her/its aggregate size of landholdings owned to determine the schedule of acquisition and distribution of his/her/its other landholdings.

Note: As of July 1, 2012, Phase I, Phase 2-A & B and Phase 3-A are already in phase for coverage.

3. The following landholdings are covered:

a. All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture;

b. All lands of the public domain in excess to the specific limits as determined by Congress;

c. All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and

d. All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon.

4. Excluded from coverage:

a. All undeveloped lands with 18% slope and over;

b. All lands duly classified by the proper Local Government Unit (LGU) as commercial, industrial, or residential as of 15 June 1988;

c. All ancestral lands/domains that may be identified in accordance with rules that may be jointly issued by the DAR, DENR, LRA, and the National Commission on Indigenous People;

d. Retention areas granted to LOs who exercised their retention rights; and

e. All agricultural landholdings of a LO with an aggregate size of five (5) hectares or less.

5. Exempted from coverage:

Exempted from coverage are lands actually, directly, and exclusively used, and found to be necessary for, the following purposes:

a. Parks;

b. Wildlife;

c. Forest reserves;

d. Reforestation;

e. Fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds;

f. Watersheds;

g. Mangroves;

h. National defense;

i. School sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for educational purposes;

j. Seeds and seedlings research and pilot production centers;

k. Church sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto;

l. Communal burial grounds and cemeteries;

m. Penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates;

n. Government and private research and quarantine centers;

o. Fish ponds and prawn farms; and

p. Livestock, poultry, and swine raising since 15 June 1988.

• However, to deny coverage on the basis of the aforementioned grounds, there must be sufficient evidence on record that sustains the conclusion that the land is indeed exempt from CARP coverage. (Please refer to DAR A.O. No. 13, Series of 1990, as amended by DAR A.O. No. 10, Series of 1994, DAR A.O. No. 03, Series of 1995, and DAR A.O. No. 04, Series of 2003.)

• If any of the enumerated list of exempted private agricultural lands stated above is discovered not to be actually, directly, and exclusively used, and/or not necessary, anymore for the purpose for which it is exempted, the PARO shall immediately issue an NOC for the subject landholding or the portions thereof. (DAR A.O. No. 07, Series of 2011.)

Other special circumstances:

a. Absent any final order granting conversion, no act or attempt directed to changing the use of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural, shall affect the land's coverage pursuant to the CARP.

b. Failure to fully implement the conversion plan within 5 years from the issuance of DAR conversion order, or any violation of the conditions of the conversion order, in the event such failure or violation was due to the fault of the applicant, shall cause the land subject thereof to automatically be covered by CARP, subject to the rights of retention.

c. Landholdings distributed by the DENR under R.A. No. 6657, as amended, shall no longer be acquired and distributed by the DAR.

d. Agricultural lands reclassified to non-agricultural uses before June 15, 1988 but subsequently reclassified to agricultural uses are covered by CARP.

e. DAR shall take possession of awarded agricultural lands which were foreclosed for failure to pay the amortizations for 3 aggregate years, where the 2-year redemption period has already expired by negotiating for redistribution.

f. If a Petition for Coverage was filed after which a Petition for Exemption is filed, but the claim folder has not yet been transmitted to the LBP (involving the same landholding): the process for the Petition for Coverage shall still be continued until right before the submission of the claim folder to the LBP. The claim folder shall not be submitted first to the LBP.

g. If a Petition for Coverage was filed after which a Petition for Exemption is filed, and the claim folder has already been transmitted to the LBP (involving the same landholding): LBP shall continue with the process but the Certificate of Deposit shall be issued to the PARO who shall hold it in the mean time.

h. If a Petition for Exemption was filed after which a Petition for Coverage is filed (involving the same landholding): the Petition for Coverage shall be held in abeyance until the final resolution of the Exemption case.

VII. PROCESS

DECISION PROCESS FLOW

VIII. APPEALS

A. The decision of the Regional Director may be appealed to the DAR Secretary pursuant to Rule IV of DAR A.O. No. 03, Series of 2003.

B. The decision of the DAR Secretary disposing of the appeal from the Regional Director may be appealed to the Office of the President in accordance with Rule V of DAR A.O. No. 03, Series of 2003 and Administrative Order No. 18, Series of 1987.

IX. APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES, LAWS, RULES AND POLICIES

A. LEGAL PROVISIONS

The entire Chapter II of R.A. No. 6657, with emphasis on Section 4:

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: Provided, That landholdings of landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and below shall not be covered for acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries.

More specifically, the following lands are covered by the CARP:

(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into account ecological, developmental and equity considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific limits of the public domain;

(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph;

(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon.

A comprehensive inventory system in consonance with the national land use plan shall be instituted by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), in accordance with the Local Government Code, for the purpose of properly identifying and classifying farmlands within one (1) year from effectivity of this Act, without prejudice to the implementation of the land acquisition and distribution." (As amended by RA 9700)

B. IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS

1. DAR Administrative Order No. 03, Series of 2012

2. DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011

3. DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2009

4. DAR Administrative Order No. 04, Series of 2005

X. JURISPRUDENCE

Special Cases regarding Protests against improper service of NOC

A. STA. MONICA INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION V. DAR REGIONAL DIRECTOR III, G.R. NO. 164846, JUNE 18, 2008, 555 SCRA 97.

If the sale of the land was effected to circumvent agrarian reform law, the sale must be struck down as null and void and the service of NOC to the vendor is deemed a sufficient service of NOC to the vendee.

Records disclose that there was indeed a deed of sale between Trinidad and Sta. Monica over the agricultural land awarded to De Guzman. Sta. Monica was also issued a new transfer certificate of title over the land. If we rely solely on the sale, it is a foregone conclusion that Sta. Monica was denied due process of law. As the owner on record of the agricultural land, it should have been given a notice of coverage.

However, there is much to be said of the attendant circumstances that lead Us to conclude that notice of coverage to Trinidad is also sufficient notice to Sta. Monica. Moreover, we find that the sale between Trinidad and Sta. Monica was a mere ruse to frustrate the implementation of the agrarian law.

First, the sale to Sta. Monica is prohibited. P.D. No. 27, as amended, forbids the transfer or alienation of covered agricultural lands after October 21, 1972 except to the tenant-beneficiary. The agricultural land awarded to De Guzman is covered by P.D. No. 27. He was awarded a certificate of land transfer in July 22, 1981. The sale to Sta. Monica in 1986 is void for being contrary to law. Trinidad remained the owner of the agricultural land.

xxx xxx xxx

Second, buyer Sta. Monica is owned and controlled by Trinidad and her family. Records show that Trinidad, her husband and two sons own more than 98% of the outstanding capital stock of Sta. Monica. They are all officers of the corporation. There are only two non-related incorporators who own less than one percent of the outstanding capital stock of Sta. Monica and who are not officers of the corporation.

To be sure, Trinidad and her family exercise absolute control of the corporate affairs of Sta. Monica. As owners of 98% of the outstanding capital stock, they are the beneficial owners of all the assets of the company, including the agricultural land sold by Trinidad to Sta. Monica.

Third, Trinidad and her counsel failed to notify the DAR of the prior sale to Sta. Monica during the administrative proceedings. Worse, Trinidad feigned ignorance of the sale by filing a motion for bill of particulars seeking specifics from De Guzman of her alleged landholdings which are subject of his petition with the DAR.

It is highly unusual and unbelievable for her not to know, or at least be aware, of the sale to Sta. Monica. She herself signed the deed of sale as seller. She is also a stockholder and officer of Sta. Monica. More importantly, she cannot feign ignorance of De Guzman's claim because he was her agricultural tenant since the 1970s. She knows, or at least ought to know, that the subject matter of the petition with the DAR was her own landholding, which she sold to Sta. Monica in direct violation of P.D. No. 27.

The apparent lack of candor is heightened by the fact that both Trinidad and Sta. Monica are represented by the same counsel, Atty. Ramon Gutierrez. We cannot stretch Our credulity on how Trinidad filed a motion for bill of particulars with the DAR seeking specifics on the sale to Sta. Monica when she herself signed for the vendor as a party to the transaction.

It is the duty of Atty. Gutierrez to inform the DAR, at the very first opportunity, of the sale to Sta. Monica. He was utterly remiss of this duty. Instead of informing the DAR, Trinidad and her counsel engaged in wild goose chase and stonewalling, feigning ignorance when they ought to have informed the DAR of the sale to Sta. Monica. Atty. Gutierrez is reminded that, as an officer of the court, he owes it the duty of candor, honesty and fairness.

Fourth, it was only after an adverse decision against Trinidad that Sta. Monica suddenly filed a petition for certiorari with the CA questioning the lack of notice of coverage under the CARP law. It is highly unlikely that Sta. Monica, an artificial being acting only through its duly authorized representatives, was not sufficiently informed or had no constructive knowledge of the DAR proceedings.

Trinidad and by extension, her family members, were informed or should be sufficiently aware of the DAR proceedings. They are all stockholders and corporate officers of Sta. Monica. They knew, they ought to know, that Sta. Monica would suffer damage should the DAR award, as it awarded, the agricultural land to De Guzman.

As directors and corporate officers, they owe a duty of care to the corporation to inform it of the pending proceedings with the DAR.

Fifth, the ultimate factor that betrays Trinidad and Sta. Monica is the continued payment of lease rentals by De Guzman. Records show that De Guzman paid and continued to pay lease rentals to Trinidad even after she sold the land to Sta. Monica. The receipt dated May 30, 2002 discloses that De Guzman paid 40 cavans of palay to Clodinaldo dela Cruz, the authorized representative of Trinidad, as lease rentals for the agricultural land.

It is incredible that Trinidad would still continue to collect lease rentals from De Guzman if she had long sold the agricultural land to Sta. Monica in 1986. The continued payment of lease rentals indicates that Trinidad never sold the agricultural land to Sta. Monica. Evidently, the sale was a mere ruse to skirt coverage under the comprehensive agrarian reform law.

All these circumstances indicate that Trinidad has remained as the real owner of the agricultural land sold to Sta. Monica. The sale to Sta. Monica is not valid because it is prohibited under P.D. No. 27. More importantly, it must be deemed as a mere ploy to evade the applicable provisions of the agrarian law.

But it is a fiat that the corporate vehicle cannot be used as a shield to protect fraud or justify wrong. Thus, the veil of corporate fiction will be pierced when it is used to defeat public convenience and subvert public policy.

Considering that Trinidad remained to be the true and legal owner of the agricultural land, there is no need for another notice of coverage to be sent or furnished to Sta. Monica. At the very least, the notice to her is already notice to Sta. Monica because the corporation acted as a mere conduit of Trinidad. The CA correctly dismissed the petition of Sta. Monica to annul the orders of the Regional Director placing the agricultural land of Trinidad under the agrarian reform law.

Service of NOCs on Corporations and other Private Juridical Entities

B. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM V. APEX INVESTMENT AND FINANCING CORP., G.R. NO. 14922, APRIL 10, 2003

The service of the Notice of Coverage must comply with the requirement under Section 16 (a) of R.A. No. 6657

In the instant case, petitioner does not dispute that respondent did not receive the Notice of Acquisition and Notice of Coverage sent to the latter's old address. Petitioner explained that its personnel could not effect personal service of those notices upon respondent because it changed its juridical name from Apex Investment and Financing Corporation to SM Investment Corporation. While it is true, that personal service could not be made, however, there is no showing that petitioner caused the service of the notices via registered mail as required by Section 16 (a) of R.A. No. 6657. On this point, petitioner claimed that the notices were sent "not only by registered mail but also by personal delivery" and that there was actual receipt by respondent as shown by the signature appearing at the bottom left-hand corner of petitioner's copies of the notices. But petitioner could not identify the name of respondent's representative who allegedly received the notices. In fact, petitioner admitted that the signature thereon is eligible. It is thus safe to conclude that respondent was not notified of the compulsory acquisition proceedings. Clearly, respondent was deprived of its right to procedural due process. It is elementary that before a person can be deprived of his property, he should be informed of the claim against him and the theory on which such claim is premised.

XI. STRUCTURE OF THE DECISION

A. NATURE OF THE CASE

• The opening paragraph should discuss the nature of the case. The reader then knows specifically what the RD is being asked to decide. State how the matter is before the RD. Identify the parties and the nature of the proceedings.

Example:

"This is a case involving a protest against coverage of the landholding with TCT _______________________ located at _________________ with an area _________________, which was filed on _____________."

B. FACTS

• Those facts necessary to a disposition of the matter under consideration should be set forth. Facts should be stated logically and concisely. A decision need not and should not set forth all the facts that may be involved in the case. Only a narrative statement of the controlling facts should be made. Controlling facts are facts which, when added together, enable the judge to come to some factual conclusion that affects the outcome of the case. The writer has to be selective; the RD must know which facts are material to his readers and their understanding of the decision. There must be no misstatement of facts. An improper factual recitation can result in irreversible miscarriage of justice.

Example:

"The present protest against coverage filed by ________________________, the registered landowner (LO) of the subject landholding. The area was covered under CARP through the issuance of NOC dated ___________________. The protest was filed on ________________ at the PARO office of ____________________ which is _____ days from receipt of the NOC. The area applied is agricultural which is planted with __________________ and has existing tenants. However, the landowner claims that the subject landholding cannot be covered under CARP on the ground that there is an on-going conversion proceeding over the same."

C. ISSUE/S

• Once these preliminary matters have been covered, the writer must identify the specific legal or factual issues to be discussed. State the issues simple enough that even a non-lawyer, can read and understand. Discuss each issue individually.

Example:

"1.) Whether or not the subject landholding should be covered under CARP.

2.) Whether or not the on-going conversion proceeding over the subject lot is a bar to the coverage of the subject landholding."

D. LAW, RULES AND REGULATIONS AND JURISPRUDENCE

• Next, systematically analyze the law, rules and jurisprudence (if there's any), as it pertain to the facts of the case leading to the conclusions.

Example:

"Under Section 4 of R.A. 6657, ______________________. This is further clarified by A.O. 7 Series of 2011 which states that _________________. The Supreme Court decided in the case of _________________ (G.R. ____________, date) that ______________________."

E. DECISION

• Having covered each issue, the RD should summarize the dispositions by bringing together the conclusions into a decision.

Example:

"From the records of the case, the subject landholding is covered under CARP. While it is true that there is an on-going conversion proceeding over the subject landholding, the laws and the rules are clear that absent any final conversion, no act or attempt directed to changing the use of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural, shall affect the land's coverage pursuant to CARP."

HELP CENTER

CONTACT INFORMATION

Department of Agrarian Reform
Elliptical Road, Diliman
Quezon City, Philippines

Copyright Information

HELP CENTER

CONTACT INFORMATION

Department of Agrarian Reform Elliptical Road, Diliman Quezon City, Philippines

Copyright Information

Department of Agrarian Reform
Elliptical Road, Diliman
Quezon City, Philippines