June 2, 1997

DAR OPINION NO. 59-97

OIC-PARO Jose Z. Grageda

DAR Provincial Office

Del Rosario, Naga City

Dear PARO Grageda:

This has reference to your letter which poses the following queries, to wit:

1)        Do transactions involving agricultural lands previously rejected from CARP coverage by reason of its slope (18% or over and undeveloped) still need to comply with the requirements provided for under Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989 (DAR Clearance requirement)?

2)        May an agricultural land previously rejected for CARP coverage by reason of its slope and its being undeveloped be subsequently placed within the CARP coverage upon being developed by the landowner?

3)        May the DAR deny the issuance of DAR Clearance for lands rejected for CARP coverage due to its 18% slope, on the ground that the transferee intends to use the land for purposes that would tend to degrade the environment, e.g. quarrying?

4)        Do agricultural lands rejected by the DAR for CARP coverage due to its slope of 18% or more and being undeveloped cease to fall within the ambit of the term agricultural lands for purposes of the CARP?

You state that one of the many problems that confronts the field level of the DAR is the treatment/disposition of rejected lands by reason of its having 18% slope or over and not being developed; that after almost nine (9) years from time R.A. No. 6657 was enacted, no issuance by way of either Administrative Order, Circular, etc. was ever passed clarifying the treatment/disposition of lands exempted or excluded from CARP coverage pursuant to Section 10, R.A. No. 6657, due to its slope of 18% or over; that while A.O. No. 13, Series of 1990 and A.O. No. 10, Series of 1994, the latter amending the former, provide for the rules and procedures governing exemption of lands from CARP coverage under Section 10 R.A. No. 6657, both do not provide for specific guidelines on land with 18% slope and over rejected for CARP coverage by reason thereof; and that the absence of such guidelines opens the door to the circumvention of Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 especially on lands with slope of 18% or over.

Anent your first query, please be clarified that a DAR Clearance is no longer necessary in landholdings not covered by CARP. DAR Clearance only signifies and guarantees that transactions (sale, transfer or conveyance) affecting properties previously covered by CARP were made not in circumvention of R.A. No. 6657. However, the DAR Clearance is not to be construed as a validation of any transaction affecting properties previously covered by the Program. Since the landholding involved is exempt from the coverage of CARP, being more than 18% in slope and undeveloped, it goes without saying that DAR Clearance is no longer necessary for whatever transaction said landholding may be involved.

Anent your second query, a qualification should be made. It is provided under R.A. No. 6657 that a landholding having a slope of 18% or more and undeveloped is not within the ambit of the CARP. Thus, if such has been developed for the purpose for which the CARP has been enacted (agricultural purposes), regardless of who developed it (i.e., landowner or farmer), the same shall be covered by the said law. On the other hand, if said landholding has been developed for any other purpose, e.g., residential, commercial, or industrial, then said landholding will not fall within the coverage of CARP.

Anent your third query, since the subject property is not covered by CARP, DAR clearance requirement should perforce be dispensed with DAR clearance shall apply only to properties covered by DAR to ensure that the maximum 5-hectare allowable area to be owned by an individual-transferee as provided for by R.A. No. 6657 shall not be transgressed. It bears stressing here that it is the DENR and not the DAR which is given the legal mandate to certify that a certain undertaking or project is ecologically sound or not.

As regards your last query, 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.

Please be guided accordingly.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) ARTEMIO A. ADASA, JR.

Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy Planning