RETENTION RIGHT TEMPLATE

I. INTRODUCTION

This template shall apply to issues and cases pertaining to the retention rights of landowners
(LOs).

II. CHECKLIST OF DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS

1. For landowners who own lands of five (5) hectares or less requesting for the issuance of
a Certification of Retention:

[] CARP-LAD Form No. 13 (Request for Certification of Retention)

[] Landowner's (LO) affidavit of sole and aggregate ownership of agricultural land nationwide

[] Certification of Provincial and Municipal/City Assessors regarding LO's aggregate land

ownership

2. For landowners whose lands consist of more than five (5) hectares and are subject of
Compulsory Acquisition:

A. To determine if the right of retention was exercised on time:

[] Notice of Coverage (NOC)

[] Proof of receipt of NOC by the landowner, or

[] Publication of NOC

B. To determine if the applicant is the proper party to exercise the right of retention:

[] Certified true copy of title/tax declaration of parcel of land which is the subject of
application for retention, and other proof of ownership

[] Special Power of Attorney and the document listed above, if the applicant is a
representative of the landowner

[] Articles of Incorporation and/or Secretary's Certificate of Authorization, if the applicant

is a juridical person

[] Certified true copy of marriage contract, prenuptial agreement, judicial decree of

separation of property, if the exercise of retention rights will touch on the landowner and his or
her spouses' property regime

[] Sworn statement of personal cultivation and Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC)
attestation to such fact, if the applicant is a homestead grantee or is an heir of said grantee

[] A Certified True Copy of the Deed of Extrajudicial Settlement/Affidavit of Adjudication of

Sole Heir, if applicable

Additional requirements if the applicant is an heir of the landowner:

[] Death Certificate of the landowner

[] Birth Certificate of the applicant

[] A manifestation of the landowner's intention to exercise his right of retention prior to 23

August 1990

C. To determine the choice of area to be retained and other matters:

[] Sketch map of the entire property with delineation or shading or general indication of the
retained area as manifested by the landowner, or as chosen by the Municipal Agrarian Reform
Officer (MARO)

[] Sworn Application for Retention, indicating the following information:

• Names of occupants of the land, their status, and the crops growing on the property

• Description of the parcels of land surrounding the chosen retention area, particularly
the land use, crops cultivated, productivity level, etc.

• Complete list of children (if applicable), with copies of their birth certificates

• Previous land sales where the applicant was a seller or buyer

• Indicate where the area to be retained is located.

[] MARO's field verification and investigation report pertaining to information alleged in the
application for retention

[] Landowner's affidavit of aggregate landholding nationwide

D. If the retention area was chosen by the MARO due to the landowner's failure to timely
select his retention area and there is opposition thereto, the following documents may be
considered:

[] Notice of Coverage (NOC)

[] Proof of receipt of NOC by the landowner, or

[] Publication of NOC

[] MARO's field verification and investigation report pertaining to the determination of

aggregate landholdings of the landowner, description of the area chosen for retention, and
identification of occupants/tenants on the property

[] MARO's notice to the landowner of his chosen retention area and proof of receipt of such
notice

3. For untitled private agricultural lands, certification from the Department of Environment
and Natural Resources Office (DENRO) (for administrative confirmation of imperfect title) that
the titling process or proceeding has already commenced and that there are no adverse claims;
or the clerk of court (for judicial confirmation of imperfect title) that there is a pending action
before the court;

• For untitled land, there must be a showing that:

i. the same forms part of alienable and disposable land of public domain;

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

iii. land is under bona fide claim of ownership since June 12, 1945 or earlier. 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 (Republic vs.
Rizaldo, G.R. No. 172011, March 7, 2011)

References for this Section:

DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2003 and its attached Sworn Application for
Retention under Republic Act No. 6657

DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2009 and its attached forms

DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011 and its attached forms

III. JURISDICTION

1. Manifestation to exercise the Right of Retention shall be filed before the PARO. (Section
27, DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011)

2. If landowner had already exercised their Retention Rights, the PARO shall issue
Certifications of Retention. (Section 33, DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011)
3. If landowner has an aggregate area of five (5) hectares or less, the PARO may issue a
Certification of Retention upon the former's request. (Section 33, DAR Administrative Order No.
07, Series of 2011)

4. If the subject of coverage is more than five (5) hectares, the Regional Director (RD) shall
exercise primary jurisdiction over all agrarian law implementation (ALI) cases except when a
separate special rule vests jurisdiction in a different DAR office. (Rule II, Section 7 of Department
of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order (DAR A.O.) No. 3, Series of 2003)

5. The Secretary shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all ALI cases, and may delegate
the resolution of the appeals to the Undersecretary. (Rule II, Sec. 10 of DAR A.O. 3, Series of
2003)

IV. DETERMINATION OF THE APPROPRIATE ACTION

STEP 1: Determine the applicant’s standing:

A. Any person, natural or juridical, who owns agricultural lands with an aggregate area of
five (5) hectares, more or less, and or subject of compulsory acquisition, may apply for a retention
area.

• If a juridical person, check the secretary's certificate or other proof of its capacity to
apply for a retention area:

º If there is none, deny the application for retention.

º If there is, proceed with the application.

• If co-owners, or heirs to an unsettled Estate of an LO, check if there is a joint application

executed by all of them, with an agreement regarding the retention area of each of the said co-
owners or heirs:

º If yes, the retention area will be confined to the portion of the property allotted to him.

º Subject to the limitation under Section 37 of A.O. No. 07, Series of 2011 which provides
that heirs of deceased LOs who died after 15 June 1988 are only entitled to the five (5) hectare
retention area of the deceased LO.

In case one or more of the co-owners or heirs refuses or fails to join with the others in
the application:

º The rest of the co-owners or heirs may not choose a retention area unless they have
partitioned their co-ownership or the Estate, whichever is applicable.

º Some or all of the co-owners or heirs may file, together with their manifestation to exercise
their right of retention, a manifestation to partition their co-ownership or the Estate.

• If married, determine the property regime between the spouse:

º For marriages covered by the Conjugal Property of Gains Regime:

> Spouses whose agricultural lands are entirely conjugal in nature may retain a total of
not more than five (5) hectares of such properties.

> However, if either or both of them are LOs in their own respective rights (capital and/or
paraphernal), they may each retain not more than five (5) hectares of their respective
landholdings.

> In no case shall the total retention area of such couple exceed ten (10) hectares.

º For marriages covered by the Absolute Community of Property Regime:

> The spouses, together, may retain not more than five (5) hectares.

> All properties (capital, paraphernal, and conjugal) shall be considered to be held in
absolute community, i.e., the ownership relationship is one, and, therefore, only a total area of
five (5) hectares may be retained by the couple.
º For marriages covered by a Complete Separation of Property Regime:

> Each of them may retain not more than five (5) hectares of their respective landholdings.

º The property regime of a married couple whose marriage was celebrated prior to 03
August 1988 shall be presumed to be the Conjugal Property of Gains, unless otherwise stated in
a valid marriage settlement.

º The property regime of those whose marriage was celebrated on or after 03 August 1988
shall be presumed to be the Absolute Community of Property, unless otherwise stated in a valid
marriage settlement.

Reference for this Section: DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011

B. LOs or heirs of LOs not qualified to retain lands under P.D. No. 27 cannot claim retention
under R.A. No. 6657, as amended, or even under R.A. No. 9700, over their landholdings that
were covered under P.D. No. 27.

• The same LOs or heirs of LOs, however, may still exercise their right of retention over
other landholdings that hereafter shall be covered by R.A. No. 6657, as amended.

Reference for this Section: DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011

A landowner who exercised his right of retention under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27
may no longer exercise the same right under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657.

• Determine whether right of retention under P.D. No. 27 has already been exercised.

º If yes, and the applicant was granted seven (7) hectares as retention area, determine if
the applicant is aware that if he opts to retain five (5) hectares of the properties covered under
CARP, he will lose the seven (7)-hectare retention area granted to him under P.D. No. 27. Proceed
with the application.

º If his landholding was covered under OLT but he has not yet exercised his right of
retention, determine if the applicant's actions are barred by laches or if he is disqualified under
Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 474 (OLT).

> If yes in either circumstance, deny the application for retention.

> Otherwise, proceed with the application.

C. A landowner, who owns five (5) hectares or less of land which is not subject of CARP
coverage based on the schedule of LAD phasing in Section 7 of R.A. No. 6657, may also file an
application for retention. A Certificate of Retention will be issued in his favor.

D. If owner of landholdings covered by homestead grants and free patents issued pursuant
to Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141 or an heir or heirs of said grantee, proceed with the
application, as long as the said persons were cultivating the said landholdings and continue to
cultivate the same.

E. If deceased landowner died after 15 June 1988, heirs are only entitled to the five (5)
hectare retention of the deceased landowner.

If the deceased landowner died before 15 June 1988 and the NOC was sent after his
death, each of his compulsory heirs is entitled to a maximum of five (5) hectares as retention
area.

The right of retention of a deceased landowner may be exercised by his heirs provided
that the decedent landowner, during his lifetime, manifested his intention to exercise his right
of retention prior to 23 August 1990 (the finality of the Supreme Court ruling in the case of
Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. The Honorable Secretary of Agrarian
Reform; G.R. No. 78742, 14 July 1989).

• Determine if the heir's predecessor-in-interest manifested an intention to exercise the

right of retention under R.A. No. 6657 prior to 23 August 1990.

º If he did not, deny the application.

º If yes, proceed with the application for retention.

Reference for this Section:

Section 3 of DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2003

Section 37 of DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011

NOTE: In all cases, if there are CLOA/EP holders over the land subject of the petition for
retention, they must be personally notified and must be asked to comment on the petition.

STEP 2 : Determine the mode of land acquisition:

A. If acquired through Compulsory Acquisition (CA), proceed with the application if

application was filed within the reglamentary period pursuant to the applicable A.O. at the time
when the NOC was issued.

Note: Take into consideration the date of receipt of NOC or date of its publication.

B. If acquired through Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS), check if the landowner exercised his
right of retention and right to nominate children as preferred beneficiary/ies thereof to the PARO
prior to the completion of Service of Letter of Acceptance.

º If not, deny the application for retention.

º If yes, proceed with the application.

For VOS lands submitted prior to 1 July 2009 where the master list of ARBs has been
finalized, the retention areas of LOs covered under said VOS shall be processed under the
existing guidelines of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, before July 1, 2009.

C. Landholdings covered by homestead grants and Free Patents issued pursuant to

Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141 still owned by the original grantees or their direct compulsory
heirs shall be retained by them as long as they were cultivating the said landholdings and
continue to cultivate the same.

D. If covered under Operation Land Transfer (OLT):

• A landowner is entitled to retain a maximum of seven (7) hectares if he filed his application
for retention on or before 27 August 1985. If he filed his application after that date, he will still
be entitled to seven (7) hectares, provided that he complied with LOI Nos. 41, 45, and 52.

• If he filed his application for retention after 27 August 1985 but did not comply with LOI
Nos. 41, 45, and 52, he shall be entitled to a maximum of five (5) hectares as retention area.

• If he has other agricultural lands — that is, aside from his retained area under P.D. No.
27 — he can opt to retain five (5) hectares of these lands and the seven (7) hectares previously
retained by him under P.D. No. 27 shall be placed under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP).

• As a general rule under R.A. 6657, a person cannot own an aggregate agricultural land
of five (5) hectares. For OLT, the following can no longer exercise their right to retain:

(a) Those who, as of 21 October 1972, owned more than twenty-four (24) hectares of tenanted
rice and corn lands;

(b) Those who owned less than twenty-four (24) hectares of tenanted rice and corn lands but
additionally owned:

> other agricultural lands of more than seven (7) hectares, whether tenanted or not, whether
cultivated or not, and regardless of the income derived therefrom,

> lands used for residential, commercial, industrial, or other urban purposes from which
he derives adequate income to support himself and his family.

References for this Section:

 Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 474

DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1985

Section 8 of DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2003.

DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011

STEP 3 : Determine the timeliness of the application for retention:

A. For lands five (5) hectares and below:

• The law provides for an automatic exclusion from coverage, hence there is no need to file
an application for retention.

• In any case, the landowner may opt to request for the issuance of a Certification of
Retention from the PARO.

B. For lands of more than five (5) hectares:

• All private agricultural lands covered under Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, but
which have not been issued Notices of Coverage (NOCs); and private agricultural lands issued
with NOCs but where the list of potential beneficiaries has not been finalized by the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) concerned as of 1 July 2009 (Section 1, DAR Administrative
Order No. 07, Series of 2011):

º Within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from his/her/its/their receipt of the
NOC, the LO may file a Manifestation to Exercise the Right of Retention before the PARO.

> All manifestations made after this period shall no longer be accepted.

> Failure to file said Manifestation within the reglementary period shall be construed as a
waiver on the part of the landowner of the right to exercise the right of retention. (Section 27,
DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011)

º For landholdings under VOS, the landowner shall exercise his right of retention by
submitting a notarized notice thereof to the PARO who has jurisdiction over the landholding
offered at any time prior to the completion of service of the Letter of Acceptance.

> Failure to exercise the said rights in this case at the prescribed time shall be construed
as a waiver thereof.

• As a general rule, the landowner may choose a retention area at the same time that
he/she/it manifested to exercise the right of retention. If this is not done at the same time, the
LO can choose the area within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15) days after manifesting
his/her/its desire to exercise the said right.

• In case of a co-ownership or an unsettled Estate of a land owner on which a manifestation

to partition is filed, the co-owners or heirs must partition the co-ownership or Estate and choose
a retention area within sixty (60) days from receipt of the NOC. If such manifestation to partition
is not filed, the co-owners or heirs must accomplish such partition and choose a retention area
within the fifteen (15) days allotted to a single LO.

º The failure to choose his/her/its/their desired area within the fifteen (15)-day or sixty
(60)-day period, whichever is applicable, shall be deemed a waiver to do so, and shall
automatically authorize the MARO to choose the area to be retained.

º The MARO shall choose, on or before the conduct of the Survey, in the LO's behalf.

º As soon as the MARO shall have identified the area, the DAR shall notify the LO, by
registered mail with return card, the portion selected as his/her retention area. The same notice
shall indicate that the Retained Area chosen may not be contested.

Reference for this Section: DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2011

NOTE: The thirty (30)-day period shall be used for cases where the applicable issuance
is DAR A.O. No. 02, Series of 2009, which took effect on 01 July 2009. For other cases prior to
the said A.O.'s effectivity, a sixty (60)-day period shall be used, as provided for in DAR A.O. No.
02, Series of 2003, which took effect on 07 February 2003.

STEP 4 : Evaluate the retained area being applied for:

Factors to be considered in granting the choice of retained area:

A. The landowner, as a general rule, has the right to choose the area to be retained.

B. The retained area must be compact and contiguous.

• In case of a co-ownership or an unsettled Estate mentioned in Section 30 of A.O. No. 07,

Series of 2011, each co-owner or heir may choose an area not contiguous with that chosen by
his/her/its co-owner/co-heir, provided, that if it is the MARO who shall choose the retention
area on their behalf, the retention area of all co-owners/co-heirs must, as far as practicable, be
compact and contiguous with each other.

• Original homestead grantees under the Homestead Act or their direct compulsory heirs
who still own the original homestead at the time R.A. No. 6657 took effect, may retain the same
area as long as they continue to cultivate the land.

C. If there exists a waiver of the right to choose the retained area, the MARO must select a
parcel of land in such a way that it would be least prejudicial to the entire landholding and the
majority of the farmers on the property. The MARO shall consider the following factors in
choosing the retained area: (a) commodity produced, (b) terrain, (c) available infrastructure and
(d) soil fertility.

D. The retained area must not exceed five (5) hectares.

• The five (5)-hectare retention limit applies to all lands regardless of how acquired (i.e. by
purchase, award, succession, donation) as the law does not distinguish.

Sample Illustration:

A child of the landowner who was awarded three (3) hectares as preferred beneficiary
and who subsequently acquired a five (5)-hectare landholding of his parent through succession,
can retain only five (5) hectares of the total landholding.

• EXCEPT:

i. The application for retention involves property covered under OLT and was filed before
27 August 1985, in which case the landowner will be entitled to seven (7) hectares of retained
area.

ii. The application for retention involves property covered under OLT, was filed after 27
August 1985, and the landowner complied with LOI Nos. 41, 45, and 52, in which case he will
also be entitled to seven (7) hectares of retained area.

iii. The spouses, if either or both of them are LOs in their own respective rights (capital
and/or paraphernal), they may each retain not more than five (5) hectares of their respective
landholdings. In no case shall the total retention area of such couple exceed ten (10) hectares.

iv. For marriages covered by a Complete Separation of Property Regime, each of them may
retain not more than five (5) hectares of their respective landholdings.

E. Retention will not be granted at this stage if:

• The applicant committed acts which constitute a waiver of the right to retain, such as in
the following circumstances:

i. Executing an affidavit, letter or any document duly attested to by the MARO, Provincial
Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO), or RD indicating that the landowner is expressly waiving his
retention right over the subject landholding.

ii. Signing of the Landowner-Tenant Production Agreement and Farmer's Undertaking

(LTPA-FU) or Application to Purchase and Farmer's Undertaking (APFU) covering the subject
property.
iii. Entering into a Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme (VLT-DPS) agreement
as evidenced by a Deed of Transfer over the subject property.

iv. Offering the subject landholding under VOS scheme and failure to indicate his retained
area.

v. Signing/submission of other documents indicating consent to have the entire 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.

vi. Performing acts which constitute estoppel by laches.

vii. Doing such act or acts as would amount to a valid waiver in accordance with applicable
laws and jurisprudence.

Reference for this Section:

DAR Administrative Order No. 05, Series of 2000

DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011

• The property was covered under OLT, the applicant would not be qualified to retain
because of the provisions in LOI No. 474, and he is now opting to exercise his right of retention
under R.A. No. 6657.

F. If there are tenants on the retained area:

• Within a period of one (1) year from the time the LO manifests his/her choice of the area
for retention, the tenant must exercise the option whether to:

º Choose to remain in the LO's retained area; or

º Choose to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land.

• In case a tenant chooses to remain in the LO's retained area:

º He/she shall be a leaseholder in the said land and shall not qualify as a beneficiary
under CARP

• Conversely, if the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land:

º He/she cannot be a leaseholder in the land retained by the LO

º He/she shall be given preference in other landholdings whether or not these lands belong
to the same LO, without prejudice to the farmers who are already in place in said other
landholdings and subject to the priorities under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended.

• In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on the LO's retained
land prior to the approval of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, shall be respected. Further, actual
tenant-farmers in the landholdings shall not be ejected or removed therefrom.

Reference for this Section:

DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2003

DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011

V. OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE EXERCISE OF RETENTION RIGHTS

A. DAR Clearance on Land Transactions

• As a general rule, the sale, disposition, lease or transfer of private lands by the original
landowner in violation of R.A. No. 6657 shall be null and void.

• Land transactions executed prior to 15 June 1988:

º shall be valid only when registered with the Registry of Deeds on or before 13 September
1988

• Land transactions executed on or after 15 June 1988:

º Where the transfer/sale of a landholding involves a total area of five (5) hectares and
below and such landholding is the retention area of or subject of retention by the transferor, and
where the transferee will not own an aggregate area of more than five (5) hectares as a result of
the sale:

> The transfer is legal and proper.

> However, a DAR clearance is needed for monitoring purposes and as a requisite for the
registration of the title in the name of the transferee with the ROD.

º With respect to LOs who have yet to exercise their right of retention, where more than
five (5) hectares of the landholding is sold or transferred, whether through a single transaction,
multiple transactions, or a series of transfers/sales:

> Only the first five (5) hectares sold/conveyed and the corresponding titles therefor issued
by the ROD in the name of the transferee shall be considered valid and treated as the transferor's
retained area

> In no case shall the transferee exceed the five (5)-hectare landholding ceiling pursuant
to Sections 6, 70, and 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657, as amended.

> The excess area beyond the five (5) hectares sold and conveyed is concerned, the same
shall be covered under CARP, regardless of whoever is the current title-holder to the land, and
even if the said current title-holder owns less than five (5) hectares of agricultural landholding,
considering that the transferor has no right to dispose of these lands since CARP coverage of
these lands is mandated by law as of 15 June 1988. Any landholding still registered in the name
of the LO after earlier dispositions up to an aggregate of five (5) hectares are no longer part of his
retention area and therefore shall be covered under CARP.

• In cases where there has been an improper, invalid, or unlawful transfer:

º NOC shall be sent to the last lawful owner of the landholding and to such person who is
registered as the owner of the same

º Coverage shall be done in accordance with the pertinent guidelines on the matter.

• The provisions of LOI No. 474 also apply to landowners whose properties were covered
under OLT but who exercised their right of retention under R.A. No. 6657 (Reyes vs. Garilao,
G.R. No. 136466, 25 November 2009).

References for this Section:

Part IV.B. Section 7 of DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2009.

Article II of DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2003.

Bacuñgan, Agrarian Law and Jurisprudence, 2000.

DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011

B. Conditions for LGU Retention Limit Exemption

• CARP-covered agricultural lands which are to be expropriated or acquired by LGUs for

actual, direct, and exclusive public purposes, such as roads and bridges, public markets, school
sites, resettlement sites, local government facilities, public parks, and barangay plazas or
squares, consistent with the approved local government land use plan:

º shall not be subject to the five (5)-hectare retention limit.

º However, prior to the expropriation/acquisition by the LGU concerned, the subject land
shall first undergo the land acquisition and distribution process of the CARP.
º ARBs therein shall be paid just compensation without prejudice to their qualifying as
ARBs in other landholdings under the CARP.

References for this Section: Section 41, DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011

C. CARP-Covered Agricultural Lands Subject of Expropriation

• Pursuant to Section 6-A of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, an LGU may, through its Chief
Executive and/or pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain on
agricultural lands for public use, purpose, or welfare of the poor and the landless, upon payment
of just compensation to the ARBs on these lands, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution
and pertinent laws.

• The power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless:

º a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the ARBs, and such offer was not
accepted.

º In cases where the land sought to be acquired has been issued with an NOC or is already
subject to VOS (with a letter-offer submitted to DAR):

> the concerned LGU shall suspend the exercise of its power of eminent domain until after
the LAD process has been completed and the title to the property has been transferred to the
ARBs.

• Where agricultural lands have been subjected to expropriation, the ARBs therein shall
be paid just compensation.

References for this Section: Section 42, DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011

D. R.A. No. 1400 or the Land Reform Act of 1955, which deals with the acquisition and
distribution of landed estates, provides for a retention area of three hundred (300) hectares of
contiguous land if owned by natural persons and six hundred (600) hectares if owned by
corporations. Exempt from this rule are lands where justified agrarian unrest existed.

• Some cases under R.A. No. 1400:

º In Republic of the Philippines vs. Mariano Lichauco, et al. (G.R. No. L-21436, 18 August
1972), the Land Tenure Administration (LTA) and the landowners merely executed an Agreement
and Joint Motion where the LTA granted retention areas to the co-owners — one co-owner, for
instance, was given a retention area of 144.1449 hectares and another, 5.5375 hectares.

º Since R.A. No. 1400 did not specify who was to choose the retained area, it was held that
the landowner and the Land Tenure Administration were expected to try to reach an agreement
on the choice of retained area. In the event of disagreement, the courts of justice would settle the
issue (Land Tenure Administration vs. Ceferino Ascue and Felisa Ramos De Ascue; G.R. No. L-
14969, 29 April 1961).

VI. APPLICABLE LAWS, RULES, AND POLICIES

A. Legal Provisions:

i. Article XIII, 1987 Constitution

Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on
the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the
lands they till, or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof.
To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural
lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe,
taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the
payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right
of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing.
(emphasis added)

ii. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657 (effective 15 June 1988), as amended by R.A. No. 9700
(effective 01 July 2009)
 Section 6. Retention Limits. — Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may
own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which
shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-size farm, such as commodity produced,
terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform
Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five
(5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the
following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age, and (2) that he is actually
tilling the land or directly managing the farm; Provided, That landowners whose lands have been
covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the area originally retained by
them thereunder, further, That original homestead grantees or direct compulsory heirs who still
own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as
long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.

The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall
pertain to the landowner, Provided, however, That in case the area selected for retention by the
landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or
be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features. In
case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be considered a leaseholder and
shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a
beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as a lease holder to the land retained
by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this option within a period of one (1) year from the
time the landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention.

In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on the land prior to the
approval of this Act shall be respected.

Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management contract or
transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of this Act
shall be null and void; Provided, however, That those executed prior to this Act shall be valid
only when registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3) months after the
effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, the Register of Deeds shall inform the DAR within thirty (30)
days of any transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares.

Section 6-A. Exception to Retention Limits. — Provincial, city, and municipal

government units acquiring private agricultural lands by expropriation or other modes of
acquisition to be used for actual, direct and exclusive public purposes, such as roads and
bridges, public markets, school sites, resettlement sites, local government facilities, public parks
and barangay plazas or squares, consistent with the approved local comprehensive land use
plan, shall not be subject to the five (5)-hectare retention limit under this Section and Sections
70 and 73(a) of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended: Provided, That lands subject to CARP shall
first undergo the land acquisition and distribution process of the program: Provided, further,
That when these lands have been subjected to expropriation, the agrarian reform beneficiaries
therein shall be paid just compensation.

Section 6-B. Review of Limits of Land Size. — Within six (6) months from the
effectivity of this Act, the DAR shall submit a comprehensive study on the land size appropriate
for each type of crop to Congress for a possible review of limits of land sizes provided in the Act.

iii. Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 (effective 21 October 1972)

In all cases, the landowner may retain an area of not more than seven (7) hectares if such
landowner is cultivating such area or will now cultivate it;

iv. Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1400 (effective 09 September 1955)

Section 6. Powers. — In pursuance of the policy in the enunciated section two hereof,
the Administration is authorized to:

xxx xxx xxx

(2) Initiate and prosecute expropriation proceedings for the acquisition of private
agricultural lands in proper cases, for the same purpose of resale at cost: Provided, That the
power herein granted shall apply only to private agricultural lands as to the area in excess of
three hundred hectares of contiguous area if owned by natural persons and as to the area in
excess of six hundred hectares if owned by corporations: Provided, further, That land where
justified agrarian unrest exists may be expropriated regardless of its area.

B. Implementing Rules and Regulations

i. DAR Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 2011 (effective October 15, 2011)

ii. DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 2009 (effective July 1, 2009)

iii. DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2003 (effective 08 February 2003)

iv. DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 2003 (effective 07 February 2003)

v. DAR Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 2000 (effective 17 September 2000)

vi. Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Order No. 4, Series of 1991

[Approval date: 26 April 1991. It was provided for in the A.O. that the issuance was to
take effect ten (10) days after publication in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.]

vii. DAR Administrative Order No. 11, Series of 1990

[Approval date: 30 August 1990. It was provided for in the A.O. that the issuance was to
take effect ten (10) days after publication in two (2) national newspapers of general circulation.]

VII. JURISPRUDENCE

A. HACIENDA LUISITA, INCORPORATED vs. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL

et al., G.R. NO. 171101 NOVEMBER 22, 2011

The rule on retention limits does not apply to the ownership of agricultural lands under
the stock distribution scheme but only to the eventual acquisition of the agricultural lands from
the qualified FWBs under the proposed buy-back scheme:

Worse, by raising that the qualified beneficiaries may sell their interest back to HLI, this
smacks of outright indifference to the provision on retention limits under RA 6657, as this Court,
in effect, would be allowing HLI, the previous landowner, to own more than five (5) hectares of
agricultural land, which We cannot countenance. There is a big difference between the ownership
of agricultural lands by HLI under the stock distribution scheme and its eventual acquisition of
the agricultural lands from the qualified FWBs under the proposed buy-back scheme. The rule
on retention limits does not apply to the former but only to the latter in view of the fact that the
stock distribution scheme is sanctioned by Sec. 31 of RA 6657, which specifically allows
corporations to divest a proportion of their capital stock that "the agricultural land, actually
devoted to agricultural activities, bears in relation to the company's total assets." On the other
hand, no special rules exist under RA 6657 concerning the proposed buy-back scheme; hence,
the general rules on retention limits should apply.

B. HEIRS OF DR. JOSE DELESTE vs. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES (LBP), G.R. No.
169913, June 8, 2011

i. Failure to notify that the property shall be under the coverage of the agrarian reform
program violates due process of law; there must be proof that petitioner was given the
opportunity to at least choose and identify its retention area

Firstly, the taking of subject property was done in violation of constitutional due process.
The Court of Appeals was correct in pointing out that Virginia A. Roa was denied due process
because the DAR failed to send notice of the impending land reform coverage to the proper party.
The records show that notices were erroneously addressed and sent in the name of Pedro N. Roa
who was not the owner, hence, not the proper party in the instant case. The ownership of the
property, as can be gleaned from the records, pertains to Virginia A. Roa. Notice should have
been therefore served on her, and not Pedro N. Roa.

xxx xxx xxx

In addition, the defective notice sent to Pedro N. Roa was followed by a DAR certification
signed by team leader Eduardo Maandig on January 8, 1988 stating that the subject property
was tenanted as of October 21, 1972 and primarily devoted to rice and corn despite the fact that
there was no ocular inspection or any on-site fact-finding investigation and report to verify the
truth of the allegations of Nicolas Jugalbot that he was a tenant of the property. The absence of
such ocular inspection or on-site fact-finding investigation and report likewise deprives Virginia
A. Roa of her right to property through the denial of due process.
 By analogy, Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals applies to the case at bar since there
was likewise a violation of due process in the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law when the petitioner was not notified of any ocular inspection and investigation to be
conducted by the DAR before acquisition of the property was to be undertaken. Neither was there
proof that petitioner was given the opportunity to at least choose and identify its retention area
in those portions to be acquired. Both in the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law and
Presidential Decree No. 27, the right of retention and how this right is exercised, is guaranteed
by law.

ii. Despite a finding that there was a violation of due process in the implementation of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program; such violation does not give the Court the power to
nullify the certificates of land ownership award (CLOAs) already issued to the farmer-
beneficiaries, since the DAR must be given the chance to correct its procedural lapses in the
acquisition proceedings.

On this note, We take exception to our ruling in Roxas & Co., Inc. v. CA, where, despite
a finding that there was a violation of due process in the implementation of the comprehensive
agrarian reform program when the petitioner was not notified of any ocular inspection and
investigation to be conducted by the DAR before acquiring the property, thereby effectively
depriving petitioner the opportunity to at least choose and identify its retention area in those
portions to be acquired, this Court nonetheless ruled that such violation does not give the Court
the power to nullify the certificates of land ownership award (CLOAs) already issued to the
farmer-beneficiaries, since the DAR must be given the chance to correct its procedural lapses in
the acquisition proceedings.

C. DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES INC. EMPLOYEES AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES

COOPERATIVE (DEARBC) vs. JESUS SANGUNAY and SONNY LABUNOS, G.R. NO. 180013,
JANUARY 31, 2011

A proper action for recovery of possession filed with the regular court does not divest the
latter of its jurisdiction even if there is a claim of being farmer-beneficiaries with right of
retention:

Verily, all that DEARBC prayed for was the ejectment of the respondents from the
respective portions of the subject lands they allegedly entered and occupied illegally. DEARBC
avers that, as the owner of the subject landholding, it was in prior physical possession of the
property but was deprived of it by respondents' intrusion.

Clearly, no "agrarian dispute" exists between the parties. The absence of tenurial
arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, cannot be overlooked. In
this case, no juridical tie of landownership and tenancy was alleged between DEARBC and
Sangunay or Labunos, which would so categorize the controversy as an agrarian dispute. In fact,
the respondents were contending for the ownership of the same parcels of land.

This set of facts clearly comprises an action for recovery of possession. The claim of being
farmer-beneficiaries with right of retention will not divest the regular courts of jurisdiction, since
the pleas of the defendant in a case are immaterial.

The ruling in DAR v. Hon. Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Yupangco Cotton Mills, Inc. is
inapplicable to the present case. The complaint in Abdulwahid impugn(ed) the CARP coverage of
the landholding involved and its redistribution to farmer beneficiaries, and (sought) to effect a
reversion thereof to the original owner, Yupangco and essentially prayed for the annulment of
the coverage of the disputed property within the CARP. The dispute was on the "terms and
conditions of transfer of ownership from landlord to agrarian reform beneficiaries over which
DARAB has primary and exclusive original jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 1(f), Rule II, DARAB
New Rules of Procedure."

Although the complaint filed by DEARBC was similarly denominated as one for recovery
of possession, it utterly lacks allegations to persuade the Court into ruling that the issue
encompasses an agrarian dispute.

DEARBC's argument that this case partakes of either a boundary dispute, correction of
a CLOA, and ouster of an interloper or intruder, as found under Section 1, Rule 11 of the 2003
DARAB Rules of Procedure, is unavailing. Nowhere in the complaint was the correction or
cancellation of the CLOA prayed for, much less mentioned. DEARBC merely asserted its sole
ownership of the awarded land and no boundary dispute was even hinted at.
D. CELESTINO SANTIAGO vs. AMADA R. ORTIZ-LUIS, G.R. NOS. 186184 AND 186988,
SEPTEMBER 20, 2010

The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall
pertain to the landowner. Provided, however, That in case the area selected for retention by the
landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or
be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features.

In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be considered a
leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this Act. In case the tenant chooses
to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as a lease-holder to the land
retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this option within a period of one (1) year
from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention.

E. NAPOLEON MAGNO vs. GONZALO FRANCISCO and REGINA VDA. DE LAZARO, G.R.
NO. 168959, MARCH 25, 2010

Issues with respect to retention rights are within the jurisdiction of DAR Secretary:

Verily, there is an established tenancy relationship between petitioner and respondents

in this case. An action for Ejectment for Non-Payment of lease rentals is clearly an agrarian
dispute, cognizable at the initial stage by the PARAD and thereafter by the DARAB. But issues
with respect to the retention rights of the respondents as landowners and the
exclusion/exemption of the subject land from the coverage of agrarian reform are issues not
cognizable by the PARAD and the DARAB, but by the DAR Secretary because, as aforementioned,
the same are Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases.

Proof necessary for the resolution of the issues on OLT coverage and petitioner's right of
retention should be introduced in the proper forum. The Office of the DAR Secretary is in a better
position to resolve these issues being the agency lodged with such authority since it has the
necessary expertise on the matter.

F. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM vs. PABLO BERENGUER et al., G.R. No. 154094,
March 9, 2010

Exclusion from CARP coverage based on speculation and conjecture, violates right from
CARP coverage as well as the worker's right of retention:

The only reason given by the DAR for not including the workers of the landholdings as
farmer beneficiaries was that "it could be that either they have manifested lack/loss of interest
in the property, as it has happened in many other areas placed under CARP coverage, because
of their loyalty to the original landowner, like respondents, or because of fear or, simply, they
refused to heed/answer the call of our field offices to submit to the screening process." Such
reason is unacceptable. The CARL has set forth in mandatory terms in its Section 22, supra,
who should be the qualified beneficiaries, but the DAR did not strictly comply with the law.
Instead, the DAR excluded such workers based on its speculation and conjecture on why the
actual workers on the landholdings had not shown interest and had not responded to the call of
the DAR field officers during the screening process. As such, the DAR did not really determine
who the lawful beneficiaries were, failing even to present any documentary proof that showed
that the respondents' workers genuinely lacked interest to be considered beneficiaries of the
landholdings, or refused to subject themselves to the screening process.

xxx xxx xxx

The highly irregular actuations of the DAR did not end with the unwarranted awarding
of the landholdings to Baribag in violation of Section 22 of the CARL. The DAR also violated the
respondents' right of retention under Section 6 of the CARL, which accorded to the respondents
as the landowners the right to retain five hectares of their landholdings, and the right to choose
the areas to be retained, which should be compact or contiguous. Thus, assuming that the
respondents' landholdings were covered by the CARL, and that the DAR was correct in awarding
the landholdings to Baribag, the DAR's cancellation of all of the respondents' TCTs effectively
nullified the respondents' right of retention, thereby depriving them of their property without due
process of law.

G. HEIRS OF JUAN GRIÑO, SR. vs. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, G.R. NO.
165073, JUNE 30, 2006
 Where a landowner is not entitled to retain land under PD 27, he cannot avail of the right
of retention over the same land under RA 6657:

. . . Statement of the Supreme Court clearly indicates that a landowner who failed to
exercise his retention right of land under PD 27 may do so under RA 6657 provided he is qualified
to do so under the regime of PD 27. Stated differently, where a landowner is not entitled to retain
land under PD 27, he cannot avail of the right of retention over the same land under RA 6657.

H. LUCIA MAPA VDA. DE DELA CRUZ, ET AL., vs. ADJUTO ABILLE, G.R. No. 130196,
February 26, 2001

The issuance of an emancipation patent does not bar the landowner from retaining the
area covered thereby:

In the case of Daez v. Court of Appeals, where the Certificates of Land Transfer of farmer
beneficiaries over some four (4) hectares of riceland were issued without the landowner having
been accorded her right to choose what to retain among her landholdings, we held that the
Transfer Certificate of Title issued on the basis of Certificates of Land Transfer issued to the
farmer-beneficiaries cannot operate to defeat the right of the heirs of the deceased landowner to
retain the said riceland. Even the issuance of an emancipation patent does not bar the landowner
from retaining the area covered thereby.

Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1994 provides: Emancipation patents or certificates

of land ownership award issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries may be corrected and cancelled
for violations of agrarian laws, rules and regulations. This includes cases of lands which are
found to be exempted/excluded from P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 of CARP coverage, or part of the
landowner's retained area.

I. EUDOSIA DAEZ vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 133507, FEBRUARY 17,
2000

i. Exemption and retention in agrarian reform are two (2) distinct concepts — the finality
of judgment in one does not preclude the subsequent institution of the other:

Thus, on one hand, exemption from coverage of OLT lies if: (1) the land is not devoted to
rice or corn crops even if it is tenanted; or (2) the land is untenanted even though it is devoted
to rice or corn crops.

On the other hand, the requisites for the exercise by the landowner of his right of
retention are the following: (1) the land must be devoted to rice or corn crops; (2) there must be
a system of share-crop or lease-tenancy obtaining therein; and (3) the size of the landholding
must not exceed twenty-four (24) hectares, or it could be more than twenty-four (24) hectares
provided that at least seven (7) hectares thereof are covered lands and more than seven (7)
hectares of it consist of "other agricultural lands".

Clearly, then, the requisites for the grant of an application for exemption from coverage
of OLT and those for the grant of an application for the exercise of a landowner's right of retention,
are different.

Hence, it is incorrect to posit that an application for exemption and an application for
retention are one and the same thing. Being distinct remedies, finality of judgment in one does
not preclude the subsequent institution of the other.

ii. Right of retention may be exercised over tenanted land despite the issuance of Certificate
of Land Transfer (CLT) to farmer-beneficiaries. What must be protected, however, is the right of
the tenants to opt to either stay on the land chosen to be retained by the landowner or be a
beneficiary in another agricultural land with similar or comparable features:

In the landmark case of Association of Small Landowners in the Phil., Inc. v. Secretary
of Agrarian Reform, we held that landowners who have not yet exercised their retention rights
under P.D. No. 27 are entitled to the new retention rights under R.A. No. 6657. We disregarded
the August 27, 1985 deadline imposed by DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1985 on
landowners covered by OLT. However, if a landowner filed his application for retention after
August 27, 1985 but he had previously filed the sworn statements required by LOI Nos. 41, 45
and 52, he is still entitled to the retention limit of seven (7) hectares under P.D. No. 27. Otherwise,
he is only entitled to retain five (5) hectares under R.A. No. 6657.
 Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 6657, which provides, viz.: . . . defines the nature and incidents of a
landowner's right of retention. For as long as the area to be retained is compact or contiguous
and it does not exceed the retention ceiling of five (5) hectares, a landowner's choice of the area
to be retained, must prevail. Moreover, Administrative Order No. 4, series of 1991, which supplies
the details for the exercise of a landowner's retention rights, likewise recognizes no limit to the
prerogative of the landowner, although he is persuaded to retain other lands instead to avoid
dislocation of farmers.

Without doubt, this right of retention may be exercised over tenanted land despite even
the issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) to farmer-beneficiaries. What must be
protected, however, is the right of the tenants to opt to either stay on the land chosen to be
retained by the landowner or be a beneficiary in another agricultural land with similar or
comparable features.

iii. Land awards made pursuant to the government's agrarian reform program are subject to
the exercise by a landowner, who is so qualified, of his right of retention:

The issuance of EPs or CLOAs to beneficiaries does not absolutely bar the landowner
from retaining the area covered thereby. Under Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1994, an
EP or CLOA may be cancelled if the land covered is later found to be part of the landowner's
retained area.

xxx xxx xxx

In the instant case, the CLTs of private respondents over the subject 4.1685-hectare
riceland were issued without Eudosia Daez having been accorded her right of choice as to what
to retain among her landholdings. The transfer certificates of title thus issued on the basis of
those CLTs cannot operate to defeat the right of the heirs of deceased Eudosia Daez to retain the
said 4.1685 hectares of riceland.

VIII. APPEAL TO THE SECRETARY

1. Grounds: No appeal shall be given due course unless the decision of the RD is final,
disposing of the case on the merits, and only on the following grounds:

A. Serious errors in the findings of fact or conclusion of law which may cause grave and
irreparable damage or injury to the appellant; or

B. Coercion, fraud, or clear graft and corruption in the issuance of a decision.

2. When to appeal: Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the adverse decision.

3. Where to appeal: The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Regional Director (RD) with
proof of payment of the requisite appeal fee. The appeal fee may be received by official cashiers
of any DAR office.

Non-perfection of the appeal within the fifteen (15)-day period merits dismissal of the
appeal.

4. Withdrawal of Appeal: An appeal may be withdrawn by filing with the Bureau of Agrarian
Legal Assistance (BALA) a motion to withdraw appeal at any time prior to the promulgation of
the appellate decision, except when the withdrawal is prejudicial to public interest. The
withdrawal may take effect only after the Secretary issues an order approving the motion to
withdraw.

Reference for this Section:

Rule IV of DAR Administrative Order No. 03, Series of 2003

DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011

VIII. 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 the retention application of ________________ which was filed on
_____________________ for the landholding with TCT _______________________ located at
______________________ with an area _________________."

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 ____________________ applicant ____________________________. ____________________ is

landholding of __________________________. The area was covered under CARP through the
issuance of NOC dated ___________________ which was received on ________________ by
_______________. The application retention was filed on ________________ at the PARO office of
____________________ which is _____ days from receipt of the NOC. The area applied for is
agricultural which is planted with __________________ and has no tenants."

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 applicants are qualified to have retention.

2.) Whether or not the retention application was filed on time."

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 6 of R.A. 6657, ______________________. This is further clarified by A.O. 7, Series
of 2011, which states _______________________________. 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 applicants are qualified to have retention because they own
an aggregate landholding of ________. The application was filed within the 30-day reglamentary
period pursuant to ___________________________. The retention area is the contiguous portion of
the subject land with the following technical description _______________ and area of
________________________."