Professional Documents
Culture Documents
I Coverage of The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
I Coverage of The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
The Constitution in Sec. 4, Art. XIII, mandates the just distribution of all
agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and to reasonable retention limits
that Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental or
equity considerations and subject to the payment of just compensation.
In Natalia v. DAR, 225 SCRA 278 (1993), the Supreme Court held:
It should be noted that under the Constitution, lands of the public domain
are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands and national parks
(CONST., Art. XII, sec. 3). These classifications are called primary classifications
or “classification in the first instance.” The same provision of the Constitution
also provides that the agricultural lands of the public domain may be further
classified according to the uses to which they may be devoted. This further
classification of agricultural land is referred to as secondary classification. The
responsibility over primary classification of lands of the public domain is vested in
the President who exercises such power upon the recommendation of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) (Com. Act No. 141
[1963], sec. 6; EO 192 [1987]). On the other hand, the authority to reclassify
agricultural lands into residential, commercial or industrial is lodged, among
others, in cities and municipalities (Rep. Act No. 7160 [1991], sec. 20).
Facts:
Issue:
Held:
a) Lands actually, directly or exclusively used for parks and wildlife, forest
reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds,
watersheds and mangroves (Rep. Act No. 6657 [1988], sec.10 [a], as
amended by Rep. Act No. 7881[1995]).
b) Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms
and fishponds: Provided, That said prawn farms and fishponds have
not been distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA)
issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) under CARP (Sec. 10
[b]).
c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary
for national defense, school sites and campuses, including
experimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for
educational purposes, seeds and seedling research and pilot
production center, church sites and convents appurtenant thereto,
mosque sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto, communal
burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms actually
worked by the inmates, government ad private research and
quarantine centers and all lands within eighteen percent (18%) slope
and over, except those already developed (Sec. 10 [c]).
Facts:
Held:
DAR AO 9 (1993) imposes two (2) conditions in order that these lands
may be exempted: (a) that the land or portion thereof is exclusively, directly, or
actually used for livestock, poultry and swine raising as of 15 June 1988; and (b)
the farm must satisfy the ratios of land, livestock, poultry and swine, as follows:
In cases were the fishponds or prawn farms have been subjected to CARP, by
voluntary offer to sell, commercial farms deferment or notice of compulsory
acquisition, they can be exempt from CARP if a simple and absolute majority of
the actual regular workers or tenants consent to the exemption within one (1)
year from the effectivity of RA 7881 or on 12 March 1995. in cases where the
fishponds or prawnponds have not been subjected to CARP, the consent of the
farm workers shall no longer be necessary (Rep. Act No. 6657 [1998], sec.
10[b], as amended.)
Facts:
Issue:
Lands with 18% slope over are exempt from CARP coverage unless these
are found to be agriculturally developed as of 15 June 1988.
Effects of exemption
The first view is that lands exempted or excluded from the law are
permanently taken out from coverage of the CARP. The basis of this
interpretation is the phraseology of Sec. 10 which states that exempted lands are
“exempt from the coverage of the law.” The legal effect of this interpretation is
that the owner can use and dispose the land as he deems fit without the need
for any clearance from DAR.
The second view is that excluded and exempted lands can be covered by
CARP when the reason for their exemption ceases to exist. Thus, when the
reason for exemption ceases to exist for lands exempt under the Luz Farms
ruling or Sec. 10, as amended by RA 7881 (except lands with an 18% slope),
they are removed from the exemption and are treated like any other agricultural
land.
The second view is anchored on the spirit and intent of the law to cover
all agricultural lands suitable to agriculture. Moreover, as RA 6657 is a social
welfare legislation the rules of exemption and exclusions must be interpreted
restrictively and any doubts as to the applicability of the law should be resolved
in favor of inclusion.
Homesteads
In Alita vs. CA, the Supreme Court stated that homesteads are exempt
from agrarian reform.
Facts:
Issue:
Are lands obtained through homestead patent covered under
PD 27?
Held:
While homestead lots are declared exempt under PD 27, they are not
expressly declared as such under RA 6657. However, Sec. 6 of RA 6657 provides
that homesteaders are allowed to retain the total homestead lot subject to the
conditions provided in the same section and as set out in DAR MC 4 (1991), to
wit:
a) That original homestead grantee or his/her direct
compulsory heirs still own the land on 15 June 1988;
b) The original homestead grantee or his or her compulsory
heirs cultivate the land as of 15 June 1988 and continue to
cultivate the same.
Schedule of Implementation
Thus, DAR need not wait for the full coverage of those lands in the first
phase before those in the succeeding phases could be covered. DAR may also
proceed with the coverage of lands in different phases simultaneously.
In view of the passing of the ten (10) year period in 1998, Congress
passed RA 8532 (1998) providing for the funding for land acquisitions for
another ten (10) years.
Sec.22 of Art. XVIII of the 1987 Constitution and Sec. 18 (h) of EO 229
prioritizes the immediate expropriation or acquisition of the idle or abandoned
lands.
Commercial farms
Retention
The retention limits under Sec. 6 of RA 6657 covers all persons whether
natural or juridical. Juridical persons like corporations and partnerships are
therefore subject to five (5)-hectare limit.
For marriages covered by the Family Code, which took effect on 3 August
1988, a husband owning capital property and/or a wife owning paraphernal
property may retain not more than five (5) hectares each provided they executed
a judicial separation of properties prior to entering into marriage. In the absence
of such an agreement, all properties (capital, paraphernal and conjugal) shall be
considered to be held in absolute community, i.e., the ownership relation is one,
and therefore, only a total of five (5) hectares may be retained. (DAR Adm. O.
No. 5 [2000], sec. 9 [h]).
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. Thus, a child who was awarded three (3) hectares as a preferred
beneficiary under Sec. 6 of RA 6657 and subsequently acquires a five (5)-hectare
landholding of his parent by succession can retain only five (5) hectares of the
total landholding.
The award to the child is not to be taken from the retained land of the
owner and is awarded to the child in his own right as a beneficiary. Thus, the
award is not automatic. The child is merely given a preference over other
beneficiaries.
As the right of the child is derived from his being a beneficiary, he must
not only meet the requirements of preference laid out in Sec. 6 of RA 6657, but
also all the other qualifications of a beneficiary enumerated under Sec. 22 of RA
6657. Thus, he must also be landless, a resident of the barangays or municipality
where the land is located, and must have the willingness, aptitude and ability to
cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. Moreover, he is subject to
the same liabilities, responsibilities and limitations imposed on all agrarian reform
beneficiaries.
The five (5)-hectare retention limit under RA 6657 does not apply to
original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs at the time of the
approval of RA 6657 who continue to cultivate the same, and to those entitled to
retain seven (7) hectares under PD 27.
In Association cases, the Supreme Court held that landowners who failed
to exercise their rights to retain under PD 27 can avail of the rights of retention
under Sec. 6 of RA 6657 and retain only five (5) hectares. However, in the
resolution of the Supreme Court on the motion for reconsideration in the said
case, the Court qualified that those who, prior to the promulgation of RA 6657,
complied with the requirements under Letter of Instruction (LOI) Nos. 41, 45 and
52 regarding the registration of the land holdings, shall be allowed to enjoy the
seven (7) hectare retention limit. All those who refused to comply with the
requirements cannot, in view of the passage of CARL, demand that their
retention limit be determined under PD 27.
Thus, the following OLT owners are still entitled to retain seven (7)
hectares even if they exercised their right of retention under PD 27 after 15 June
1988:
Under the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) scheme, the right of retention
shall be exercised at the time the land is offered to sell. The offer should specify
and segregate the portion covered by VOS and the portion applied for retentions;
otherwise, the landowner shall be deemed to have waived his right of retention
over the subject property (DAR Adm. O. No. 5 [2000], sec. 4).
The tenant must exercise either option within one (1) year after the
landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention, or from the time the
MARO has chosen the area to be retained by the landowner, or from the time an
order is issued granting the retention (DAR Adm. O. No. 5 [2000], sec. 10).
Sec. 10 of DAR AO 5 (2000) further provides that in case the tenant declines
to enter into leasehold and there is no available land to transfer, or if there is,
the tenant refuses the same, he may choose to be paid disturbance
compensation by the landowner.
Sec. 7 of DAR AO 5 (2000) provides that the following acts constitute waiver
on the landowner’s right of retention:
d) Offering the subject landholding under VOS scheme and failure to indicate
his retained area;
Public Lands
Public lands pertain to all lands that were not acquired by private persons
or corporations either by grant or purchase. These lands are either (a)
disposable (alienable) public lands or (b) non-disposable public lands.
CA 141 (1936), otherwise known as the “Public Land Act”, governs the
administration and disposition of lands of the public domain. Sec. 9 thereof
classifies alienable or disposable lands of the public domain as (a) agricultural;
(b) residential, commercial, industrial or for similar productive purposes; (c)
educational, charitable, or other similar purposes; or (d) reservations for town
sites and for public and quasi-public uses.
All lands of the public domain are under the exclusive jurisdiction of the
DENR except those placed by law and/or by executive issuances under the
jurisdiction of other government agencies. Under Sec.3 and Sec. 5 of CA 141, the
Secretary of Agriculture and Natural Resources (now the Secretary of DENR) is
the executive officer charged with carrying out the provisions of the Public Land
Act. It is empowered to prepare and issue such forms, instructions, rules and
regulations consistent with the Public Land Act. Sec.6 of CA 141 (see also EO 192
[1987]) reserves the power to classify lands in the public domain into either
agricultural (disposable, timber or mineral lands to the President, with the
recommendation of the Secretary of DENR.
Under Sec.4 of RA 6657, public and private agricultural lands and lands of
the public domain suitable for agriculture are covered by CARP. It provides,
among others, that all alienable and disposable lands of the public domain
devoted or suitable or devoted to agriculture (Sec. 4 [a]) and all lands of the
public domain in excess of the specific limits of the public domain a determined
by Congress (Sec. 4 [b]) shall be covered by CARP. It has also been determined
that public agricultural lands that are untitled and privately claimed are covered
by CARP. In response to a query by DAR, the Department of Justice issued
Opinion No. 176 (1992) which stated:
To resolve the overlapping mandates of the DENR and DAR in the disposition
and distribution of public lands for CARP purposes, the two agencies issued Joint
DAR-DENR MC 9 (1995) which recognizes that all lands of the public domain are
under the jurisdiction of the DENR unless placed by law and/or by executive
issuances under the jurisdiction of other government departments or entities.
Under the said circular, the disposition of non-registrable lands of the public
domain is the exclusive responsibility of the DENR under its various programs
(i.e., the Integrated Social Forestry). In this instance, the role of the DAR is to
assist the DENR in identifying and screening of farmer beneficiaries. The
responsibility and authority of DAR to distribute public lands shall be limited to
the following:
a) Lands proclaimed by the President as DAR Resettlement Projects and
placed under the administration of the DAR for distribution to qualified
farmer beneficiaries under CARP;
Untitled public alienable and disposable lands are still within the exclusive
jurisdiction of DENR pursuant to CA 141. However, in accordance with DOJ
Opinion No. 176 (1992), Joint DAR-DENR MC 14 (1997) provides that all untitled
public alienable and disposable lands are deemed “private” if the criteria
specified in RA 6940 for the determination of whether or not a person has
already acquired a recognizable private right over a landholding is met, namely:
For these privately claimed public alienable and disposable lands, the
DENR first issues a Free Patent to qualified applicants for the retained area of
not more than five (5) hectares. The DAR shall then cover the excess area and
issue a CLOA or EP and distribute these to qualified beneficiaries.
For untitled public alienable and disposable lands which are tenanted and
with claimants not qualified under the criteria specified in RA 6940, the
disposition shall be under the jurisdiction of the DENR. The role of the DAR ijn
the case is limited to the documentation and protection of the leasehold
arrangement between public and land claimant and the tenants.
If the alienable and disposable land is no tenanted but has actual farm
occupants, and the public land claimant lacks the requisite thirty (30)-year
possession, these shall be under the jurisdiction of DENR and the appropriate
tenurial instrument shall be applied.
Ancestral Lands
Sec. 9 of RA 6657 defines ancestral lands as those that include, but not
limited to, lands in actual, continuous and open possession of an indigenous
cultural community and its members. Sec. 3 (b) of RA 8371 (1997) or the
“Indigenous Peoples Rights Act”, has more encompassing definition, to wit:
However, the full protection of the rights of the ICCs/IPs to their ancestral
lands under CARP is hampered by various legal constrains. For one, while Sec. 9
respects or protects the rights of the ICCs/IPs to their ancestral lands as means
to protect their economic, social and cultural well-being, its definition of ancestral
lands is circumscribed by the limitation that the Torrens System shall be
respected. This is a fundamental legal setback to the rights of ICCs/IPs. It should
be noted that the vested rights of these communities to ancestral lands have not
been recognized to have pre-existed the Regalian Doctrine which underlie the
government’s perspective to full ownership and control over natural resources as
well as the current legal system that regulates private property rights.
CARP involves alienable and disposable lands only while ancestral lands of
ICCs/IPs encompass forest and mineral lands and other lands of the public
domain which are by definition inalienable and indisposable. Thus, the benefit of
being awarded CLOAs over ancestral lands to these ICCs/IPs are limited to
private agricultural lands and public agricultural lands transferred to DAR.
In any case, to promote and protect the rights of the ICCs/IPs over
ancestral alnds situated in inalienable and indisposable public lands, DAR issues
member/s of the ICCs who are engaged in agricultural activities over the said
lands CARP Beneficiary Certificate (CBC). Though these do not vest title, it
likewise recognizes the claim of the ICC over these lands and allows them to
access support services from DAR>
RA 8371 (1997) has a more expensive definition of ancestral domains and
ancestral lands which includes lands that are legally determined as indisposable
and inalienable public lands. RA 8371 is a clear departure from either law and
regulation for not only does it expand the definition of ancestral lands but
recognizes the right of the ICCs/IPs to own these lands. National Commission on
Indigenous Peoples (NCIP), a body created by RA 8371, is vested, among others
with the power and to issue Certificates of Ancestral Domain/Land Titles over
ancestral lands.