BING’S
PRE-SPANISH PERIOD
 Before the Spaniards came the Filipinos lived in villages or
barangays ruled by chiefs or datus.
 Everyone had access to the fruits of the soil.
SPANISH PERIOD
 When the Spaniards came the concept of encomienda (Royal Land
Grants) was introduced.
 “haciendas” (wealthy Chinese families)
1ST PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC
 First Philippine Republic was established in 1899, Gen. Emilio
Aguinaldo declared in the Malolos Constitution his intention to
confiscate large estates.
 Aguinaldo’s plan was never implemented.
AMERICAN PERIOD
 Philippine Bill of 1902 – Set the ceilings: 16 hectares for private
individuals and 1,024 hectares for corporations.
 Land Registration Act of 1902 (Act No. 496) – registration of land
titles under the Torrens system.
 Public Land Act of 1903 – introduced the homestead system.
 Tenancy Act of 1933 (Act No. 4054 and 4113) – regulated
relationships between landowners and tenants of rice (50-50
sharing) and sugar cane lands.
COMMONWEALTH PERIOD
President Manuel L. Quezon espoused the “Social Justice” program.
 1935 Constitution- “The promotion of social justice to ensure the
well-being and economic security of all people should be the
concern of the State”
 Commonwealth Act No. 178 (An Amendment to Rice Tenancy Act
No.4045) -Certain controls in the landlord-tenant relationships
 Commonwealth Act. No.461, 1937 – Specified reasons for the
dismissal of tenants and only with the approval of the Tenancy
Division of the Department of Justice.
 Rural Program Administration, created March 2,1939- purchase and
lease of haciendas and their sale and lease to the tenants.
JAPANESE OCCUPATION
 peasants and workers organizations grew strength.
 peasants took up arms
 Anti- Japanese group, the HUKBALAHAP (Hukbo ng Bayan Laban sa
Hapon)
PHILIPPINE REPUBLIC
After Philippine Independence in 1964 , problems of land tenure remained .
President Manuel Roxas (1946-1948):
 Republic Act No. 34 – 70-30 sharing arrangements and regulating
share-tenancy contracts.
 Republic Act No.55 – more effective safeguard against arbitrary
ejectment of tenants.
President Elpidio Quirino (1948-1953)
 Executive Order No. 355 issued on October 23,1950 – Replaced the
National Land Settlement Administration with Land Settlement
Development Corporation (LASEDECO)
President Ramon Magsaysay (1953-1957)
 Republic Act No. 1160 of 1954 -- Abolished the LASEDECO and
established the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation
Administration (NARRA)
 Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954)–
o relationship between landowners and tenant farmers by
organizing share-tenancy and leasehold system.
o tenant has option to elect either share tenancy or
leasehold
o it also created the Court of Agrarian Relations.
 Republic Act No. 1400 (Land Reform Act of 1955) – Created the
Land Tenure Administration (LTA)
President Carlos P. Garcia (1957-1961)
 Continued the program of President Ramon Magsaysay.
President Diosdado Macapagal (1961-1965)
 Republic Act No. 3844 of August 8,1963– Abolished shared tenancy,
institutionalized leasehold.
President Ferdinand Marcos(1965-1986)
 Republic Act No.6389, (Code of Agrarian Reform) and RA No. 6390
of 1971 – Created the Department of Agrarian Reform and the
Agrarian Reform Special Account Fund.
o Provides automatic conversion of share tenancy to
leasehold
 Presidential Decree No. 2, September 26,1972 – Declared the
country under land reform program.
AGRARIAN 241 MIDTERM FILES 1
 Presidential Decree No.27,October 21,1972– Restricted land reform
scope to tenanted rice and corn lands and set the retention limit at 7
hectares.
President Corazon C. Aquino (1986-1992)
 Section 21 under Article II – “The State shall promote
comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.”
o signed into law Republic Act No. 6657
o became effective on June 15,1988
 Executive Order No. 228, July 16,1987– Declared full ownership to
qualified farmer-beneficiaries covered by PD 27.
 Executive Order No. 229, July 22,1987– Provided mechanism for the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP).
 Executive Order No.405, June 14,1990 – Vested in the Land Bank of
the Philippines the responsibility to determine land valuation and
compensation for all land covered by CARP.
President Fidel V. Ramos (1992-1998)
His administration committed to the vision “Fairer, faster and more
meaningful implementation of the Agrarian Reform Program.
 Republic Act No.7881, 1995 – Amended certain provisions of RA
6657 and exempted fishponds and prawns from the coverage of
CARP.
 Republic Act 8532,1998 (Agrarian Reform Fund Bill) –
additionalPhp50 billion for CARP and extended its implementation
for another 10 years.
President Joseph E. Estrada(1998-2000)“ERAP PARA SA MAHIRAP”
 launched the Magkabalikat Para sa Kaunlarang Agraryo or
MAGKASAKA.
President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (2000-present):
 Land Tenure Improvement/Provision of Support Services
 Infrastructure Project/ KALAHI ARZone
 Agrarian Justice
 CARPER
AGRARIAN DISPUTE (Sec. [d])
 2 AGRARIAN 241 MIDTERM FILES BING’S
 any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements (leasehold,  Trial court declared private respondent as agricultural lessee and  Malabanan hired the Bejasas to plant on the land and clear it, with
tenancy, stewardship) over lands devoted to agriculture confirmed by CA. all the expenses shouldered by Malabanan.
 any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under SC:  Bejasas continued to stay on the land and did not give any
CARL and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership.  ž SC found no reasons to disturb findings consideration for its use, be it in the form of rent or a shared harvest
 “tenancy relationship”  private respondent was in actual possession of land with family in a ISSUE: Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship in favor of the
farmhouse just like what a farm tenant normally would Bejasas
ESSENTIAL REQUISITIES  private resp. and wife were personally plowing, planting, weeding SC:
and harvesting.  Court found that there was no tenancy relationship between the
1. Parties – landowner & tenants  management was left entirely to private respondent parties. There was no proof that Malabanan and the Bejasas shared
2. Subject matter is agricultural land  private respondent shared the harvest with Suplico the harvests. Candelaria never gave her consent to the Bejasas’ stay
3. Consent of parties on the land. There was no proof that the Dinglasans gave authority
4. Purpose is agricultural production MONSANTO v. ZERNA to the Bejasas to be the tenant of the land in question. Not all the
5. Personal cultivation by tenant elements of tenancy were met in this case
6. Sharing of harvest between parties Tenancy relationship may be established verbally or writing
No proof of sharing in harvest
All requisites must concur, absence of one does not make one a tenant.  Spouses Zerna were charged with qualified theft for the taking of o while Bejasa testified, SC said only Bejasa’s word was
coconuts owned by petitioner. presented to prove this. Besides testimony was
Isidro v. CA  They were acquitted but required Zerna to return P1,100 to suspicious because of inconsistency Bejasa testified that
Monsanto on the ground that Monsanto did not consent to harvest he agreed to deliver 1/5 of harvest as owner’s share, yet
 ž Private respondent is owner of land; of coconut. at one time, he also mentioned that 25% was for
 ž Sister of private respondent allowed Isidro to occupy swampy  Who is entitled to P1,100 proceeds of copra sale. This falls under Malabanan and 50% for owner.
portion subject to condition to vacate upon demand DARAB o landowners never gave consent citing Chico vs. CA , 284
 ž Failure to vacate, unlawful detainer was filed against Isidro; There is Agrarian dispute 534 – “self serving statement are inadequate, proof must
 ž RTC dismissed because land is agricultural and so agrarian; 1. Subject of dispute was taking of coconuts be adhered”
SC: 2. Private respondents were overseers at time of taking by virtue of o even assuming that landowner agreed to lease it for
 ž Jurisdiction over subject matter determined from allegations of Agreement P20,000per year, such agreement did not prove tenancy .
complaint  Tenancy relationship may be established verbally or writing, Consideration should be harvest sharing.
 ž Court does not lose jurisdiction by defense of tenancy relationship expressly or impliedly
and only after hearing that, if tenancy is shown, the court should o here there was agreement which contradicts petitioner’s VALENCIA v. CA
dismiss for lack of jurisdiction contention that private respondents are mere overseers.
 ž Case involving agricultural land does not automatically make such Being overseers does not foreclose their being tenants. FACTS:
case agrarian 3. Petitioner allowed respondent to plant coconut, etc.  Valencia, owner of land, leased the property for five (5)years to Fr.
 ž Six requisites not present; 4. Harvests: receipts of remittance by respondent Andres Flores under a civil law lease concept;
 ž No contract to cultivate;  ž Petitioner is claiming the amount of P1,100 as balance from  Lease with prohibition against subleasing or encumbering the land
 Petitioner failed to substantiate claim that he was paying rent for proceeds of copra sale. without Valencia’s written consent.
use of land  ž Private respondents contend that this P1,100 is their  During the period of his lease, private respondents were instituted
compensation pursuant to tenurial arrangements. to cultivate without consent of Valencia
Suplico v. CA  ž Since this amount is intertwined with the resolution of agra  After lease, Valencia demanded vacate but refused;
 Suplico is a lessee of rice land dispute, CA correctly ruled that DARAB has jurisdiction.  Private respondents were later awarded with CLTs after they filed
 Private respondent was allowed by Suplico to till the land while  ž RTC has only jurisdiction over criminal and it acted beyond when application with DAR;
Suplico will provide the farm implements and thereafter Suplico it ruled that agri tenancy between parties. This belongs to DARAB.  CLTs were upheld by Exec Sec and CA.
was to receive cavans from the palay by way of rental ž ISSUE: Tenancy/Can a contract of civil law lease prohibit a civil law
 Years later, Suplico threatened to eject priv. resp. from the property lessee from employing a tenant on the land subject matter of the lease
 So private respondent filed an action for damages against Suplico in BEJASA v. CA agreement?
CAR ž
 Resp. Owner intervened in case and alleged the absence of  Candelaria owned two parcels of land, which she leased to
contractual relationship Malabanan.
SC:
 BING’S
 An allegation that an agricultural tenant tilled the land in question
does not make the case an agrarian dispute. The elements of
tenancy must first be proved in order to entitle the claimant to
security of tenure.
 A tenancy relationship cannot be presumed. With respect to the
lease agreement between Valencia and Fr. Flores, the lessee did not
have any authority to sublease Valencia's property due to the
prohibition in their lease agreement
 R.A. No. 3844, as amended, does not automatically authorize a civil
law lessee to employ a tenant without the consent of the landowner.
The lessee must be so specifically authorized;
 A different interpretation would create a perverse and absurd
situation where a person who wants to be a tenant, and taking
advantage of this perceived ambiguity in the law, asks a third
person to become a civil law lessee of the landowner. Incredibly,
this tenant would technically have a better right over the property
than the landowner himself
ALMUETE v. ANDRES (Issue on Ownership)
ž Facts:
 ž Almuete was in exclusive possession of subject land
 ž Unknown to Almuete, Andres was awarded homestead patent due
to investigation report that Almuete was unknown and waived his
rights; Andres also represented that Almuete sold the property to
Masiglat for radiophone set and that Masiglat sold to him for a
carabao and P600.
 Almuete filed an action for recovery of possession and
reconveyance before trial court
ž Issue is who between 2 awardees of lot has better right to property.
SC:
 This is controversy relating to ownership of farmland so, beyond
the ambit of agrarian dispute
 No juridical tie of landowner and tenant was alleged between
petitioners and respondent.
 RTC was competent to try the case.
PASONG BAYABAS v. CA (No Evidence)
 Development of land: converted from agricultural to residential as
approved by DAR.
 Petitioners, claimed actual tillers of land, filed complaint for
damages alleging surreptitious conversion; private respondent
denied cultivation; waiver of rights was executed by some
SC: no tenancy
» no allegation in complaint that petitioners members are
tenants; waiver of rights constitutes abandonment
» no substantial evidence that private respondent is landlord
» No possession/entry is w/o knowledge of owner.
» Cultivation / possession not proven
 As to the remaining twenty and more other complainants, it is
unfortunate that they have not shown that their cultivation,
possession and enjoyment of the lands they claim to till have been
by authority of a valid contract of agricultural tenancy.
 On the contrary, as admitted in their complaint a number of them
have simply occupied the premises in suit without any specific area
of tillage being primarily mere farm helpers of their relatives
ESCARIZ v. REVILLEZA (Tenancy Is Not Presumed)
 ž Involving fruit on land owned by private respondent
 ž Petitioner is claiming tenancy
 ž DARAB considered petitioner a tenant; CA reversed
SC: Tenancy is not presumed.
 No evidence to prove consent of parties and sharing of harvest
 SC agreed with CA that there is no evidence on record to prove the
existence of the following elements: (a) the consent of the parties
and (b) the sharing of harvests
HEIRS OF JUGALBOT v. CA
FACTS:
 ž Jugalbot was issued EP;
 ž EP was challenged by Heirs of private respondent before DARAB
and seek cancellation of title and recovery possession; on appeal,
DARAB upheld but CA reversed
SC: Absence of tenancy relationship.
 Taking of property violated due process (CA 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); 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;
 By analogy, Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals applies to the case
at bar since there was likewise a violation of due process
 No concrete evidence of cultivation; No proof was presented except
for their self-serving statements
o Independent evidence, aside from self-serving
statements, is needed.
o Plus CA findings - Jugalbot was oldier of US Army and
migrated to US and returned only in 1998, wife and
daughter were residents of California
 Land involved is residential and not agricultural because of zoning
ordinance
Coverage
AGRARIAN 241 MIDTERM FILES 3
Section 4
 ž All alienable and disposable public lands
 ž All private lands devoted to or suitable to agriculture
Section 5
Schedule of Implementation
 ž “The distribution xxx shall be implemented immediately and
completed within ten years from effectivity hereof.”
 ž Sec. 63: “The initial amount needed to implement this Act for the
period of ten years upon approval hereof shall be funded from the
Agrarian Reform Fund created under Sections 20 and 21 of
Executive Order No. 299. xxx.”
 ž RA 8542: amended Sec. 63 as follows: “The amount needed to
implement this Act until 2008 shall be funded from the Agrarian
Reform Fund.”
 RA 9700, Sec. 21:
“The amount needed to further implement the CARP as provided in
this Act, until June 30, 2014, upon expiration of funding under
Republic Act No. 8532 and other pertinent laws, shall be funded
from the Agrarian Reform Fund and other funding sources in the
amount of at least One hundred fifty billion pesos
(P150,000,000,000.00)”
MEANING OF SOCIAL LEGISLATION
Laws that seek to promote the common good, generally by protecting and
assisting the weaker members of society.
MEANING OF SOCIAL JUSTICE
Social Justice – is neither communism nor despotism, nor atomism, nor
anarchy, but the humanization of the laws and the equalization of social and
economic forces by the state so that justice in its National and objectively
secular conception may at least be approximated. Social justice means the
promotion of the welfare of all the people, the adoption by government of
measures calculated to insure economic stability of all the component
elements of society, through the maintenance of proper economic and social
equilibrium in the interrelations of the members of the community,
constitutionally, through the adoption of measures legally justifiable, and
extra-constitutionally, through the exercise of powers underlying the
existence of all government on time-honored principle of salus populi est
suprema lex.
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISIONS ON AGRARIAN REFORM
 4 AGRARIAN 241 MIDTERM FILES BING’S
(5) Specific provision on agrarian and natural resources reform. Article XIII: (R.A. No. 3844, as amended)
Liabilities of lessor if he ejects tenant without authorization?
Sec. 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded BENEFICIARIES  Fine or imprisonment
on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own  Tenant Farmers  Damages suffered
directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers,  Agricultural wage-earners or farm workers  Attorney’s fees
to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall  Settlers including migrant workers  Remuneration for last income
encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject  Owner-cultivators of less than family-size farms
to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may Lease rental
prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity LANDS COVERED BY THE CODE Shall not be more than the equivalent of 25% of the average normal harvest
considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In  Tenanted Areas during the 3 agricultural years immediately preceding the date of leasehold
determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small  Landed Estates after deducting amount used for seeds and costs of harvesting, threshing,
landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-  Old Settlements loading, hauling and processing.
sharing.  Proposed Settlements
TENANTS EMANCIPATION DECREE
Sec. 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and COMPOSITION OF THE CODE (Pres. Decree no.27)
landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers’ An agricultural leasehold system to replace all existing share tenancy systems
organizations to participate in the planning organization, and management of in agriculture. BENEFICIARIES
the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate Beneficiaries of the Decree are the bona fide tenant farmers of private
technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and Why leasehold? agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of share-
other support services.  Protects tenurial and economic status crop or lease tenancy (not farm labor), whether classified as landed estate or
 Guarantees physical possession, enjoyment and management not.
Sec. 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship,
 Assures continuity of relations
whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of The tenant farmer
 In case lessor sells or alienates the legal possession, transferee shall
other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or whether in land classified aslanded estate (i.e., with an area of 24 hectares or
be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of
concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of above) or not, shall be deemed owner (subject to certain requirements and
lessor
small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their ancestral conditions) of a portion constituting a family size of five (5) hectares, if not
lands. irrigated and three (3)hectares, if irrigated. Lands transferred to tenant-
Agricultural leasehold?
“The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own farmers under the Decree will revert to the government and not to the
A juridical tie between lessor and lessee
agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided landowners in case where the tenant abandons his tillage or refuses to take
by law. advantage of his rights under the laws.
Grounds to dispossess a lessee?
 Failure to substantially comply with terms and conditions unless by
Sec. 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, Note that the Decree does not apply to lands owned by the government or
fortuitous event
especially of local communities; to the preferential use of the communal government-owned corporation.
marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide  Planting of crops or use land for other purpose than that agreed
support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research,  Failure to adopt proven farm practices to conserve land
adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services.  Fault or negligence resulting in substantial damage
The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The  Does not pay rental when due
 Employed a sublessee PD 27
protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen
against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their
Extinguishment of relation v. dispossession?  DIFFERENCE
labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources.
 Extinguishment – no court approval: voluntary act (abandonment of o PD 27 – rice & corn land
land without knowledge of lessor, voluntary surrender by lessee) or o RA 6657 – all other agricultural land (including lands of public
Sec. 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds
act of God domain)
of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, employment
creation, and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial instruments  Dispossession – with court order: premised on offense by lessee
used as payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in enterprises of Can relation be terminated by death?
No, continue between lessor and members of lessee’s immediate farm  Sigre v. CA
their choice.
household to be chosen by lessor within 1 month from death: 1. surviving o PD 27 is suppletory and operates separately from RA 6657
THE CODE OF AGRARIAN REFORMS spouse; 2. eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; 3. next eldest
descendants in the order of their age.
 BING’S
 Can lands required under PD 27 be transferred by DAR to
another qualified beneficiary?
o Estolas v. Mabalot: land may only be transferred either by
succession or to government.
 Land Bank v. Heirs of Cruz
o determination of just compensation should be based on RA
6657 for lands covered under PD 27.
o PD 27 applies only suppletorily.
CHAPTER 1
 Is industrialization a component of Agrarian Reform?
Sec.2 (RA 6657)
o “ …sound rural development and industrialization”
o “…to promote industrialization”
o Industrial inputs necessary to agriculture (fertilizers,
insecticides, hybrid seeds, irrigation systems, tractors)
 Can private corporation acquire ownership of alienable lands
of public domain?
Chavez v. PEA
o No, only through lease not exceeding 25 yrs. , renewable not
more than 25yrs. and not to exceed 1,000 hectares (CONST.,
Art. XII, Sec.3)
Sec. 3 (b) “Agriculture” or “Agricultural Activity”
Means the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees,
raising of livestock, poultry or fish including the harvesting of such farm
products, and other farm activities and practices performed by a farmer in
conjunction with such farming operations done by person whether natural or
juridical.
Luz Farms v. Sec.
 Sec.3 (b) unconstitutional (“raising of livestock, poultry and swine”
per SC)
 “use of land is incidental and not the principal factor”
RA 7881 (effective May 1995)
 amended Sec.3(b) and removed “the raising of livestock, poultry or
fish”
Luz Farms Case
 Raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or tree
farming.
 Industrial, not agricultural activity.
 Great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in the form of
industrial fixed assets, such as: animal housing structures and
facilities, drainage, waterers and blowers, feedmill with grinders,
mixers, conveyors, exhausts and generators, extensive warehousing
facilities for feeds and other supplies, anti-pollution equipment like
bio-gas and digester plants augmented by lagoons and concrete
ponds, deepwells, elevated water tanks, pumphouses, sprayers, and
other technological appurtenances
Admin. Order No. 01, S. 2004
 Objective: to prevent circumvention of CARP and to protect the
rights of ARBs due to unauthorized change/conversion or
fraudulent declaration of areas used for cattle purposes
 Coverage: all applications for exclusion from CARP of private agri
lands actually, exclusively and directly used for cattle raising as of
15 June 1988
 Types of animal: cattle (of bovine family), bull, calf, cow
 Policies:
(1) Those ADE used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 shall be
excluded (exclusion to be granted only upon proof and
continuously utilized up to time of application);
(2) Any change in use shall be subject to policies on land
conversion
(3) Only the grazing/pasture area and for infrastructure necessary
for cattle raising shall be excluded; all other areas shall be
covered
(4) Encourage growth of cattle industry
(5) If filing of exclusion is in response to notice of CARP coverage,
DAR shall deny due course if application is filed 60 days after
date of receipt of notice
(6) Only exclusion applications fully supported by documents
shall be accepted
DAR v. Sutton
 Masbate land - cattle-breeding capital of Phil (VOS - due to Luz
Farms - withdraw VOS)
 Constitutionality of AO No. 9, S. 1993 (prescribing a maximum
retention limit for owners of lands devoted to livestock raising);
 SC nullified AO; RA 7881 changed definition of “agricultural activity“
by dropping from its coverage lands that are devoted to commercial
livestock, poultry and swine-raising. Congress clearly sought to
align the provisions of our agrarian laws with the intent of the 1987
Constitutional Commission to exclude livestock farms from the
coverage of agrarian reform.
Admin. Order No. 07, S. 2008
Policy guidelines:
AGRARIAN 241 MIDTERM FILES 5
 Lands ADE used for livestock purposes as of 15 June 1988 and
continuously used shall be excluded; conversely, those not ADE are
subject to CARP if one or more of the following conditions apply: (1)
there is agricultural activity in the area (i.e., cultivation of soil,
planting of crops, growing of trees including harvesting); (2) land is
suitable for agriculture and occupied and tilled by farmers.
 In line with principle of regularity in the performance of official
functions, all processes by DAR per AO No. 9 are valid
Sec. 3 (c) “Agricultural land”
 land devoted to agricultural activity
 not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or
industrial
Natalia Realty v. DAR
 1979, Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares
of land located in the Municipalities of Antipolo, San Mateo and
Montalban as townsite areas to absorb the population overspill in
the metropolis which were designated as the Lungsod Silangan
Townsite. The NATALIA properties are situated within the areas
proclaimed as townsite reservation.
 NATALIA properties later became the Antipolo Hills Subdivision
 Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo
Hills Subdivision which consisted of roughly 90.3307 hectares.
NATALIA immediately registered its objection to the Notice of
Coverage
 “they ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of the
reservation”
 lands previously converted by government agencies, other than
DAR, to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL
were outside the coverage of that law
 ruling not confined solely to agricultural lands located within
townsite reservations, but applied also to real estate converted to
non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL
DAR AO No. 4 (Rules on exemption)
“all lands already classified as commercial, industrial or residential before
June 15,1988 no longer need conversion clearance”
Requirements
(1) Sworn application, copy of title, certification from HLURB (zoning or
classification, citing zoning ordinance), among others
(2) Public notice
(3) Disturbance compensation
 6 AGRARIAN 241 MIDTERM FILES
Roxas & Co.
 Notice of coverage was wrongfully sent
SC
 DAR's failure to observe due process in the acquisition of
petitioners' landholdings does not ipso facto give the Supreme
Court the power to adjudicate over petitioner's application for
conversion of its haciendas from agricultural to non-agricultural.
The power to determine whether Hacienda Palico, Banilad and
Caylaway are non-agricultural, hence, exempts from the coverage of
the CARL lies with the DAR, not with the Supreme Court.
 Case was remanded to DAR for proper acquisition proceedings and
determination of petitioner's application for conversion
NHA v. Allarde
SC
 As early as April 26, 1971, the Tala Estate (including the disputed
lots) was reserved under Presidential Proclamation No. 843, for the
housing program of the National Housing Authority, the same has
been categorized as not being devoted to the agricultural activity
contemplated by Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657, and is, therefore,
outside the coverage of the CARL. Verily, the assailed Orders of the
respondent Court declaring the lots under controversy as
"agricultural land" and restraining the petitioner from involving the
same in its housing project thereon, are evidently bereft of any
sustainable basis
Advincula-Velasquez v. CA
SC
 Since the property was already reclassified as residential by the
Metro Manila Commission and the HSRC before the effectivity of
Rep. Act No. 6657, there was no need for the private respondent to
secure any post facto approval thereof from the DAR
Alangilan v. Office of President
SC
 It is beyond cavil that the Alangilan landholding was classified as
agricultural, reserved for residential in 1982, and was reclassified
as residential-1 in 1994. However, contrary to petitioner's
assertion, the term reserved for residential does not change the
nature of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural. As aptly
explained by the DAR Secretary, the term reserved for residential
simply reflects the intended land use. It does not denote that the
property has already been reclassified as residential, because the
phrase reserved for residential is not a land classification category.
 Indubitably, at the time of the effectivity of the CARL in 1988, the
subject landholding was still agricultural. This was bolstered by the
fact that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had to pass an Ordinance in
1994, reclassifying the landholding as residential-1. If, indeed, the
BING’S
landholding had already been earmarked for residential use in  Extinguishment – no court approval: voluntary act (abandonment of
1982, as petitioner claims, then there would have been no necessity land without knowledge of lessor, voluntary surrender by lessee) or
for the passage of the 1994 Ordinance act of God
 Dispossession – with court order: premised on offense by lessee
Can relation be terminated by death?
No, continue between lessor and members of lessee’s immediate farm
THE CODE OF AGRARIAN REFORMS household to be chosen by lessor within 1 month from death: 1. surviving
(R.A. No. 3844, as amended) spouse; 2. eldest direct descendant by consanguinity; 3. next eldest
descendants in the order of their age.
BENEFICIARIES
 Tenant Farmers Liabilities of lessor if he ejects tenant without authorization?
 Agricultural wage-earners or farm workers  Fine or imprisonment
 Settlers including migrant workers  Damages suffered
 Owner-cultivators of less than family-size farms  Attorney’s fees
 Remuneration for last income
LANDS COVERED BY THE CODE
 Tenanted Areas Lease rental
 Landed Estates Shall not be more than the equivalent of 25% of the average normal harvest
 Old Settlements during the 3 agricultural years immediately preceding the date of leasehold
after deducting amount used for seeds and costs of harvesting, threshing,
 Proposed Settlements
loading, hauling and processing.
COMPOSITION OF THE CODE
TENANTS EMANCIPATION DECREE
An agricultural leasehold system to replace all existing share tenancy systems
(Pres. Decree no.27)
in agriculture.
Why leasehold? BENEFICIARIES
Beneficiaries of the Decree are the bona fide tenant farmers of private
 Protects tenurial and economic status
agricultural lands primarily devoted to rice and corn under a system of share-
 Guarantees physical possession, enjoyment and management
crop or lease tenancy (not farm labor), whether classified as landed estate or
 Assures continuity of relations
not.
 In case lessor sells or alienates the legal possession, transferee shall
be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of
The tenant farmer
lessor
whether in land classified aslanded estate (i.e., with an area of 24 hectares or
above) or not, shall be deemed owner (subject to certain requirements and
Agricultural leasehold?
conditions) of a portion constituting a family size of five (5) hectares, if not
A juridical tie between lessor and lessee
irrigated and three (3)hectares, if irrigated. Lands transferred to tenant-
farmers under the Decree will revert to the government and not to the
Grounds to dispossess a lessee?
landowners in case where the tenant abandons his tillage or refuses to take
 Failure to substantially comply with terms and conditions unless by
advantage of his rights under the laws.
fortuitous event
 Planting of crops or use land for other purpose than that agreed Note that the Decree does not apply to lands owned by the government or
 Failure to adopt proven farm practices to conserve land government-owned corporation.
 Fault or negligence resulting in substantial damage
 Does not pay rental when due
 Employed a sublessee
CHAPTER II
HOMESTEAD GRANTEES (Sec.6)
Extinguishment of relation v. dispossession?
 BING’S
Homestead Patent
 a mode of acquiring alienable and disposable lands of public domain for
agricultural purposes conditioned upon actual cultivation and residence
 filed at CENRO where land being applied is located
 who are qualified
o citizens of Philippines
o over 18 years old
o not owner of more than 12 hectares of land (Art XII, Sec. 3,
1987 Constitution)
 designed to distribute disposable agricultural lots of the State to land-
destitute citizens for their home and cultivation. Pursuant to such
benevolent intention the State prohibits the sale or encumbrance of the
homestead (CA 141, Section 116) within five years after the grant of the
patent. After that five-year period the law impliedly permits alienation of
the homestead, but in line with the primordial purpose to favor with the
homesteader and his family the statute provides that such alienation or
conveyance (Section 117) shall be subject to the right of repurchase by
the homesteader, his widow or heirs
CARL Recognizes Rights of Homesteaders (Sec.6)
 expressly recognized in Sec. 6, Art XIII, Constitution
ALITA v. CA (1989)
 private respondents predecessors-in-interest have acquired 2
parcels of land in Zamboanga del Sur thru homestead patent
 petitioners/ tenants refuse to vacate relying on PD27
SC:
 PD decreed the emancipation of tenants from bondage of soil and
transferring to them ownership of land they till.
 However, PD27 cannot be involved to defeat the very purpose of CA
141 (Public Land Act)
 Phil. Constitution respects the superiority of homesteader’s rights
and CARL also.
¨Sec. 6:
“xxx Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or their 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. xxx.”
PARIS v. ALFECHE (2001)
 Paris is owner of 10 hectares in Bukidnon and another property of
13 hectares. She admitted that land is fully tenanted by private
respondents Alfeche,et al.
 Paris claimed that she is entitled to retention and that as original
homestead grantee, she is entitled to retain the lands to the
exclusion of tenants.
SC:
 Petitioner’s contention is w/o legal basis
 PD applies to all tenanted private agriculture lands primarily
devoted to rice and corn. Nowhere does it appear that lots obtained
by homestead patents are exempted from its operation.
 Under RA 6657, rights of homestead grantee are provided but with
condition: only for “as long as they continue to cultivate them”.
 That parcels of land are covered by homestead will not
automatically exempt them from operation of land reform. It is the
fact of continued cultivation by original grantees or direct
compulsory heirs that shall exempt their lands.
 Petitioner can retain however 5 hectares which require no
qualifying condition (Sec.6)
 Petitioner’s heirs are not entitled to awards of 3 hectares each since
they are not actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm.
 As compared to Alita, owner was desirous of personally cultivating
the homestead, thus Court upheld right of homestead owners.
 In this case, petitioner and heirs did not cultivate the land and have
not expressed any desire to cultivate them.
Retention Rights
 NCC:
o conjugal – total is 5;
o capital/paraphernal – not more than 5 each but not
exceed 10
 FC (Aug.3,1988) per DAR Adm. Order No. 2, s. 2003:
o capital/paraphernal – not to exceed 5 provided with
judicial separation
o absolute (presumed) – total not to exceed 5
Landowner’s Retention Rights
 Is this right defeated by the issuance of CLTs/EPs or CLOAs?
DAEZ v. CA
 Issuance of EPs/CLOA’s to beneficiaries does not absolutely bar
landowner from retaining the area.
 In fact, EP or CLOA may be cancelled if land covered in later found
to be part of landowner’s retained area
 In this case, CLTs of private respondent were leased w/o according
Daez her right of choice. So DAR was ordered to fully accord Daez
her rights under Sec.6 of RA 6657.
 Retention by landowner: 5 hectares
 Retention by each child of landowner: 3 hectares provided:
1. at least 15 years of age; and
2. actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm
AGRARIAN 241 MIDTERM FILES 7
DAR Adm. Order # 2, S.2003
 Who may apply for retention
 Period to exercise right of retention
 Where to file
 Instance where owner is considered to have waived his right of
retention
 Operating produces: MARO – PARO – REG. DIRECTOR- Sec. (Appeal)
 “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”. (RA 9700, Sec. 3)
 “SEC. 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
xxx.” (RA 9700, Sec. 4)
Sec. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions
 lands ADE used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation,
fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds, watersheds and mangroves
(exempt);
 private lands ADE used for prawn farms and fishponds (exempt)
 lands ADE used and found to be necessary for national defense,
school sites and campuses including experimental farm stations,
seeds and seedlings research, church sites and convents, mosque
sites, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and
farms and all lands with 18% slope and over (exempt)
Exemptions From Coverage (Sec. 10)
CENTRAL MINDANAO v. DARAB
 The subject lands are exempted because they are actually, directly &
exclusively used and found necessary for school site and campus,
including experimental farm stations for educational purposes and
for establishing seed and seeding research
 The construction of DARAB in Section 10 restricting the land area of
CMU to its present needs overlooked the significant factor it growth
of a university in years to come. By the nature of CMU, which is a
school established to promote agriculture & industry, the need for
vast tract of agriculture land for future programs of expansion is
obvious.
 While portion of CMU land was leased by Phil. Packing Corp.(now
Del Monte), the agreement was prior to CARL & was directly
 8 AGRARIAN 241 MIDTERM FILES
connected to the purpose & objectives of CMU as educational
institution
 As to determination of when and what lands are found to be
necessary for use of CMU, school is in best position to resolve &
answer the question. DARAB & CA have no right to substitute unless
it is manifest that CMU has no real need for land.
ATLAS FERTILIZER v. SEC.
 Atlas engaged in the aquaculture industry utilizing fishponds and
prawn farms; challenged RA 6657 which coverage lands devoted to
the aquaculture industry, particularly fishponds and prawn farms.
SC:
 R.A. No. 7881 expressly state that fishponds and prawn farms are
excluded from the coverage of CARL. In view of the foregoing, the
question concerning the constitutionality of the assailed provisions
has become moot and academic with the passage of R.A. No. 7881
SANCHEZ v. MARIN
Issue:
 Whether the subject fishpond is exempted/excluded from the
coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the
government by virtue of the amendments introduced by R.A. No.
7881 to R.A. No. 6657
SC:
 Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7881 amended Section 10 of Republic
Act No. 6657 by expressly exempting/excluding private lands
actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and
fishponds from the coverage of the CARL.
REPUBLIC v. CA
 Tax declaration classified subject land as agricultural
 DAR issued notice of coverage & owner applied for exemption.
 Application was denied and on appeal the Court of Appeals created
a commission to conduct ocular inspection and survey the land.
Later, based on the report submitted by the commission, the Court
of Appeals reversed the Order of the DAR and exempted the lands
from CARL.
 Republic contends that tax declaration classified it as agriculture &
which cannot be altered by mere ocular inspection.
SC:
 There is no law/jurisprudence that land classification in tax
declaration is conclusive; tax declaration is clearly not sole basis of
classification of land. SC gave credence to commission’s report.
 Based on their report, it was found that the land use map submitted
by private respondent was an appropriate document consistent
with the existing land use. It was confirmed that the lands are not
BING’S
wholly agricultural as they consist of mountainous area with an  DAR issued A.O #9 (1993) which provide that only portions of land
average of 28% slope; used for raising of livestock, poultry & swine shall be excluded.
 The CARL has further provided that all lands with 18% slope and  DAR partially exempted portion but ordered acquisition the rest.
over except those already developed shall be exempt from the SC:
coverage of CARL.  AO is invalid as it contravene Constitution since livestock,
swine/poultry raising do not fall under “agriculture” & “agricultural
STA. ROSA activity”
Material is exempted from CARP
Plus 18% slope lands so exempted. Adm. Order #7 (2008) (Guidelines per Sutton Case (livestock raising)
 Lands ADE used for livestock like cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 &
Commercial Farms (Sec. 11) continuously devoted shall be excluded.
 Commercial farms – private agricultural lands devoted to saltbeds, fruit
farms, orchards, vegetable and cut-flower farms and cacao, coffee and  Those not ADE are subject to CARP provided agricultural activity
rubber plantations. They are subject to compulsory acquisition and land is suitable for agriculture presently tilled by farmers.
distribution after 10 years from effectivity.
LUZ FARMS
 Sec. II which includes “private agricultural land devoted to
commercial livestock, poultry & swine raising” in definition of CHAPTER III
“commercial farms” is invalid. IMPROVEMENT OF TENURIAL & LABOR RELATION
Adm. Order #01 (2004) WAYS IN DISTRIBUTING LANDS TO QUALIFIED FARMERS?
rules & regulations governing exclusion of agricultural land used for cattle
 Compulsory acquisition (Sec.16)
raising from CARP.
 Voluntary offer to sell/voluntary land transfer (Sec.20)
 Non-land transfer schemer
Citing Luz Farms case
o stock distribution option(SDO)
 Private agricultural land or portions thereof actually, exclusively
o production & profit sharing (PPS)- Sec. 13/32)
&directly used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 shall be
excluded. o leasehold operation(Sec.12)
 Exclusion shall be granted only upon proof of AED prior to 15 June
1988 & continuously utilized for such purpose up to application Sec.12 of 6657 mandates DAR to determine & fix the lease rentals within
 Any act to change or convert; w/ intent to avoid CARP, shall be the retained areas and areas not yet acquired
invalid
Sec. 6 of 6657 recognizes the right of farmer to elect
 Only the grazing area & portions of property required for
- farmer-beneficiary
infrastructure necessary for cattle raising shall be considered for
exclusion - leaseholds in retained area
 A.O #9, S of 1998 – allows commercial farms certain options, subject
to approval of DAR & workers: (aside from voluntary & compulsory Sec.67 of 6657 directs RD to register patents, title & documents required
coverage) for implementation of CARP
 CLOAs are issued in name of cooperative of workers
o joint venture  Pursuant to DAR’s mandate to protect the rights & improve
tenurial & economic status of farmers in tenanted lands, DAR
o grower ship agreement
issued AO 02-06
o lease – back
 Leasehold is based on tenancy relationship (repeat 6
o direct payment requisites)
DAR v. SUTTON
 land devoted to cow & calf breeding  Leasehold relation shall not be extinguished by expiration at
term nor by sale . In case of alienation, purchaser/transferee
 Lands under VOS before CARP shall be subjugated to rights/obligation of lessor.
 After CARP & Luz Farms case, Sutton filed withdrawal of VOS
 BING’S
 DARAB has jurisdiction to cancel leasehold contract .
 The consideration of lease shall not be more than 25% of
average normal harvest during 3 agri years
AO 02-06 states, among others, the rights & obligations of lessor/lessee.
CHAPTER IV
REGISTRATION
Sec. 14 & 15 require the registration of landowners & beneficiaries w/ DAR.
Purpose is to establish databank & identify actual famer-beneficiaries.
FORTICH v. CORONA
 intervenors claimed that they are farmworkers & so intervened in
case.
SC
 there is no ruling yet from DAR whether intervenors are
beneficiaries, so they have no standing yet to intervene in the case.
 DAR safeguard the list of ARB them IDs as proof of being bonafide
beneficiaries
 DARAB has jurisdiction to disqualify an ARB
LAND ACQUISITION AND REDISTRIBUTION
 Landlessness is acknowledged as the core problem in the rural
areas and the root cause of peasant unrest.
 In order to hasten the implementation of the program, the
Department of Agrarian Reform has made compulsory acquisition
the priority mode of land acquisition. To the same end, the law
provides for the steps in acquiring private lands through
administrative instead of judicial proceedings. This procedure is
allowed provided the requirements of due process as to notice and
hearing are complied with.
 Compulsory acquisition may be defined as the mandatory
acquisition of agricultural lands including facilities and
improvements necessary for agricultural production, as may be
appropriate, for distribution to qualified beneficiaries upon
payment of just compensation.
 The Notice of Coverage (NOC) commences the compulsory
acquisition of private agricultural lands coverable under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Along the
various phases of the CARP proceedings, the process stalls because
of Land Owner (LO) resistance, most of whom invoke the ground of
lack of notice or non-observance of due process in attacking the
proceedings.
CHAPTER V
LAND ACQUISITION
 Sec. 16 outlines the procedure for acquisition of private land
 Take note of Sec.16 (d) & (e):
1. practice of having no deed of transfer or conveyance
2. titles are cancelled w/o owner’s copy surrendered (in Torren's
System, if there is refusal in involuntary dealings remedy is file
petition in count
3. RD titles are cancelled while owner’s copy is subsisting
 Sec. 66 (Exemptions from taxes &fees of land transfer)
 Sec. 67 (Free Registration of patents, titles & documents required
for implementation of CARP)
 Sec. (e): Once DAR request and LBP makes deposit of initial
valuation, can request RD to cancel title & transfer it to Republic of
Phil.
o So even if landowners protest valuation, distribution of land
will proceed.
o CLOAs are issued upon land acquisition: so cancellation of title
of landowner can simultaneously go w/ issuance of CLOA.
 In Association of small land owners, SC did not say “automatically”
o SC said that title and ownership remain w/ LO until full
payment of past conversation.
CONFED vs. DAR
 Compulsory Acquisition
 Notice of Acquisition
 First step: identification of the land, the landowners and the
beneficiaries.
 Law is silent
 Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989
 Valid implementation , two notices
 DAR A.O. No.12, Series of 1989, amended in 1990 by DAR A.O. No.9,
Series of 1990 and in 1993 by DAR A.O No.1, Series of 1993
QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES
(1) The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to
landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless
residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority:
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;
(b) regular farmworkers;
(c) seasonal farmworkers;
(d) other farmworkers;
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
AGRARIAN 241 MIDTERM FILES 9
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
(g) others directly working on the land;
(2) The children of landowners who are qualified shall be given preference in
the distribution of the land of their parents.
(3) Actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or removed
therefrom.
(4) Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No.27 who have culpably sold,
disposed of, or abandoned their lands are disqualified to become beneficiaries
under the Program.
(5) A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude, and
ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible.
(6) If, due to the landowner’s retention rights or to the number of tenants,
lessees, or workers on the land, there is not enough land to accommodate any
or some of them, they may be granted ownership of other lands available for
distribution under the Act, at the option of the beneficiaries.
(8) No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3) hectares of
agricultural land. (Sec. 23)
AWARD TO BENEFICIARIES
 Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of
Land Ownership Award, which shall contain the restrictions and
conditions provided for in the Act, and shall be recorded in the
Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of
Title. (Sec. 24)
ISSUANCE OF CARP BENEFICIARY CERTIFICATE
 When certificate issued. – Section 24 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that
the rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence
from the time the DAR makes an award of the land to him, which
award shall be completed within 180 days from the time the DAR
takes actual possession of the land. Ownership of the lands by the
beneficiary shall be evidenced by an Emancipation Patent (EP) or a
Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA), which shall contain
the restrictions, and conditions provided by law and which shall be
recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the
Certificate of Title.
 In several instances, however, the EP or CLOA cannot be
immediately issued pending the fulfillment of certain legal and
administrative requirements. Examples of these are:
a. The Supreme Court ruling in the case of “Association of Small
Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian
Reform” (G.R. No. 76742, 14,July 1989.) that title to all
expropriated properties shall be transferred to the State only
 10 AGRARIAN 241 MIDTERM FILES
upon full payment of compensation to their respective
landowners;
b. The conduct of subdivision surveys to define the specific
parcel of land being awarded through the EP or CLOA.
 Thus, pending the fulfillment of the said requirements, the
identified beneficiaries may already be in possession of the land but
still have no EP or CLOA therefor. For this reason, the DAR shall
first issue a CARP Beneficiary Certificate (CBC) to provide the
would-be beneficiaries, an intermediate document to evidence that
they have been identified and have qualified as agrarian reform
beneficiaries under the CARP. Moreover, aside from attesting to the
inchoate right of the identified beneficiary to be awarded the land
or portion thereof, the CBC issued shall entitle the recipient to
receive support services under the CARP.
PAYMENT BY BENEFICIARIES
1. Lands awarded pursuant to the Act shall be paid for by the
beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30) annual amortization at 6%
interest per annum subject to the following rules:
a. The payments for the first three (3) years after the award may
be at reduced amounts as established by the PARC.
b. The first five (5) annual payments may not be more than 5% of
the value of the annual gross production as established by the
DAR.
c. Should the scheduled annual payments after the fifth year
exceed 10% of the annual gross production and the failure to
produce accordingly is not due to the beneficiary’s fault, the
LBP may reduce the interest rate or reduce the principal
obligation to make the repayment affordable.
2. The LBP shall have a lien (i.e., prior right) by way of mortgage on
the land awarded to the beneficiary; and this mortgage may be
foreclosed by the LBP for non-payment of an aggregate of three(3)
annual amortization. The LBP shall advice the DAR of such
proceedings and the latter shall subsequently award the forfeited
landholding to other qualified beneficiaries. A beneficiary whose
land has been foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently
disqualified from becoming a beneficiary under the Act. (Sec. 26.)
TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LANDS
1. Lands acquired by beneficiaries under the Act may not be sold,
transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession, or to
the government, or to the LBP or to other qualified beneficiaries for
a period of ten (10) years. However, the children of the spouse of
the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the land from the
government or LBP within a period of two (2) years.
Due notice of the availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to
the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) of the barangay
where the land is situated. The Provincial Agrarian Reform
BING’S
Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) shall, in turn, be given the due
notice thereof by the BARC.
2. If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights
to the land may be transferred or conveyed, with prior approval of
the DAR, to any heir of the beneficiary or to any other beneficiary
who, as a condition for such transfer or conveyance, shall cultivate
the land himself.
NON-LAND TRANSFER SCHEMES
1. Leasehold Operations (LO)- lands within the land owners’ retained
areas or lands not yet due for distribution are placed under
leasehold to ensure farmers’ security over the land they till and pre-
empt their displacement while waiting for the eventual distribution
of the land;
2. Production Profit Sharing (PPS)- This scheme is an interim measure
while the lands owned or operated by agricultural entities await
coverage under the CARP. There entities are companies mostly
involved in the commercial production of rubber, banana, and
pineapple;
3. Stock Distribution Option (SDO). - Under this arrangement, the
farmers are entitled to dividends and other financial benefits and
are also assured of at least a representatives at the Board of
Directors, management or executive committee to protect the rights
and interest of shareholders; and
4. Commercial Farm Deferment (SFD). – This scheme provides
corporate landowners of newly-established commercial plantations
enough time to recover their investment before such agricultural
lands are covered by CARP. The deferment period was up to 1998.
Pending final land transfer, however, these corporations shall
implement a production and profit-sharing scheme in their farms.
The monitoring of non-land transfer activities by the field offices of
the DAR has not been given much priority,
As there has been greater pressure for them to deliver their land
acquisition and distribution (LAD) targets.