AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALIZED JUDGE RECAREDO P. BARTE (ret.) LLB, Manuel L. Quezon Law School, Manila Philippines; ‘Member, Integrated Bar of the Philippines; Former Municipal Judge, Former Assistant Provincial Fiscal, Antique; Former Assistant Regional State Prosecutor, Department of Justice; Former Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, San Miguel, Zamboanga del Sur; Former Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 31, Hoilo City; Former Assisting Judge, Judiciary Planning Development and Implementation Office, Supreme Court, Manila; Law Professor, University of the East-Manila; Law Professor, Far Eastern University Institute of Law, Manila; Law Professor, University of Manila College of Law: Law Professor, University of San Agustin College of Law, Milo City (on leave); ‘Member, Association of Law Professors (PALP): ‘Member, Philippines Judges Association (PJA); ‘Member, Association of Retired RTC Judges of the Philippines (ARRJOP) 2018 EDITION Published & Distibuted by REX Book Store 856 Neanor Reyes, St. St ‘Tel. Nos. 736-05-57 735-13-64Philippine Copyright 2018 by RECAREDO P, BARTE ISBN 978-971-23-9887-2 No portion of this book may be copied or reproduced in books, pamphlets, outlines or notes, whether printed, mimeographed, typewritten, copied in different electronic devices or in any other form, for distribution or sale, without the written permission of the author except brief passages in books, articles, reviews, legal papers, and judicial or other official proceedings with proper citation. Any copy of this book without the corresponding number and the signature of the author on this page either proceeds from an illegitimate source or is in possession of one who has no authority to dispose of the same. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED BY THE AUTHOR, nol” "0532 Printod by xing cnr PREFACE More than two decades have passed since the Comprehen. sive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (R.A. No, 6657) was enacted by Congress, during which effectivity a lot of amendments had been introduced into the statute. This is not to mention the number of Department Circulars that have been issued by the DAR in the im- plementation of the CARL, so as to keep abreast with the present day agrarian relations, as well as the latest doctrines promulgated by the Supreme Court on the application and interpretation of the law. Moreover, Section 75 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that R.A. No. 9844, as amended, P.D. No. 27, otherwise known as the Tenants Emancipation Decree and 266 which continue to operate with re- spect to rice and corn lands, B.0. No. 288 transferring full owner- ship of lands to qualified beneficiaries under P.D. No. 27 and E.O. No. 229, which provides for the mechanism for the implementation of the CARP, shall continue to have suppletory application in so far as they are not inconsistent with the CARL of 1988. Hence, confu- sion in the application of these Executive Orders and the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 are likely to arise, necessitating for an appropriate solution to the problem at hand. One such problem that may arise and in fact has spawned al- ready multiple agrarian disputes, is the tenurial status of a lease- holder who cannot be dispossessed of his landholding even by the owner of the land himself. This author has cited only one example of the many conflicts that exist between the tenant farmer and land- owner. The thrust however of this work, above all paramount con: siderations is to familiarize and educate the unschooled and power- less farmworkers in the countryside of their rights under the law, who are always being taken advantage of by unscrupulous landown: ers, in order that they could assert their rights and prevent them from being exploited by these powerful magnates. We shall continue to delve on these conflicting interests in agrarian relations as the reader is treated to the pages of this work. RECAREDO P. BARTEDEDICATION ‘This work is dedicated to all farmers in this country who are chained to the plow and the soil. JUDGE RECAREDO P. BARTE (Ret.)CONTENTS Preface .. Dedication. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS A. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND B. CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES ON LAND REFORM ©. CONTEMPORANEOUS COMMENT D. LAND REFORM MEASURES RETRACED. CHAPTER I — LEASEHOLDER AND. LANDOWNER RELATIONSHIP A. AGRICULTURAL LAND REFORM CODE (RA. No, 3844), Be ee 1. PREFATORY STATEMENTS 3 2, STATUTORY PROVISIONS (R.A. No. 3844) B. DEFINITION OF TERMS (According to Sec. 166, Chapter IV, R.A. No. 3844) ©. ESSENCE OF LEASEHOLD RELATIONSHIP CHAPTER II — TENANTS EMANCIPATION DECREE (P.D. No. 27) A. PREFATORY STATEMENT CHAPTER III — COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM PROGRAM (R.A. No. 6657) A. PREFATORY STATEMENT IMPLEMENTING RULES AND PROCEDURES... 12 12 15 19 24 63 86COMPENSATION. LAND DISTRIBUTION... CORPORATE FARMS SUPPORT SERVICES. SPECIAL AREAS OF CONCERN. PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION. ADMINISTRATIVE ADJUDICATION JUDICIAL REVIEW... FINANCING. ve GENERAL PROVISIONS... FRe moma oe Addendum of Jurisprudence on AGRARIAN REFORM LAW. APPENDICES APPENDIX A — REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3844... APPENDIX B — ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 6, Series of 1989.. APPENDIX C — ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 03, Series of 1989. APPENDIX D — THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD (DARAB) un 131 150 156 158 167 1m 180 182 194 216 281 294 302 PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS A. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND Philippine history is replete with facts that even before the Spaniards came into these islands, the idea of private ownership of land was not prevalent. There never was any serious effort on the part of the government to put more teeth in strengthening the tenurial rights of tenants to their landholdings. While some areas in Pampanga were privately owned, by privately owned and large, land was commonly owned by the community or barangay, it was the main source of wealth and was cultivated communally or individually by members of the barangay. In some barangays, there existed a form of slavery (aliping namamahay and aliping sagigilid). ‘This social group tilled the agricultural lands on a share cropping arrangement with their masters. Generally, the agricultural system was primitive which employed the kaingin method (slash and burn) of clearing forest lands. When the Spaniards came in 1521, common ownership of land slowly took the backseat, and private property became dominant. From 1571 to 1610, Spanish colonizers purchased communal lands through the barangay headmen who represented the natives. Sometimes the natives were not even aware of the sale. Areas acquired were hurriedly titled and all uninhabited lands were declared “reserved” for the Spanish King, who later on issued royal decrees and land grants in favor of Spanish friars and soldiers, thus paving the way to encomienda system. An encomienda is a vast tract of landholding which served as self-reliant food producing community. It was assigned to a Spanish encomendero (caretaker), usually a friar or Spanish soldier. ‘The encomienda was a vehicle used to collect taxes from Filipinos, who tilled the land and surrendered part of their produce to the encomendero as tribute in the form of agricultural crops, poultry, woven mats, cotton yarn, ete. Towards the end of the 18th century, there was a mad scramble for wealth through world trade introduced by Spanish officials and their families, as well as rich Chinese traders 12 AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALI who accumulated vast tracts of land which later became haciendas. ‘Thus, encomiendas were replaced by haciendas. B. CONSTITUTIONAL MANDATES ON LAND REFORM “The state shall promote a just and dynamic social order that will ensure the prosperity and independence of the nation and free the people from poverty through policies that provide adequate social services, promote full employment, a rising standard of living, and an improved quality of life for all.” (Art. II, Declaration of Principles and State Policies, Sec. 9) “The [s]tate shall promote a comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform.” (Ibid., Sec. 21) “Private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation.” (Art. III, Bill of Rights, Sec. 9) “Local governments shall be entitled to an equitable share in the proceeds of the utilization and development of the national wealth within their respective areas, in the manner provided by law, including sharing the same with the inhabitants by way of direct benefits.” (Ari. X, Local Government, Sec. 7) “The State shall promote industrialization and full employment based on a sound agricultural development and agrarian reform, through industries that make full and efficient use of human and natural resources, and which are competitive in both domestic and foreign markets. However, the State shall protect Filipino enterprises against foreign competition and trade practices.” “In the pursuit of these goals, all sectors of the economy and all regions of the country shall be given optimum opportunity to develop. Private enterprises, including corporations, cooperatives, and similar collective organizations, shall be encouraged to broaden the base of their ownership.” (Art. XII, National Economy and Patrimony, Sec. 1) “All lands of the public domain, waters, minerals, coal, petroleum, and other mineral oils, all forces of potential energy, fisheries, forests or timber, wildlife, flora and fauna, and other natural resources are owned by the State. With the exception of agricultural lands, all other natural resources PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS s Il not be alienated. The exploration, development, and utilization of natural resources, shall be under the full control and supervision of the State. (Ibid., Sec. 2) “Lands of the public domain are classified into agricultural, forest or timber, mineral lands, and national parks. Agricultural lands of the public domain may be further classified by law according to the uses to which they may be devoted. Alienable lands of the public domain shall be limited to agricultural lands. Private corporations or associations may not hold such alienable lands of the public domain except by lease, for a period not exceeding twenty- five years, renewable for not more than twenty-five years, and not to exceed one thousand hectares in area. Citizens of the Philippines may lease not more than five hundred hectares, or acquire not more than twelve hectares thereof by purchase, homestead or grant.” (Ibid., Sec. 3) “The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of the 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 undertake and encourage the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as 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.” (Art XIIL, Social Justice and Human Rights, Sec. 4) “The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers’ organizations to participate in the planning, organization, and management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support devices.” (Ibid., Sec. 5) “The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or strewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under4 AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALIZED lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous cultural communities to their ancestral lands.” “The State may resettle landless farmers and farmwork- ers in its own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law.” (Ibid., Sec. 6) “The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, employment creation, and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as payment of their land shall be honored as equity in enterprises of their choice.” (Ibid., Sec. 8) “At the earliest possible time, the Government shall expropriate idle or abandoned agricultural lands as may be defined by law, for distribution to the beneficiaries of the agrarian reform program.” (Art. XVIII, Transitory Provisions, Sec, 22) C. CONTEMPORANEOUS COMMENT In the implementation of the farmer-oriented provisions of the 1987 Constitution, so to speak, Congress passed the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (R.A. No. 6657) which was signed into law by then President Corazon C. Aquino on June 10, 1988. This is today the main law on agrarian reform of the Philippines. The repealing clause under Section 76 of CARL provides that “all other laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.” Likewise, Section 75 thereof provides that, “other laws not inconsistent with this Act shall have suppletory effect.” Hence, the provisions of R.A. No, 3844 (Code of Agrarian Reform of the Philippines of 1963), R.A. No. 6389 which-amended R.A. No, 384, P.D. No. 27 (Tenants Emancipation Decree of 1972), E.O. No. 228, declaring full ownership in favor of beneficiaries who qualified under P.D. No. 27, and E.O. No. 229, which provided for the mechanism in the initial implementation of the comprehensive agrarian reform program decreed under Presidential Proclamation No. 131, which are not inconsistent with the provisions of R.A. No. 6657, shall remain to be enforced, and those which arenot incon: with the latter law are deemed repealed and/or amended, PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 5 If we must endeavor to successfully implement and apply the provisions of the CARL as envisioned by the drafters thereof, it is ‘essential that the student of law and the implementors thereof, have substantial knowledge in the application and interpretation of the earlier enactments on agrarian reform. Of course, this endeavor to succeed ought to be reinforced by a firm and honest resolve not to be influenced by corruption of self-interest. Be that as it may, every clue instead, points to the incompetence and insincerity of the implementors of the law, they are lacking in political will and earnestness, and are outspoken in heaping the blame of failure by finding loopholes in each step towards progress despite the over- supply of iron-clad laws that provide quick solutions to agrarian problems. In fact, as early as the initial implementation of CARL, self- righteous experts and scholars on agrarian reform, have already pre-empted hidden defects and inherent flaws in the law, most of which are products of intense lobbying in Congress intended to favor the affluent landed gentry. What we directly need is this developing country that has retrogressed in rice production as against the ‘once war-devastated Vietnam, is an iron-fisted implementation of these agrarian statutes — a kind of leadership that refuses to bend to influence-peddling of pressure groups that will defeat the paramount objective of the “centerpiece” program of then Corazon C. Aquino. But whether the CARL will succeed or not, remains to be seen from the performance of the power-wielders and/or until the advent of a dyed-in-the-wool leader whose heart beats in unison with the hearts of the down-trodden farmer and small landowners in the countryside. D. LAND REFORM MEASURES RETRACED Treaty of Paris (1898) — This initial step taken under the American regime was the confiscation of friar lands. Landsconfiscated were distributed among peasants by the independent government of Malolos during the Philippine Revolution. Under the provisions of the Treaty of Paris which concluded the Spanish-American war, the American administration launched a drive of purchasing friar estates in order to protect the rights of the monastic orders and to forestall further agrarian conflict between peasants and Spanish friars who hold Spanish titles to these estates. The purchase of about 200,000 hectares for $6.9 million was completed in 1906. Government purchase of private estates for redistribution among6 AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALIZED small land holders, was also undertaken during the Commonwealth period, though never implemented on a large scale." Philippine Bill (1902) — This Bill limited private individual landholdings to 16 hectares, and corporate landholdings to 1,024 hectares. It also gave Americans the right to acquire agricultural lands. Thus, it enabled American agricultural interests to control huge tracts of land for large-scale farming. Land Registration Act (1902) — Landowners under this Act were required to register their landholdings and acquire Torrens ‘Titles to land properties. Almost all land titles granted by the Court of Land Registration up to 1910 were for large private landholdings. Small farmers who were either not aware of the law or were too poor to pay for the documentation, failed to register their ownership of land. As in the Spanish times, land-grabbing through fraudulent surveys was rampant. Friar Lands Act (1903) — This Act instituted transfer of friar lands to the tenants to diffuse the peasant unrest which found expression in the 1898 revolution against Spain. The American government purchased some of $7 million, which it resold to 60,000 tenants at full cost plus interest. The prices were beyond the reach of most tenants and some could not understand why they had to buy back the land which had belonged to their parents. In fact, most of the lands transferred as a result of this Act were those in which agrarian unrest was widespread. This Act was later amended to allow the sale of friar lands (which were prime lands) not only to Filipino tillers but to foreign nationals as well. In short time, the Sugar Trust, an American corporation, purchased the San Jose Estate. Rice Share Tenaney Act (Public Act No. 4054), which was passed on February 27, 1933 by the Philippine Legislature during the time of Governor-General Theodore Roosevelt, aimed at protecting tenants against abuses of landlords. This Act provided for a 50-50 sharing of the crop, an interest rate ceiling of 10 per crop year, an safeguards against arbitrary dismissal of tenants by landlords. However, the law could go into effect “ nces where the majority of the municipal councils shall, by resolution, petition for its lication to the Governor-General.” With this provision, the law “Toward an Alternative Land Reform Paradigm, Hayami, Quisimbing and Adriano, p. 53. PRELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS 1 was ineffective because members ded elite controlled the municipalities. Subsequent amendments to make the law effective ‘were also invalidated by landlord resistance. Commonwealth Act No.-278 of 1938 authorized the President (under the leadership of President Manuel L. Quezon) to buy farms and large estates for subletting to bona fide occupants who were entitled to lease the lands for 25 years with an option to buy, through the National Land Settlement Administration (NLSA). This function of the NLSA was eventually taken over by the Rural Progress Administration (RPA). Prior to the World War II, however, only 6,000 hectares had been purchased, and disputes about tenant rights hindered the distribution of the 27,000 hectares Buenavista ‘state which the government had purchased. (Land Reform Paradigm, p. 54, supra) Sugar Cane Tenancy Contracts Act (Act No. 4113) — This law governed the relationship between landowners and tenants in sugar lands which makes it a duty of the sugar central where the sugareanes are milled to exhibit to the tenant the receipts of the number of tons milled by the landowner thereat, upon demand of the said tenant, which receipt shall be the basis of the computation of the tenant's share from the cane harvested. Commonwealth Act No. 103 — This Act created the Court of Industrial Relations. (CTR) which exercised jurisdiction over disputes arising from relationship between agricultural workers and landowners especially concerning payment of wages and working hours. Commonwealth Act No. 213 —~ An amendatory Act which deals with the right to form legitimate labor organizations and to enter into collective bargaining agreements between management and labor. Commonwealth Act No. 178, which improved the provisions of Act No, 4054, the Rice Share Tenancy Act, followed by Act No. 461, and subsequently amended by Commonwealth Act No. 608, all of which are improvements of Act No. 4054, giving more teeth and protection to the rights of tenants of agricultural lands. Republie Act No. 34— This law, which was passed during the incumbency of President Manuel Roxas, amended certain sections of the Rice Share Tenancy Act providing for a 70-30 crop-sharing method. It further provides that, in case the land is planted with rice on a second cropping or other auxiliary crops, all expenses8 AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALIZED of production shall be shouldered by the tenant, but the sharing arrangement shall be 80% for the tenant, and 20% for the landowner of the next harvest. Aside from the change in the sharing system, this legislation also provided for a Jot. jich is Republic Act No. 1160 — Another post-war piece of legislation, this law established the National Resettlement and Rehabilitation Administration (NARRA) which embarked on a_ large-scale resettlement of landless dissidents and other landless farmers. The government, through the NARRA, made an all-time record of acquiring two-landed estates from 1956 to 1957 involving 391 hectares that benefited some 569 landless farmers. Republic Act No. 1199 — The Magsaysay Reform Program was based on the enactment of this law; otherwise known as the Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954, which infused an add boost to the tenurial rights of tenant+tillers and provided for the enforcement of fair tenancy practices. Under this law, a tenant who supplies all requirements for production including labor, working animals, implements, plowing, final harrowing and transplanting of rice crop, is entitled to 70% of the harvest. This Act is implemented by a machinery called Agricultural Tenancy Commission created under Administrative Order No. 67, series of 1954, Land Reform Act (R.A. No, 1400) — In 1955, another law was passed, still under the Magsaysay administration. The Land Reform Act, also known as the “Land to the Landless” Program, guaranteed the expropriation of all tenanted landed estates. It sets a retention limit of 300 hectares for individually-owned estates, and 600 hectares for corporate-owned estates. The Act, similar to the Rice Tenancy Act (Rep. Act No. 4054) was watered down in Congress which yielded to the lobbying of landlords. It provided that expropriation could only be started if majority of the tenants in the estates petitioned for it.? Republic Act No. 1267 — An Act Creating the Court of Agrarian Relations, which has original and exclusive jurisdiction to try and decide all matters, controversies and disputes arising from the relationship of persons in the cultivation and use of agricultural lands; the court of Agrarian Relations has concurrent jurisdiction with the Court of the First Instance over cases involving landlord and tenant. "Land Reform in the Philippines, Thon Primer Series ELIMINARY CONSIDERATIONS ° Republic Act No. 3844 (The Agricultural Land Reform Code) — ‘This Act marked the abolition of share tenancy and/or the system of share-croppii , and the automatic conversion of share tenants into leaseholders. Passed during the administration of Diosdado Macapagal, the law gave a break to the tenants in improving their lot by creation of the Land Bank of the Philippines which provided for financial assistance. It also provided for a gradual conversion of the status of the tenant-farmer from that of a share tenant to leaseholder, from leaschold tenant to amortizing owner, and finally from amortizing owner to owner cultivator. The defect of the law however, is that it operates only in areas which were declared land reform areas by machinery known as the National Land Reform Council. Republic Act No, 6389 (Code of Agrarian Reforms) — Designed as an improvement of R.A. No. 3844, this amendatory Act featured the creation of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) which is now vested with powers and duties to resolve all the agrarian conflicts through the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions, under its functionary known as the Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board under the CARL. Other main features of this Act are the right of the tenant on land converted to residential subdivisions to demand a disturbance compensation equivalent to five times the average gross. harvest for the past three agricultural years; increased financing for land reform programs; and the crediting of rentals in favor of the tenant against just compensation that he is liable to pay where the land is expropriated by the government for redistribution to tenants. Agrarian Reform Special Fund Aet (R.A. No. 6390) — Otherwise known as a companion measure to R.A. No. 6389, this a legislation that provided for a special account and financial support for the implementation of the Agrarian Reform program of the government. Presidential Decree No. 2— Shortly after President Ferdinand Mareos declared martial law on September 21, 1972, he issued P.D. No. 2 declaring the entire nation as a land reform area. Presidential Decree No, 27—One month after President Marcos declared the whole country as a land reform area, he signed into law P.D. No. 27, “Decreeing the emancipation of the tenants from the bondage of the soil, transferring to them the ownership of the land they till and providing the instruments and mechanism therefor.” Under this Decree, which took effect on October 21, 1972, all tenant- farmers, whether occupying a land classified as landed estate or not,10 AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALIZED shall be deemed owner of a portion constituting a family-size farm of five hectares if not irrigated, and three hectares if irrigated. In all cases, the landowner may retain an area of not more than seven hectares if such landowners is cultivating such area or will cultivate it, Despite the revolutionary effect of this Decree, it still did not satisfy certain agricultural sectors since it only applied to lands devoted to rice and corn, and exempted sugarcane lands, coconut lands, citrus, fishponds, saltbeds, and lands principally planted to cacao, coffee, durian, and other permanent trees mentioned in Section 35 of R.A. No. 3844, Proclamation No. 131 — Instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program which covers, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private agricultural lands as provided in the Constitution including, whenever applicable in accordance with law, other lands of the public domain suitable to agriculture. The amount of P50,000,000,000.00 billion was programmed special agrarian reform fund to carry out the implementation of CARP. Executive Order No. 228 — Declaring full landownership of qualified beneficiaries covered by P.D. No. 27, determining the value of remaining unvalued rice and corn lands, and providing for the manner of payment by the farmer-beneficiaries and mode of compensation to the landowner. Executive Order No. 229 — Providing for the mechanism for the implementation of the comprehensive agrarian reform program, creating the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) as highest policy-making body that formulates all policies, rules and regulations necessary to implement each component of the CARP with the President as Chairman. Practically all the provisions of this executive order were adopted in R.A. No. 6657 which is at present the primary law on agrarian reform. Executive Order No. 129-A — Modifying E.0. No. 129, reorganizing and strengthening the Department of Agrarian Reform and for other purposes. The DAR was organized under R.A. No. 3844 as a government machinery for the implementation of the agrarian reform program and activities. The special feature of this executive issuance is the creation of the Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board which has assumed the functions and powers formerly vested in the Courts of Agrarian Relation with respect to the adjudication of agrarian reform cases in line with the DAR’s quasi-judicial functions. IMINARY CONSIDERATIONS Republic Act No. 6657—Otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, it took effect on June 15, 1988. As primary agrarian land reform measure in the country today, its operation covers all public and private agricultural lands, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced; Philippine Bill (1902) — this Bill limited private individual landholdings to 16 hectares, and corporate landholdings to 1,024 hectares, It also gave Americans the right to acquire agricultural lands. Thus, it enabled ‘American agricultural interests to control huge tracts of land for large-seale farming. Republic Act No. 9700 — This is the latest enactment on the law on agrarian reform which took effect on July 1, 2009. Its mandatory provisions cover implied appeals and amendments of Section 27, R.A. No. 6657, on transferability of lands awarded to qualified beneficiaries and additional infractions and omissions that, impose heavy penalties under Section 20 thereof.CHAPTER I LEASEHOLDER AND LANDOWNER RELATIONSHIP A. AGRICULTURAL LAND REFORM CODE (R.A. No. 3844) 1. PREFATORY STATEMENTS. ‘The repealing clause of R.A. No. 6657, which is the primary agrarian reform measure in the country today notwithstanding, which expressly provides that “all laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.” Section 75 of the CARL on the other hand, expressly provides that, “the provisions of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, Presidential Decrees Nos. 27 and 266, both series of 1987; and other laws not inconsistent with this Act (R.A. No. 6657) shall have suppletory effect.” Hence, the provisions of R.A. No. 3844 that govern the leasehold relationship between landowner and tenant, are still effective and still continue to regulate their relationship, insofar as they do not conflict with the provisions of CARL of 1988. This law is not only inconsistent with R.A. No. 6657, but even strengthens and gives more teeth to the tenurial status of the tenant-tiller without prejudice to his obligation of sharing his produce to the landowner in the form of lease payments. In fact, the leaseholder who has proved to be efficient and has not committed any act that serves as ground for his disqualification to till the land, shall be protected by the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) and cannot be summarily ejected by the landowner from the farmholding without due process of law. The thrust of this legislation is the drastic abolition of share tenancy system between landowner and tenant, except in specific cases involving (1) the parties, whether oral or written; or (2) by 2 CHAPTER I 13 LEASEHOLDER AND LANDOWNER RELATIONSHIP operation of law. This Chapter deals with the consolidated versions of R.A. No. 3844 and R.A. No. 6389, otherwise known as the “Code of Agrarian Reform of the Philippines,” both of whose provisions are not inconsistent with the CARL, and therefore, have suppletory application. Hence, the provisions of R.A. No. 3844 and P.D. No. 27, cannot be isolated from the application of R.A. No. 6657. In the unreported case of Delia Recto v. Narciso Billones as it has not reached the Supreme Court, hence, it did not find space into the printed pages of the SCRA, but had attained finality only before the DARAB at the DAR in Quezon City, whose decision, the complainant Recto did not elevate to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court anymore, the right of leaseholder Narciso Billones was upheld by the DARAB. This case has some significance to the author who acted as counsel for the victorious leasehold tenant Nareiso Billones. ‘There are some perennial detractors whose favorite pastime is, to find loopholes and defects from a piece of magnificent legislation like R.A. No. 3844, without which the tenant-farmer still remains unchained from the bondage of the soil. But the solitary fact that the present-day tenant-tiller (leaseholder) cannot be ousted from his farmholding through any whimsical cause that may be fabricated by the landowner, is consolation enough to secure his permanent livelihood for the support of his family. Nonetheless, despite the benefits that the Land Reform Code (R.A. No. 3844) has brought to the tenant-tiller, it still proved to be an inadequate piece of legislation. Firstly, it covers only lands that are declared as land reform areas in certain regions or localities until the end of the agricultural year when the National Reform Council proclaims that share tenancy no longer holds to pave the way to leasehold system. Secondly, notwithstanding the boast of the government regarding strict implementation of the law and the gains realized therefrom, the farmer's interest seemed to have been ignored, by the government's apparent coddling with political aggrupations identified with the landed gentry. This landed gentry is a conglomerate of third to sixth degree generations of hacienderos seattered over the island of Negros Occidental, Tarlac, and Pampanga, whose ancestors were former Spanish friars, soldiers of the Spanish King and successful Chinese traders who acquired vast tracts of land through Royal decrees. The Cojuancos of Tarlac and the Lopezes of Negros and Iloilo, are but a few of these landed magnatesu AGRARIAN REFORM LAW. who have learned to manipulate with government bureaucracy to perpetuate their sugar empire, COMMENTS ‘The Agricultural Land Reform Code still finds application to the following: (a) areas which have not come within the operation and implementation of P.D. No. 27; (b) agricultural laborers who are subject to the provisions of the Labor Code; (©) organization and operation of the Land Bank; (@) provisions on resettlements of farmers subject to decrees on human settlements; (© right to pre-emption and redemption underlined under Sections 11 and 12 of the Code, with respect to Jandowner's retained area, and those of his children 15 years old or over; should such landowner decide to sell his tenanted/ leased retained area, the tenant has the preferential right to purchase said area under reasonable terms and conditions and/ or redeem the same in case the land is sold to a third person without the tenant's knowledge; (right of the tenant/lessee to 75% share from the standing crops, under Section 34 (R.A. No. 3844) in case of compulsory acquisition of private agricultural lands under R.A. ‘No. 6657, and in VOS and VLT the sharing system will depend ‘upon the agreement of the parties, and in case of disagreement the 25/75 sharing system shalll be the basis. ‘Three shifts in the mode of acquisition are being featured in the implementation of R.A. No. 3844, to wit: (a) the automatic conversion of the status of share tenant to leascholder characterized by payment of fixed rentals to the landowner either upon written agreement between the landowner and tenant-farmer or as approved by the DAR; (b) the second shift which is the conversion of the leaseholder to amortizing owner, characterized by the Land Bank purchase of the property identified as suitable for redistribution to qualified beneficiaries with CHAPTER I 16 LEASEHOLDER AND LANDOWNER RELATIONSHIP concomitant obligation imposed on the tenant-lessee to pay the Land Bank on amortization basis the purchase price of the farmholding; (©. the third shift which converts the status of an amortizing owner into full owner or owner-cultivator of a family-size farm upon full-payment of the remaining balance of the amortization. 2, STATUTORY PROVISIONS (R.A. No. 3844) Declaration Policy — It is the policy of the State: (2) To establish owner-cultivatorship and the economic family-size farm as the basis of Philippine agriculture and, as a consequence, divert landlord capital in agriculture to industrial development; (2) To achieve a dignified existence for the small farmers free from pernicious institutional restraints and practices; (3) To create a truly viable social and economic structure in agriculture conducive to greater produc- tivity and higher farm incomes; (4)_ To apply all labor laws equally and without discrimination to both industrial and agricultural wage earners; (8) To provide a more vigorous and systematic land resettlement program and public land distribution; and (6) To make the small farmers more independent, self-reliant and responsible citizens, and a source of genuine strength in our democratic society; (2) To give first priority to measures for the adequate and timely financing of the Agrarian Reform Program pursuant to House Joint Resolution Number ‘Two, otherwise known as Magna Carta of Social Justice and Economic Freedom; existing laws; executive and administrative orders, and rules and regulations to the contrary notwithstanding; (8) To involve local governments in the implemen- tation of the Agrarian Reform Program; and16 (9) To evolve a system of land use and classifica tion. Section 3. Composition of the Code. — In pursuance of the policy enunciated in Section two, the following are established under this Code: (2) An agricultural leasehold system to replace all existing share tenancy systems in agriculture; (2) A system of crediting rental payment on purchase price; mortization (8) A declaration of rights for agricultural labor; (4) Amachinery for the acquisition and equitable ‘bution of agricultural land; (5) An institution to finance the acquisition and istribution of agricultural land; (6) A machinery to extend credit and sit assistance to agriculture lessees, amortizing owners- cultivator, owners-cultivator and cooperatives; (2A machinery to provide marketing, manage- ment, and other technical assistances and/or services to agricultural lessees, amortizing, owners-cultivator, owners-cultivator, and cooperat (8) A machinery for cooperative developments; (9) A department for formulating and implement- ing projects of agrarian reform; (10) An expanded program of land capal survey, classification and registration; lity (11) A judicial system to decide issues arising under this Code and other related laws and regulations; (12) A machinery to provide legal assistance to agricultural lessees, amortizing owners-cultivator, and owners-cultivator. COMMENTS ‘As discussed earlier, the primary law on agrarian reform which is R.A. No. 6657 should be applied in conjunction with the CHAPTER 7 LEASEHOLDER AND LANDOWNER RELATIONSHIP Agrarian Reform Code (R.A. No. 3844, as amended by R.A. No. 6389) ‘and all related laws and decrees which have suppletory application. Under the CARL of 1988, as well as under the old Code of Agrarian Reforms, the machinery that provides for financial assistance for the acquisition of agricultural lands is the Land Bank of the Philippines created under R.A. No. 3844. Up to the present, it is the same financial machinery that provides for all compensations of agricultural lands acquired under the CARL of 1988. Repayment Scheme and Credit Assistance ‘The same scheme of repayments to the Land Bank of the Philippines of the purchase price of lands acquired under the operation of the Agricultural Land Reform Code, applies to lands acquired under both P.D. No. 27 and R.A. No. 6657, with the difference that the period of amortization payments to the Land Bank which was staggered within the period of 15 years under P.D. No. 27, has been extended to 30 years under Section 26 of R.A. No. 6657. ‘The functions of a machinery that used to extend credit and financial assistance to agricultural lessees, amortizing owners- cultivator, owners-cultivator and cooperatives which the Code of Agrarian Reforms had entrusted with the defunct Agricultural Credit Administration (ACA) are now being implemented by the Land Bank of the Philippines. Jurisdiction on Agrarian Disputes All agrarian disputes which R.A. No. 3844 has vested within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Agrarian Relations (now abolished) and later transferred to the Regional Trial Courts, on all matters involving compulsory arbitration between agricultural labor and agricultural landlords, agricultural lessors and lessees arising out of, and in connection with their agrarian relations upon certification of the Secretary of Justice (See See. 155, par. 3, R.A. No. 3844) are now under the cognizance of the Department of Agrarian Reform [through] the Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. ‘The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in turn delegates its functions under E.O. No. 229 and E.O. No. 129-A to the respective Regional and Provincial Adjudicators of the DAR. Any decision, award or ruling of the DAR on any agrarian dispute or on any matter pertaining to the application, implementation and enforcement or interpretation of this Act18 AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALIZED (RA. No. 8844) and other related laws on agrarian reform, may be brought to the Court of Appeals via petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure certiorari, except as otherwise provided in the same Act within 15 days from notice or receipt of a copy of such decision, award or ruling by the ARAB. Special Agrarian Courts Under the present law (R.A. No. 6657), all controversies involving the determination of just compensation and prosecution of all criminal offenses arising from the violations of the provisions of this Act, fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of Special Agrarian Courts, The Supreme Court may in the interest of justice designate one or more Branches of the Regional Trial Courts in a province for the purpose of trying and deciding the two specific types of cases aforementioned. Designate one or more Branches of the Regional Trial Courts in a province for the purpose of trying and deciding the two specific types of cases aforementioned. ‘The decision of the Special Agrarian Court shall be appealable to the Court of Appeals by means of a petition for review within 15 days from receipt of notice of the decision; otherwise, the decision shall become final. (Secs. 57-60, ibid.) No restraining order or preliminary injunction shall be issued by any court in the Philippines against the PARC or any of its duly authorized or designated agencies in any case, dispute or controversy arising from, necessary to, or in connection with the application, implementation, enforcement or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent law on agrarian reform. (Sec. 55, ibid.) Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance ‘The Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance supplanted the Office of Agrarian Counsel which was abolished by P.D. No. 1, and all the functions pertaining to the latter were transferred to the former. Under E.0. No. 129-A, dated July 26, 1987, reorganizing the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), the Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance shall be responsible for the development plans and programs for the extension of legal information to farmers, including share-tenants, agricultural lessees, owners-cultivator, agricultural farmworkers and members of their immediate households; extension of legal services to them and the execution of household contracts and apprising the farmers of their rights under the law. CHAPTER 1 19 LBASEHOLDER AND LANDOWNER RELATIONSHIP ‘The Bureau shall likewise be responsible for providing advice and assistance to the Office of Secretary and the Regional Offices of the DAR pertaining to agrarian problems. B. DEFINITION OF TERMS (According to Sec. 166, Chapter IV, RA. No. 3844) 2) Agricultural Land means land devoted to any growth, including but not limited to crop lands, salt beds, fish ponds, idle land and abandoned land as defined in paragraphs 18 and 19 of this Section. (Cuano v. Court of Appeals, 237 SCRA 122) (2) Agricultural lessee means a person who, by himself and with the aid available from within his immediate farm household, cultivates the land belonging to, or possessed by, another with the latter's consent for purposes of production, for a price certain in money or in produce or both, It is distinguished from civil lessee as understood in the Civil Code of the Philippines. (8) Agricultural lessor means a person, natural or juridical, who, either as owner, civil law lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor, permits or grants to another the cultivation and use of his land for a price certain. (4) Agricultural year means the period of time required for raising a particular agricultural product, including the preparation of the land, sowing, planting and harvesting of crops and, whenever applicable, threshing of said crops: Provided, however, That in case of crops yielding more than one harvest from planting, “agricultural year” shall be the period from the preparation of the land to the first harvest and thereafter from harvest to harvest. In both cases, the period may be shorter or longer than a calendar year. (8). Farm implements means hand tools or machines ordinarily employed in a farm enterprise. (© _ Immediate farm household means the members of the family of the lessee or lessor and other persons who are dependent upon him for support and who usually help him in his activities. (2) Proven farm practice means sound farming practices generally accepted through usage or officially recommended by the Agricultural Productivity Commission for a particular type of farm. (8) Personal cultivation means cultivation by the lessee or lessor in person and/or with the aid of labor from within his immediate household.20 AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALIZED () Work animals means animals ordinarily employed in a farm enterprise, such as carabaos, horses, bullocks, and cows. (10) Share tenancy as used in this Code means the relationship which exists whenever two persons agree on a joint undertaking for agricultural production wherein one party furnishes the land and the other his labor, with either or both contributing any one or several of the items of production, the tenant cultivating the land personally with the aid of labor available from members of his immediate farm household, and the produce thereof to be divided between the landholder and the tenant. (11) Agrarian dispute means any controversy relating to terms, tenure or conditions of employment, or concerning an association or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment, regardless of whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm employers and employees. (12) Agricultural owner-cultivator means any person who, providing capital and management, personally cultivates his own land with the aid of his immediate family and household. (18) Fair rental value means the value not in excess of allowable depreciation plus six percent (6%) interest per annum on the investment computed at its market value: Provided, That the fair rental value for work animal or animals and farm implements used to produce the crop shall not exceed five per cent of the gross harvest for the work animal or animals and five percent (5%) for implements. (14) Incapacity which is a valid eanse ta oust the leasoholder from his farmholding means, any cause or circumstance which prevents the tenant-lessee from fulfilling his contractual and other obligations under this Code, as physical disability or permanent illness, insanity, etc., not occasioned by fortuitous event. ‘Modes of Land Tenure Allowed under R.A. No. 3844 (1) Leasehold system which is characterized by a tenant- farmer personally and actually cultivating the farmholding under a leasehold relationship whereby the lessee pays a fixed amount of rental whether in cash or in kind to the lessor (who may be the ‘owner or legal possessor of the land). P.D. No, 27, however, disallows leasehold system with respect to areas devoted to rice and corn in excess of seven hectares covered by operation land transfer CHAPTER I a1 LBASEHOLDER AND LANDOWNER RELATIONSHIP (2) Share tenancy shall continue to exist in any region or locality respecting quota-covered sugarland, fishponds, saltbeds, and lands planted principally to citrus, coconuts, cacao, coffee, durian and other lands with permanent trees. (8) Owner-cultivatorship which characterized by the tillage of the land by the owner himself with the aid of the immediate members of his household. (4) Cooperative-cultivatorship which is a form of agrarian relationship among members of a cooperative who work and live on the land as tillers in common. (©) _ Laboradministration which employs laborers and workers on a daily wage basis, and engaged in a large scale plantation farming of permanent crops by their respective managers. How Leasehold Relationship is Established (1) By agreement of the parties (between lessor and lessee who is a tenant-tiller) — this may be entered into either orally or in writing, expressly or impliedly. (Sec. 5, ibid.) (2) By operation of law — this is brought about by the implementation of R.A. No. 3844 providing for the abolition of share tenancy. Hence, even in the absence of an agreement between landowner and tenant-farmer (lease-holder) whether oral or written, the law itself and jurisprudence recognizes the existence of a leasehold relationship by the act of cultivation of the farmholding by the tenant-tiller. COMMENTS No particular form of contract is required in the establishment of a leasehold relation. However, should there be a written agreement between the parties, the terms and conditions thereof must be respected, since according to the principle of mutuality of contracts, the will of the parties is the law of their contract. Besides, constitutional injunction prohibits the impairment of contracts. "RA, No. 1199 mentioned under See. 95, RLA. No. 3844, is already repealed andlor amended by the CARL of 1988. (R-A. No. 6657) All commercial farms and private agricultural including saltbeds, fishponds, and prawn ponds, fruit farms, vvogetable and cut-lower farms, eacao, coffee and rubber plantations, shall be subject {to compulsory acquisition and redistribution after 10 years from effectivity of R.A No, 6687,Ey AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALIZED Likewise, the act of cultivation by the tenant-tiller of the land does not ipso facto establish a leaschold relationship between the parties. But where the landowner: (a) does not object to the continued cultivation of the land, or (b) tolerates the continued cultivation thereof by the agricultural worker, and/or (c) the landholder continues to receive the benefits from the cultivation of the land, such acts by the landowner are considered as implied acquiescence on his part of a leasehold relationship between him and the tenant. (See. 5, infra) An agricultural leaschold cannot be established on land which has ceased to be devoted to cultivation or farming because of is conversion into residential land. (Gonzales v. Court of Appeals, 173 ‘SCRA 398) Share tenants enjoy security of tenure even where relationship is changed to leasehold where a share tenant surrendered his landholding and then was instituted as share tenant by the civil lessee of the same land, said tenant’s status did not change, vis-a- vis, landowner after the civil lease has terminated. (Novesteros v. Court of Appeals, 149 SCRA 47) ‘A share tenant who surrendered his landholding, who thereafter became the share tenant of the person who leased the land from the owner for three years, and who thereafter continued the said lease on a three-year basis which was periodically renewed, is not a civil lease, but an agricultural lessee. (Novesteros v. CA, 4 the case of Marcela De Taon (108 Phil. 1176) the Supreme Court eaid that the term “cultivation” does not necessarily mean tilling or eultivating the land, ‘but may include such works ofa caretaker ofa parca of land planted with full-grown, fruit-bearing trees, to water the troes, fertilize the same for better production, uproot seeds, turn the soil und fumigate the same tocliminate plant pests In a paralel case, the Court of Agrarian Relations held that a caretaker ofa eacomut plantation who did not actually plow or harrow and plant the land, is nonetheless a tenant ofthe same, inasmuch as the word “cultivating” the land under Soc, (a), R.A. No. 1199 is not limited to the plowing or harrowing of the land but includes the periodic cleaning of ‘the eeonut plantation to improve its production. (Hernandee v. Caponpon, CAR Case No, 5559-R, March 8, 1956; Yecyec v. Madjus, CA-G.R. No. Sp, O1618-R, October 2, 1975) “It is suficient that the landowner is chargeable with knowledge, through his ‘overseer or agent of such cultivation and he tolerates the same, (Lantod v. Via. de Asis, CA-GR. No. 39831-R, July 13, 1968) There is an implied agreement where the landowner allows another to cultivate the land in the concept of tenant forthe period of 10 years. (Sumea v. Jumaquio, et al, CAR Case No. 30-Bulacan, February 28, 1957) CHAPTER Po) LEASEHOLDER AND LANDOWNER RELATIONSHIP supra) There is no leasehold tenancy where the alleged lessee to cultivate the land personally. (Novesteros, supra) ‘A mango plantation is covered by the provisions of R.A. No. 8844 as amended. (Cuano v. CA, supra) Parties to Leasehold Relation (Q) the landholder who is either the lawful owner of the land, or the legal possessor or who may be a lessee or usufructuary under the civil law concept; (2) the person who personally cultivates the land. (Sec. 6, infra) COMMENTS ‘The person who personally cultivates the land does not necessarily mean that the lessee-tenant must till the land alone by himself. For even if the tenant-lessee is unmarried or a single- bachelor without off-springs, he is not prevented from hiring laborers to aid him in the actual performance of his work of plowing, harrowing, clearing, uprooting of weeds, transplanting of seeds, fumigating of pesticides to eliminate plant pests, fertilization, and perform other acts that are inherent in the cultivation of the oil. It is not uncommon especially in the countryside where farmers help each other in the cultivation of their farmholding, either on a paktiao basis, piece-meal basis or in bayanihan style, where they take turn in plowing, harrowing, transplanting or sowing of rice seeds one after another. This traditional practice of rendering reciprocal services ‘according to their mutual arrangement of whose farm should first be plowed and planted with rice seedlings, and whose farmholding will be next by pooling their cooperative forces together, is not governed by written agreement, but by simple verbal arrangement and understanding. By this bayanihan system of cultivation, the farmers do not spend any single centavo for labor, except that the one whose field is being cultivated has the obligation to provide meals for the workers. These acts must be done either by the lessee himself or by his laborers, and not by the sublessee who does the actual tillage of the soil, otherwise, the latter and not the lessee shall be considered the leasehold-tenant under the concept of P.D. No. 27,24 AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALIZED ESSENCE OF LEASEHOLD RELATIONSHIP (1) It is essentially personal, in the sense that it cannot be exercised by third persons other than the lessor himself who may be the landowner, legal possessor, usufructuary or their duly authorized representatives as defined by civil law, and the lessee who personally cultivates the land or with the aid of the immediate members of his family. Since the law does not countenance absenteeism, leasehold relation is breached and may cause the ejectment of the lessee from his landholding should he engage a co-tenant or co-lessee. (2) Ithas the nature of an in rem or real relationship, because it imposes a burden upon the land subject of the landholding and continues to exist even by the death or incapacity of either party, or the expiration of the agreement. The heirs of the transferee is, subrogated to the rights and obligations of the former landowner, vis-d-vis the tenant-tiller, nor is it extinguished by the change of the landowner. Tenurial Arrangement of Leasehold Creation of a leasehold relation either by agreement of the parties, whether orally or in writing, or by implication entitles the leasehold tenant to the security of tenure until its extinguishment by any of the causes provided by law. It makes it a penal offense to eject a tenant illegally from his landholding except upon approval of the court. (Secs. $1, 36, 37, 166, ibid.; P.D. No. 583) Doctrine on Security of Land Tenure Security of land tenure is governed by Section 10, R.A. No. 3844, as amended, which provides that “the agricultural leasehold relation under this Code, shall not be extinguished by mere expiration of the term or period in the leasehold contract, nor by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding” and that, “in case the agricultural lessor sells, alienates or transfers the legal possession of the landholding, the purchaser or transferee thereof shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the agricultural lessor.” Yolanda Caballes v. DAR, et al. G.R. No. 78214, December 5, 1988 FACTS: This is a Petition for certiorari seeking to annul the order of DAR finding the existence of tenancy relationship CHAPTER 26 LEASEHOLDER AND LANDOWNER RELATIONSHIP between petitioner Caballes and private respondent Bienvenido Abajon. The landholding subject of the controversy which consists of 60 sq.m., is part of Lot 3109-C with an area of 500 sq.m. which spouses Arturo Caballes and Yolanda Caballes acquired from Andres Alicaba Millenes. The remainder of Lot 3109 was subsequently sold by Macario Alicaba to said spouses thereby consolidating ownership over the entire 500 sq.m. in favor of petitioner. Even before the sale to Caballes, respondent Abajon constructed a house on the landholding paying monthly rental of P2,00 to Andrea Millenes who allowed Abajon to plant corn, bananas and camote on a portion of the land agreeing to share the produce on a 50-50 basis. Later, petitioner told Abajon to vacate the premises because they need the property for the construction of a poultry, but the latter refused to leave. A criminal case was filed against Abajon for cutting down bananas on a property worth P50.00 docketed as Crim. Case No. 4003. On motion of accused, the court ordered referral of the case to DAR Regional Office for a preliminary determination of the relationship of the parties, on the basis of which MAR Regional Director issued certification that Crim. Case No. 4003 is not proper for hearing it having arose out of agrarian relations. On appeal, the MAR thru Minister Conrado Estrella reversed the certification of Regional Director declaring that “the land involved is a residential lot consisting of 60 sq.m. located inside the town’s industrial zone. On motion for reconsideration, the new DAR Secretary set aside the Order of Estrella, concluding that there is a tenancy relationship between the parties. HELD: “The fact of sharing alone from the fruite of the landholding from someone who plants certain crops thereon which is typical of a provinciano trait, does not give rise to a tenancy relationship (agricultural leasehold) that entitles an ‘occupant or cultivator of a parcel of and to security of tenure under the concept of the Land Reform Code of the government under existing tenancy laws. (Tiongson v. CA, No. L-6262, July 18, 1984, 130 SCRA 482) In order to avail of the benefits of Section 10, R.A. No. 3844, a person must be able to establish a status as a de jure tenant, hence, be entitled to a security of tenure that is not affected by sale, alienation or transfer of the land he cultivates6 AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALIZED or occupies. And in order to posses the status ofa de jure tenant, the following essential requisites must concur, fo wit: (1) _ the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (8) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (©) _ there is personal cultivation; (©) there is sharing of harvests, ‘The absence of one does not make an occupant of a parcel of land or a cultivator thereof, or a planter thereon, a de jure tenant, hence, cannot invoke the defense of security of tenure. In the same breadth, the status of an agricultural tenant is redefined in Section 2, R.A. No. 3844 thus: “It is the policy of the ‘State: (1) To establish cooperative cultivatorship among those who live and work on the land as tillers, owner-cultivatorship and the cconomie family-size farm as the basis of Philippine agriculture and, as a consequence, divert landlord capital in agricultural to industrial development.” What then constitutes as family-size farm so as to give rise to tenancy relationship? RA. No. 3844, as amended, on the other hand, defines an economic family-size farm as “an area of farmland that permits efficient use of labor and capital resources of the farm family and will produce an income sufficient to provide a modest standard of living to meet a farm family’s needs for food, clothing: shelter, and ‘education with possible allowance for payment of yearly installments on the land, and reasonable reserves to absorb yearly fluctuations in income.” (Sec. 166, ibid.) COMMENTS In the light of the provisions of R.A. No. 3844, a tiller-sharer of a parcel of land with an area of 60 or even 500 sq.m. located in the heart of an industrial or commercial zone, cannot be considered an agricultural tenant entitled to the security of tenure, At most, he is a caretaker who is allowed by the owner of the land to seek shelter thereat and enjoy the benefits of growing and harvesting the fruits of his plants, out of benevolence, but never as a tenant whose CHAPTER L 2 LEASEHOLDER AND LANDOWNER RELATIONSHIP primary purpose in his occupancy is agricultural production. Much loss, if there is evidence tending to show that such caretaker or tiller-sharer does not depend on the products of the land for his basic family needs because the area is too small for agricultural purposes. Hence, he can be ejected from the landholding at the pleasure of the lawful owner of the land. (Caballes v. DAR, supra) ‘The paradigm laid down in Caballes case, makes the applicability of Section 10, R.A. No. 3844 more timely in the light of the amendatory provisions of R.A. No. 6657 of 1988. The Caballes doctrine is likewise a confirmation of the essence of leasehold relationship which is in rem, Provided, all the essential requisites to consider a landholder as de jure agricultural tenant are present. This is especially true with respect to the tenanted portion of the Jandowner’s retained area and those of his children 15 years of age or over who are actually tilling, their farmholding or are directly ‘managing the same with the aid of laborers. Delia Jastia Recto v. Narciso Billones, et al. DARAB Case No. 13579, June 25, 2010 FACTS: Although this case did not reach the appellate courts probably by Plaintiffs plausible acceptance of the wisdom and rectitude of DARAB's Decision which she presumably had found difficult to overturn, the author had opted to highlight the core issues of the case here and the timely findings of DARAB, with the view of elucidating the essential features and elements of agricultural leasehold relationship. Plaintiff Delia Jastia Recto prays for the issuance of TRO to enjoin Narciso Billones and co-defendants landowners Pacifico, Simplica, Filomena and Dennis, all surnamed Grine, from allegedly using force, intimidation and threat to prevent. her from entering the landholding over which she claims to be its tenant-lessee consisting of two hectares, located at Barangay ‘Tacas, Jaro, Iloilo City. She further alleges that after the death of her father Jesus Jastia, purported owner of the land, she took possession and cultivation of the subject portion thereof, religiously paying rentals therefor at 22.20 cavans during the first cropping and three cavans during dry season, In their Answer, defendants raised the same arguments in their Motion to Dismiss and for the dissolution of the TRO earlier issued by the Provincial Adjudicator, further arguing that the purported receipts for rental payments by Delia Recto28 AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALIZED are fabricated, and lack properidentification and authentication by a credible witness, much less by Plaintiff herself, HELD: First, the unilateral assertion of plaintiff: appellant Delia Recto that she had succeeded to her father’s tenurial rights over the subject land is uncorroborated. The same is deemed to be self-serving and cannot be relied upon ‘as convincing proof of her tenancy status. Second, the affidavit executed by her late father Jesus Jastia, shall be treated by the Board to be a mere scrap of paper holding dismal evidentiary value for the same has not been properly identified nor its due execution established. Third, the receipts of payments ‘annotated as Annexes G to K, for plaintiff-appellant have ‘been repudiated by the Grine family who are the land-owners appellees in this case. Fourth, the pivotal requisite which is unequivocably lacking is one of personal cultivation which is supposed to be rendered by plaintiff-appellant, who is not, residing in Brgy. Tacas where the subject landholding is situated, but in Bray. Aganan, Pavia, Tloilo, more than 20 kilometers away from the subject landholding, a material issue that dispels the possibility of Plaintiffs. performance of personal cultivation due to inaccessible distance from her residence to the subject landholding which is more than 20 kilometers, an essential requirement to prove the existence of tenancy relationship. What plaintiff-appellant clearly admitted in her own words u wittingly, is the fact that co- defendant-appellee Narciso Billones was the one doing all the farmwork like clearing the palay, applying fertilizers, as well as the pesticides/insecticides. et al., and paving the shares due the landowners. Unfortunately, plaintiff-appellant Recto slept for more than 10 years by her seeming indolence and now she is barred ‘to institute an action to maintain her in peaceful possession of 1 portion of Lot 4430. Section 38, R.A. No. 3844 clearly states: “An action to enforce any cause of action accruing under this Code, shall be brought within the period of three years from the time such cause of action accrued, or from the time plaintiff has learned of the act constituting a valid cause of action, otherwise, it shall be barred by the statute of limitations. Acts which may constitute CHAPTER 20 LEASEHOLDER AND LANDOWNER RELATIONSHIP as estoppel like implied consent or acquiescence or tolerance of the act by the plaintiff, may also prevent the enforcement of such cause of action.” When co-defendant-appellee Billones was instituted as tenant by the Grine family in 1992, plaintiff-appellant Delia Recto should then have filed the proper action to challenge the supposed tenancy right of co-defendant-appellee Narciso Billones and should not have allowed the latter to “usurp” so to speak, her supposed prior tenaney right, if indeed, she had all the evidence which would belie the claims of tenancy of co-defendant-appellee Billones. More, a relative of plaintiff- appellant Natividad Jastia Bermejo, who is also a holder of the land adjacent to the subject lot, certified that co-defendant appellee Billones is “in actual possession and cultivation of the subject land since 1992 up to the present, continuously, uninterruptedly and publicly,” It should be stressed at this, juncture, that the allegations of plaintiff-appellant Delia Recto should have been corroborated by her relative, Natividad Bermejo. Unfortunately, Mrs. Bermejo did otherwise and executed her affidavit candidly expressing what she knew was the truth notwithstanding the negative consequences that her statements would have to her relative, herein plaintiff- appellant Recto. Section 6, R.A. No. 6657 or the CARL of 1988 provides 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 alll cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on the land prior to the approval of this Act (R.A. No, 6657) shalll be respected. This phrase and comment has a significant meaning to guide those who are confronted with a problem of which law shall apply in a given case or controversy, whether the provisions of R.A. No. 6657 of R.A. No. 3844. Provided, That in the determination of which law will apply to a given problem, the criterion should be as to whether the relationship between the tenant-tiller and the20 AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALIZED landowner-lessor, has been agreed upon or given birth during the effectivity of either statute. If the leasehold relationship was perfected either by written agreement or by operation of law, or by implication, during the effectivity of R.A. No. 3844 then this law shall apply subject to the amendatory provision of R.A. No. 6657 in a suppletory character that are no inconsistent with the applicable provisions of R.A. No. 3844, Q - Should the landholding be sold or alienated to a new owner, what happens to the rights and obligations of the transferee and his heirs? A~The transferee and his heirs are subrogated to the rights and obligations of the former landowner. However, the change of landowner although never extinguishes leasehold relationship cannot be allowed to raise the status of a mere caretaker or tiller-sharer to that of an agricultural tenant and leaseholder. In other words, the spring cannot be higher than its source to explain it in me metaphorical language. Corollary to the foregoing comment, is likewise a determination regarding the right of a beneficiary to be entitled to a retention limit of a family-size farm which was reduced from five hectares if unirrigated, and three hectares if irrigated under R.A. No. 3844, to only three hectares including his additional acquisition upon the effectivity of the CARL or R.A. No, 6657 on June 15, 1988. Causes for Extinguishment of Leasehold Relation (@) Abandonment of a landholding without the knowledge of the lessor; () Voluntary surrender of the landholding by the lessee, written notice of which shalll be served three months in advance; (© Absence of successor or qualified heir, in case of death or permanent incapacity of the lessee; @_ Judicial ejectment of the lessee for causes provided under Section 36 of the Code; (©) Acquisition by the lessee of the landholding; (Termination of the leasehold under Section 28; (®) Mutual consent of the parties; CHAPTER a LBASEHOLDER AND LANDOWNER RELATIONSHIP (b) Conversion of the landholding for non-agricultural purposes subject to the conditions required by law. (Sec. 36, par. (1), infra) Obligations of the Lessee (1) Tocultivate and take care of the farm, growing crops, and other improvements on the landholding as a good father of a family nd perform all the work therein in accordance with proven farm practices; (2) Toinform the agricultural lessor within a reasonable time of any trespass committed by third persons upon the farm, without prejudice to his direct action against the trespassers; (8) To take reasonable care of the work animals and farm implements delivered to him by the agricultural lessor and see that they are not used by another without the knowledge and consent of the agricultural lessor: Provided, however, That if said work animals ot lost or die, or said farm implements get lost or are destroyed, through the negligence of the agricultural lessee, he shall be held rosponsible and made answerable therefor to the extent of the value of the work animals and/or farm implement at the time of the loss, death or destruction; (4) To keep his farm and growing crops attended to during the work season. In case of unjustified abandonment or neglect of his farm, any or all of the expected produce, may upon order of the jurt be forfeited in favor of the agricultural lessor to the extent of the damage caused thereby; (0) To notify the agricultural lessor at least (3) days before the date of harvesting of, whenever applicable after threshing; (6) ‘To pay the lease rental to the agricultural lessor when it falls due. (See. 26, supra) COMMENTS Section 26, R.A. No, 3844, empowers the lessee to take direct on against any trespasser to the landholding while waiting for tho response from the lessor, or the need of special authority from him, whenever in the best interest of the parties further delay will rosult in greater damage to the landholding. As such, he becomes a Foul party-in-interest to any action for damages or a complainant in ‘criminal case. Nevertheless, it still remains to be the obligation of32 AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALIZED the lessee to notify the lessor of any trespass to the farmholding by third persons within a reasonable time, Incase of abandonment or neglect of the farm by the agricultural lessee, the law imposes upon him a liability of being deprived of all the produce derived from the landholding in the absence of any justification for such abandonment or neglect, but only to the extent of the damage used and only upon order of the court. Under R.A. No. 6657, all matters or incidents involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, E.0. No. 229, and 129-A, R.A. No. 3844, as amended by R.A. No. 6389, P.D. No. 27 and other agrarian laws and implementing rules and regulations, fall under the primary jurisdiction, both original and appellate of the Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). (Sec. 50, R.A. No. 6657, Rule II, ARAB, Revised Rules of Procedure) Hence, Section 26, R.A. No. 9844 anent the obligations of the lessee, is impliedly repealed and/or amended by Section 50, R.A. No. 6657, which means that matters or incidents including relationship and obligations between lessor and lessee in agricultural leasehold ‘contemplate by R.A. No. 3844, shall henceforth, be adjudicated by the DAR through its instrumentality, the DARAB, in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions, and no longer by the regular courts or Special Agrarian Courts, whose jurisdiction is limited to the determination of just compensation and prosecution of all eriminal offenses arising from the violations and implementation of the CARL. Prohibitions to Agricultural Lessee (a) To contract to work additional landholdings belonging to a different agricultural lessor; () To acquire and personally cultivate a family-size farm without the knowledge and consent of the agricultural lessor; (©) Toemploy a sub-lessee. (See. 7, ibid.) COMMENTS ‘The prohibitions mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs (a) and (b) apply only where the lessee has not obtained the consent of the lessor with whom he as an existing leasehold relationship either by CHAPTERT LEASEHOLDER AND LANDOWNER RELATIONSHIP written agreement or by implication. But if these acts of the lessee fas defined in the foregoing paragraphs, were done by the lessee with the prior or sufficient knowledge of the agricultural lessor, and uch knowledge has been acquired personally by him or through his \gent or caretaker who after informing the lessor of the existence or ‘commission of such prohibited acts, the latter did nothing to caution or forbid the continuance of such acts, or continued to tolerate the ‘iets of the lessee as to consider his inaction amounting to estoppel hy acquiescence (estoppel in pais), then paragraphs (a) and (b) do hot apply. These prohibitions are intended more for the protection bf the lessor than for the lessee, so that the latter should devote his time in the efficient cultivation of the landholding with the view of deriving maximum production for their mutual benefit. Not even the ground of economic necessity shall allow the lose to violate the express provisions of the law. (Buencamino v. Reyes, 104 Phil. 906) Under par. (c) this prohibition that provides a caveat to the lossee from employing a sub-lessee, emphasizes the personal nature of a leasehold relation as a basic prerequisite in order to qual tenant-tiller to become a beneficiary of agricultural leasehold. However, in case of illness or temporary incapacity of the leaseholder, he is not prevented from hiring laborers and farm helpers so as not to hinder the continuous cultivation of the landholding. ‘The concept of sub-lessee here refers to one who practically ‘stops into the shoes of the leaseholder with whom the landowner has standing agreement either in writing or by operation of law, thus making the sub-lessee look like a usurper. Since the sub-lessee has ho standing agreement with the landowner, he is not duty bound to fulfill the obligations that the law imposes upon the lessee. Neither ean he be held responsible and made answerable for the loss of farm linplements, or the death of work animals, and damages that may be eaused by trespassers to the farmholding, nor can he be compelled to pay the lease rentals to the agricultural lessor when it falls due, simply because he is not privy to the contract between the lessee and the lessor. Termination of Leasehold by the Lessee (1) Cruel, inhuman or offensive treatment of the agricultural lowsee or any member of his immediate farm household by the fgricultural lessor or his representative with the knowledge and onsent of the lessor;4 AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALIZED (2) Non-compliance on the part of the agricultural lessor with any of the obligations imposed upon him by the provisions of, this Code or by his contract with the agricultural lessee; (8) Compulsion oi the agricultural lessee or any member of his immediate farm household by the agricultural lessor to do any work or render any service not any way connected with farm work or even without compulsion if no compensation is paid; (4) Commission of a crime by the representative against the agricultural his immediate farm household; or (©) Voluntary surrender due to circumstances more advanta- ‘geous to him and his family. (Sec. 28, supra) COMMENTS ‘The foregoing causes for the termination of leasehold relation do not need any judicial approval or order of the court. Under cause No. 5, however, the agricultural lessee is enjoined from abandoning the farm at the end of the agricultural year or at the close of the work ‘season, 80 as to provent the infliction of any unforeseen damage to the standing rice crops that may be occasioned by fortuitous events, like typhoons similar or of such magnitude that was wrought by typhoon Yolanda or Glenda that caused extensive destruction to rice plantations in some parts of Luzon which were ready for harvest. With respect to other causes aforementioned, the lessee may. not be prevented from leaving the farmholding for obvious reasons, especially when affiicted by terminal disease that may endanger his life, or those of the members of his immediate household. This is without prejudice to the right of the lessee who has abandoned the farmholding for a just cause, to claim from the agricultural lessor for reimbursement of expenses for cultivation, planting or harvesting, plus 1/2 of the useful improvements introduced by him on the land, provided that the surrender or abandonment of the landholding is justified by fortuitous circumstances, or he is forcibly ejected therefrom against his will. In case the agricultural lessee is forcibly ejected against his will, the lessor and/or his agents or representatives may still be prosecuted against under the provisions of P.D. No. 583. (Sec. 25, R.A. No. 3844, supra) Rights of the Agricultural Lessor (1) To inspect and observe the extent of compliance with the terms and conditions of their contract and the provisions of this Chapter; CHAPTER I a LEASEHOLDER AND LANDOWNER RELATIONSHIP (2) To propose a change in the use of the landholding to other agricultural purposes, or the kind of crops to be planted: Provided, hat in case of disagreoment as to the proposed change, the same shall be settled by the Court (now Adjudication Board) according to the best interests of the parties concerned. Provided, further, That in no case shall an agricultural lessee be ejected as a consequence of the conversion of the land to some other agricultural purpose or because of the change in the crop to be planted; (8) To require the agricultural lessee, taking into consider- ation his financial eapacity and the credit facilities available to him, to adopt in his proven farm practices necessary to the conservation of the land, improvement of its fertility and increase its productiv- ily. Provided, That in case of disagreement as to what proven farm practice the lessee shall adopt, the same shall be settled by the court (now DARAB) according to the best interest of the parties concerned; and (4) To mortgage expected rentals. (Sec. 29, supra) COMMENTS Section 75 of R.A. No. 6657 which is the primary law on igrarian reform today, expressly provides that all laws, Presidential Decrees and Executive Orders not inconsistent with the provisions of the said Act shall have suppletory effect. Hence, all leasehold ‘greements whether written or by implication between landowners nd tenant-farmers existing at the time of the effectivity of the CARL of 1988, and/or all leasehold relations established by operation of nw (R.A. No. 3844, P.D. No. 27, and E.O. Nos. 228 and 229) shall be reapected. With respect to leaseholders whose category have been raised to the status of owners-cultivator, and have fully complied with their obligations to the Land Bank, and/or have opted to become honeficiaries under R.A. No. 6657 within one year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the area of retention upon ‘offectivity of the latter law, their relationship shall be governed by the provisions of the CARL of 1988, insofar as there is impairment of the terms and conditions of their contracts. Section 85 of R.A. No. (i844, P.D. No, 316, P.D. No. 946 and P.D. No. 1038 and all other lnws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, issuances or parts thereof inconsistent with the provisions of R.A. No. 6657, are deemed repealed and/or amended accordingly. (Sec. 76, supra)36 AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALIZED Anent the provisions of Section 29, R.A. No. 3844 concerning settlement by the court case of disagreement as to proven farm practices and propose change as to the kind of crops to be planted, R.A. No. 657 has already vested jurisdiction on these matters involving the implementation of the CARP including all disputes arising from the implementation and enforcement of R.A. No. 3844, as amended and any and all agrarian reform laws with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board. Obligations of the Lessor (1) To keep the lessee in peaceful possession and cultivation of his landholding; (2) To keep intact the permanent useful improvements existing on the landholding at the start of the leasehold relation as irrigation and drainage systems, marketing allotments, which in the case of sugar quotas shall refer both to domestic and export quotas, provisions of existing laws to the contrary notwithstanding. (Sec. 30, supra) COMMENTS To enable the agricultural lessee to cultivate his landholding without interference from trespassers and to justify the payment. of the rentals that he is obliged to deliver to the lessor periodically, it therefore becomes the concomitant obligation of the agricultural lessor to maintain the lessee in a peaceful and quiet possession of his farmholding. To this end, should the lessor becomes stubborn and continues to refuse to extend his cooperation, the lessee may seek relief from the nearest Regional Agrarian Reform Adjudicators (RARAD) or the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicaturs (PARAD) to compel the agricultural lessor to comply with his obligation.’ Prohibition to the Agricultural Lessor (1) To dispossess the agricultural lessee of his landholding except upon authorization by the Court (now DARAB) under Section 36, Should the agricultural lessee be dispossessed of his landholding See Revised Rules of Procedure, Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) which took effect on December 26, 1988. Cases pending in the Office of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform before the effectivity of these Rules may be ‘decided and finally disposed of thereat in accordance with the principles of continuing jurisdiction, The Secretary, however, may in his diseretion sort said eases and refer the justiciable and adversarial ones to the adjudicator. CHAPTER I a LBASEHOLDER AND LANDOWNER RELATIONSHIP without authorization from the court, the agricultural lessor shall be liable for damages suffered by the agricultural lessee in addition to the fine or imprisonment prescribed in this Code (R.A. No. 3844) for unauthorized dispossession; (2) To require the agricultural lessee to assume, directly or indirectly, the payment of the taxes or part thereof levied by the government on the landholding; (8) To require the agricultural lessee to assume, directly or indirectly, any part of the rent, “canon” or other consideration which the agricultural lessor is under obligation to pay to third persons for the use of the land; (4) To deal with millers or processors without written authorization of the lessee in cases here the crop has to be sold in processed form before payment of the rental; or (6) To discourage, directly or indirectly, the formation, intenance or growth of unions or organizations of agricultural losses in his landholding, or initiate, dominate, assist or interfere in the formation or administration of any union or organization, COMMENTS Any unlawful dispossession of the lessee by the lessor of the Jundholding without authority or order from the court (Special Agrarian Court and/or the DARAB), will subject the agricultural lonsor to the following liabilities: (a) tobe liable for damages; (b) to pay a fine or ouffor impriconment or both ouch fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the DARAB or court; (See also P.D. No. 583) ‘The foregoing provision makes the agricultural lessor liable for Hequiring the lessee to assume payment of taxes to the government fon his landholding, or the payment of “canon” to third persons, lirectly or indirectly. These are the responsibilities of the lessor as Jnncowner or legal possessor or usufructuary. Indirect payment of these obligations by the lessee may be Practiced by the lessor by withholding the share of the lessee from the harvest until the taxes are paid by the lessee, or to require the lessee to deliver to the lessor any fungible goods or in kind whether uch goods or products are produced from the farmholding or not ina6 AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALIZED the guise of contribution by the lessee for payment of taxes on the landholding. Obligations to the government like payment of taxes are no longer the concern of the lessee whose sole monetary obligation is payment of rental for the land as agreed upon or as fixed by the DARAB or Regional Adjudicator or Provincial Adjudicator. It cannot even be stipulated in their written agreement, and should there be such stipulation in the written leasehold agreement making it an obligation for the lessee to pay real estate taxes on the landholding, said stipulation is considered illegal and could be struck down by the DARAB and declare the written agreement as null and void. Grounds for Dispossession of Agricultural Lessee (1) When the landholding is declared by the Department Head upon recommendation of the National Planning Commission to be suited for residential, commercial, industrial or some other urban purposes; (2) Failure to comply with any of the terms and conditions of the contract of lease; (8) Planting of crops or used the landholding for a purpose other than what had been previously agreed upon; (4) Failure to adopt proven far practices as determined under paragraph 3 of Section twenty-nine; (6) When through fault or negligence of the lessee, the land or. other substantial permanent improvement thereon is substantially damaged or destroyed or has reasonably deteriorated; (©) Failure to pay the lease rental when it falls due; (2, Employment of a sub-lessee. (Sec. 36, supra) COMMENTS The foregoing causes are grounds for ejectmentofan agricultural lessee only after the observance of due process and the lessee is. a given has day in court. It means that an order or decision from the DAR through proper Adjudication Board of Special Agrarian Court, relative to the criminal aspect of the acts complained of where the land lies upon proper hearing whereby the lessee is given an opportunity to present his side, must be first obtained before an agricultural lessee can be ejected from the landholding. Any summary or forcible ejectment of the lessee from the landholding CHAPTER I 9 LEASEHOLDER AND LANDOWNER RELATIONSHIP by the lessor or any of his agents or representatives, will make the Intter liable both civilly in damages and criminally. Since the deliberate refusal of the agricultural lessee to pay the tontals for the period of two years carries with it the grave penalty of forfeiture of landholding, it is imperative under the law that very opportunity must be given the lessee to be heard on his side of the controversy relating to the non-payment of rentals. (Magno v. Manco, 171 SCRA 703) Under P.D. No. 27, ownership of private agricultural lands tlovoted to rice and corn in excess of seven hectares, may be (wonsferred to tenant-farmers who cultivated them pursuant { operation land transfer program. The same causes above #humerated have been modified by R.A. No. 6657, such that with fospect to private agricultural lands which are tenanted, the tenant shall exercise the option of whether to remain in the area chosen lyy the landowner to be retained, or to be a beneficiary in the same F another agricultural land with similar or comparable features, within one year from the time the landowner has manifested his Fight of retention. In case he chooses to remain in the retained area, the tenant shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under the CARL. Should he choose to become a lary under the CARL, then he loses his right as a leaseholder land retained by the landowner. Under paragraph (1), the law grants a disturbance Hompensation to the lessee equivalent to five times the average of the ross harvest.on the landholding during the last five calendar Yours. Otherwise, should the declaration of the landholding for Wiitability to residential, commercial, industrial, and other purposes Ws implemented through expropriation proceedings, it is the humble Mibmission of this author that no such disturbance compensation Way be awarded to the lessee, except for reasonable reimbursement {HF \setul improvements introduced by the lessee on the landholding. Under paragraph (2), failure to substantially comply with the terms and conditions of their contract, will not constitute as a spend for ejectment where such failure is due to fortuitous event. W# non-adoption of proven farm practices under paragraph (4), Hhould not likewise constitute as a cause for ejectment where the Hessee lacks sufficient know how or training in the application of Wich scientific farm practices, and adoption thereof would entail Wilditional expenses of which the lessee cannot afford.0 AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALIZED Under paragraph (6), refusal of the lessee to pay the rental that is beyond the amount fixed by law shall not be a valid cause for dispossession, without prejudice to payment of the reasonable amount of rental. (Garchitorena v. Panganiban, 4 SCRA 388) If non- payment is due to crop failure to the extent of 75% of the entire harvest, the lessee may not be ejected. A sub-lessee that the law contemplates does not include transplanters and harvesters. (Bebni & Aleb v. CAR, 7 SCRA 812) A complaint brought the enforcement of the foregoing grounds for dispossession of the agricultural lessee, shall be commenced, within three years from the time such causes of action accrued, or from the time the landowner has learned of sue causes personally or through his agents or duly authorized representatives, otherwise, the action may be dismissed on the ground of prescription. (Sec. 38, RA. No. 3844) ‘The act of an overseer in hiring an agricultural lessee with the knowledge and acquiescence of the landowner validated the relationship thereby created. (Guano v. CA, supra) Lessee’s Right of Pre-emption and Redemption In case the agricultural lessor decide to sell the landholding, the agricultural lessee shall have the preferential right to buy: the same under reasonable terms and conditions: Provided, the entire landholding offered for sale must be pre-empted by Department of Agrarian Reform upon petition of the lessees, e: shall be entitled to said preferential right only to the extent of area actually cultivated by him. The right of pre-emption under Section may be exercised within 180 days from notice in writi which shall be served by the owner on all lessees affected and Department of Agrarian Reform. If the agricultural lease agrees with the terms and conditi of the sale, he must give notice in writing to the agricultural les of his intention to exercise his right of pre-emption within the lable to him, but in any case less than 30 days. He must either tender payment of, or pres certificate from the Land B that it shall make payment pursuant Section 80 of this Code, on the price of the landholding to the a cultural lessor. If the latter refuses to accept such tender or present ‘ment, he may consign it with the Court. Any dispute as to the reasonableness of the terms a conditions, may be brought by the lessee or by the Department CHAPTER I a LEASEHOLDER AND LANDOWNER RELATIONSHIP Aurarian Reform to the proper Court of Agrarian Relations (Special Agrarian Court) which shall decide the same within 60 days from the date of the filing thereof: Provided, That upon finality of the ‘decision of the Court of Agrarian Relations, the Land Bank shall y to the agricultural lessor the price fixed by the court within 120 ays: Provided, further, That in case the Land Bank fails to pay within the period, the principal shall earn an interest equivalent to the prime bank rate existing at the time. Upon the filing of the corresponding petition or request with tho department or corresponding case in court by the agricultural Jonvee or lessees, the said period of one hundred eighty (180) days shall cease to run. Any petition or request for pre-emption shall be resolved within 00 days from the filing thereof, otherwise the said period shalll start Worun again. (See. 14, supra) COMMENTS ‘The right of pre-emption as distinguished from the right of todomption, is the right granted by the Code of Agrarian Reform (R.A. No. 984) to the agricultural lessee to purchase the property subject ‘of his landholding, from the agricultural lessor, which is exercised Wfore said land is sold to a third person other than the lessee or Iesnoes. In order to avail of this right, the lessee concerned should serve notice to the office of the Department of Agrarian Reform of his desire to purchase the property by filing a petition with the DAR from receipt of notice from the landowner in writing offering to sell the property under leasehold and cultivated by the lessee within the od of 180 days. If he agrees on the terms and conditions stated the offer by the landowner, then the lessee must give notice to ‘ultural lessor of his intention to exercise his right of pre- ‘Mnption within the balance of 180 days still available but not less thon 30 days, by tendering payment to the lessor or presenting a ‘rtificate issued by the Land Bank, the government machinery that kes payment for the landholding subject to repayment by the jnoe-purchaser in pre-emption method on amortized basis. In case of refusal by the lessor to accept tender of payment ‘Wf presentment of Land Bank certificate guaranteeing payment of the land, then the lessee may consign the purchase money with the Department of Agrarian Reform, through the proper Regional or Provincial Adjudicator of the place where the land lies. The word2 AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALIZEI used in the law, refers to the defunct Court of Agrarian Relations which was abolished, functions of which are now exercised by the DAR in the exercise of its quasi-judicial functions. Determination of just compensation shalll be decided by the Special Agrarian Courts. Should there be more than one lessee who are interested to exercise their right of pre-emption, then each shall be entitled to purchase the extent of the area actually cultivated by each of them. Lessee's Right of Redemption In case the landholding is sold to third persons without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration: Provided, That where there are two or more agricultural lessee, each shall be entitled to said right of redemption only to the extent of the area actually cultivated by him. The right of redemption under this Section may be exercised within 180 days from notice in writing which shalll be served by the Vendee on all lessees affected and the Department of Agrarian Reform upon registration of the sale, and shall have priority over any other asserted right of legal redemption. ‘The redemption price shalll be the reasonable price of the land at the time of the sale. Upon the filing of the corresponding petition or request with the Department or corresponding case in court by the agricultural lessee or lessees, the said period of 180 days all cease to run. Any petition or request for redemption shall be resolved within 60 days from the filing thereof, otherwise the said period shall start tomin again ‘The Department of Agrarian Reform shall initiate while the Land Bank shall finance said redemption, as in the case of pre- ‘emption. (Sec. 12, supra) COMMENTS: ‘The right of redemption differs from pre-emption such that the former contemplates of a consummated sale and transfer of ‘ownership of the landholding to a third person, while in right of pre- ‘emption no such sale to a third person has yet taken place. Under: Section 12 (R.A. No. 3844), the agricultural lessee shall have a preferential right to redeem the land from that third person over any other interested person. Should that third person who is the vendee CHAPTER | a LEASEHOLDER AND LANDOWNER RELATIONSHIP of the landholding by virtue of the sale of the land by the agricultural lowsor without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee or lessees, vofuse to accept the lessee's offer to redeem, the agricultural lessee Who is the actual cultivator of the landholding thus sold, shall file his petition with the DAR through the proper Regional or Provincial Auljudicator where the land lies to compel the vendee-third person to have the land redeemed. The DAR shalll initiate the redemption process in behalf of the agricultural lessee, while the Land Bank shall make payment of the redemption price which shall be repaid hy the lessee concerned in legitimate amortization basis. es (right of redemption or pre-emption) the sonable value of the land whether agreed upon by the parties or ‘fixed by the DAR, shall be the redemption price.‘ Should the area uubject of redemption be bigger than the area actually cultivated, tho excess shall be divided equally among the lessees by mutual ‘yreement, and if they cannot agree then the matter shall be decided In © proper judicial proceeding (now quasi-judicial proceeding) bofore the DARAB." Even after the effectivity of the CARL of 1988, this provision on the lessee’s right of redemption and pre-emption will applies, because the repealing clause of R.A. No. 665 expressly provides that, only Section 35 of R.A. No. 384 as amended by R.A. No. 89, referring to fishponds, citrus, coffee, coconut plantation, cacao plantations, saltbeds, etc. is repealed, but the rest of its provisions Not inconsistent with the CARL, shall have suppletory application. However, this right of redemption that is granted to the agricultural lonsoe, may be lost by failure to exercise the same within 180 days from the time the lessee learned of the sale of the landholding by the Jomsor in favor of the third person.* Right to Self-Organization ‘The farmworkers shall have the right to self-organization and form, join or assist farmworkers’ organizations of their own choosing lor the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing; Provided, That this right shall be exercised {ji a manner as will not unduly interfere with the normal farm ‘gperations. Individuals employed as supervisors shall not be Sligible for membership in farmworkers’ organizations under their ‘See Valder v, Belmocena, CA-G-R. No, 01487-R, October 7, 1976 "See Real Monasterio de la Purisima Concepcion v. Folian, etal, 1-28470, Hepner 9, 1968, See Dangcalas v. Sepulveda, CA-GR, No, 07947, March 24, 1976.“4 AGRARIAN REFORM LAW REVITALIZED supervision but may form separate organizations of their own. (Sec. 40, supra) COMMENTS Right to form associations is recognized as an effective vehicle in the peaceful settlement of agrarian disputes as guaranteed by the Bill of Rights. It is thus designed for the protection of the farmworkers’ just claims against the economic set-up dominated by ruthless capitalists and assures their due shares from the benefits generated by production and full operation of the CARL. Bill of Rights for Agricultural Labor To enable the farmworker to enjoy the same rights and opportunities of life as industrial workers, they shall enjoy the following: (2) Right to self-organization; (2) Right to engage in concerted activities as defined in R.A. No. 875; (8) Right to minimum wage; (4) Right to work for not more than eight hours; (©) Right to claim for damages for death or injuries sustained. while at work; (6) Right to compensation for personal injuries; death or illness; (Right against suspension or lay-off. (Sec. 39, RA. No. 3844, as amended) Right to Engage in Concerted Activities ‘The farm workers shall also have the right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and other mutual aid or protection, For the purpose of this and the preceding Section, it shall be the duty of the farm employer or manager, to allow the farmworkers, labor leader organizers, advisers, and helpers complete freedom to enter and leave the farm plantations or compound at the portion of the same where said farmworker live or stay permanently or temporarily. (See. 41, supra) CHAPTER I 45 LBASEHOLDER AND LANDOWNER RELATIONSHIP ‘The foregoing provisions are corollary to the right to self- organization, and includes the right to strike and hold picket in order {o compel the management in the case of large-scale plantations and multinational corporations doing business in the Philippines to moet the demands of the farmworkers for wage increase and better working conditions. Right to Minimum Wage Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary, farm: workers in farm enterprises shall be entitled to at least contrary, 12.65 a day for eight hours work. Provided, That this wage may, however, be increased by the Minimum Wage Board as provided for by law. Right of Action for Damages Notwithstanding the provisions of existinglaws to the contrary, ‘Aot 874, as amended entitled “An Act to extend and regulate the fexponsibility of employers for personal injuries and death suffered hy their employees while at work,” shall apply to farmworkers \nwofar as it may be applicable. (See. 44, supra) COMMENTS ‘The Labor Code of the Philippines (P.D. No. 442, as amended) ip the law applicable governing liabilities of employers to their ‘employees who incur death or physical injuries in the course of their ‘Snployment or while engaged in their customary work or on the ‘Seension thereof, without prejudice to the prosecution for criminal Violations of the agrarian reform law and the Revised Penal Code. Portinent provisions of Articles 2176-2193 of the Civil Code on torts nd damages (quasi-delicts) as well as, Articles 19, 20, 21, 82, 33, ‘und 84 of the Civil Code may likewise find application in appropriate ayes which may be initiated separately and independently of the (riminal action and needs only preponderance of evidence to grant ocovery. Right Against Suspension and Lay-off ‘The landowner, farm employer or farm manager shall not Auspend, lay-off, or dismiss any farmworker without just cause from the time a farmworkers’ organization or group of farmworkers