[September 5, 2001.]
IN RE: APPLICATION FOR COMMERCIAL FARM DEFERMENT
PANABO HEMP COMPANY, INC. (PAHECO) rep. By MR. ANTONIO R. FLOIRENDO JR., applicant-appellant.
O R D E R
Before this Office is a Motion for Reconsideration (herein treated as an Appeal) filed by PAHERO, through its representative, form the Order issued by the Regional Director dated 30 April 1998 disapproving their application for commercial farm deferment over TCT T-913 containing an area of 522.0352 hectares situated at Sindaton, Panabo, Davao.
Per application, the subject landholding is devoted to the following:
Crops/Animals Area Start of Commercial
First Raised Production
Banana and others 70.6200 1993
Pasture Lands 398.9152 1993
Fish Pond 52.5000 1993
The regional Director cited the following grounds for the disapproval:
1. Previous application is for rubber.
2. Change of crops was made after the land valuation of the property had been determined by Land Bank of the Philippines.
3. Pasture lands are now governed by the guidelines on exemption if actually, directly and exclusively devoted to livestock as June 15, 1988.
4. Fish ponds are governed by the guidelines on exemption pursuant to RA 7881, if actually, directly and exclusively devoted to fishpond as of March 25, 1995.
5. The subject, property had been issued with Notice of Coverage.
Appellant admits the fact that there was indeed a change of crop in the commercial farm subject of the instant case, thus in the present application for deferment, instead of rubber which is contained in their previous application, the crops involved are bananas and others. However, they contend that they have not, come across. In effect, they claim that the 10 year deferment period should commence in 1993, the year its plantation had attained full commercial stage of production form the rehabilitation and development.
Appellant claims that it was only in 1993 that the farm attained full commercial production. It is an undisputed fact, however, that the subject landholding was devoted to rubber at the time of the filing of the instant application for deferment until its rehabilitation in 1991.
The issue now lies on whether the instant application could be approved in view of the change of crop in 1991.
Since the guidelines for deferment cover only commercial crops and not livestock and fishpond which are covered by different DAR guidelines, the resolution of the issue herein shall be limited to the disposition of the banana portion of the subject landholding. The application for exclusion of the livestock.
Administrative Order No. 16, Series of 1988 provides for deferment from CARP coverage under Section 11 of RA 6657, thus:
"To qualify for deferment from acquisition and distribution by DAR in accordance with the phasing prescribed in Section 7 of RA 6657, and consequently to qualify for deferment from CARP coverage under Section 11 of RA 6657, commercial farm/s shall meet the following condition:
a. the farm should already be planted to commercial crops or devoted to commercial farming operations before June 15, 1988;
b. the farm should meet the criteria set in Annex A of these rules regulations; and
c. the farm shall be applied for deferment with DAR and the same is approved by DAR. "(Emphasis supplied)
It is clear from the aforecited Administrative Order that in order to qualify for deferment the farm should have been planted to commercial crops prior June 15, 1988. From the records of this case, banana was introduced by the appellant only after June 15, 1988. Outright, the application for deferment involving the banana portion must be denied.
It should be remembered that the rationale for granting deferment is in order for the owner to recoup his investment. The presumption is that the farmholding is productive or that agricultural activity is continuous.
In the instant case, appellant admitted that even upon the filing of the previous application, the rubber plantation had ceased its productivity. The presumption of productivity was therefore negated. Further, the instant application cannot be justified by the, fact that the firm had bean rehabilitated. For if DAR would allow this situation, the purpose and essence of deferment would mean nothing.
Landowners cannot just change their crops/plantation whimsically which would in effect delay the implementation of agrarian reform. The concept "new farms" contemplated under Sec. 11, RA. 6657 does not comprehend those farms which started their commercial farming after R.A. 6657. "New farms" implies that the commercial farming commenced prior to June 15, 1988 but which commercial production has only started after such date. Thus, appellant's contention with regard to this matter is unmeritorious.
With respect to the other portions of land allegedly used as pasture and others as fishpond, a separate application for exemption should be filed such pasture lands and fishponds indeed existed prior to June 15, 1988 or prior to March 12, 1995, respectively (Administrative Order No. 10, Series of 1994, Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1995, Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993). However, considering that an Appeal had been filed by appellants explaining their position on why portions of their property devoted to livestock and fishpond should be excluded/exempted from CARP coverage, the Appeal is herein treated as appellant's application for exemption.
WHEREFORE, promises considered, Order, is hereby issued DENYING the instant application. Coverage of 70.6200 hectares presently devoted to banana plantation should proceed. The Appeal filed by PAHECO dated July 28, 2000 is hereby considered as its application for exemption from CARP coverage for portions of the subject property devoted to livestock and fishpond. For this purpose, the MARO of Panabo, Davao is hereby directed to conducted to conduct an investigation as to whether the remaining area consisting of 451.4152 hectares have been actually, directly and exclusively devoted to pasture lands prior to June 15, 1988 and to fishponds prior to March 12, 1995, otherwise, the same shall also be subject to the coverage of RA. 6657. The MARO of Panabo, Davao shall also submit an investigation report within thirty (30) days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.
Diliman, Quezon, City.
(SGD.) HERNANI A. BRAGANZA
Secretary
Copy Furnished:
Antonio R. Floriendo, Jr.
Panabo Hemp Company, Inc.
Bo. A.O. Floriendo, Panabo, Davao del Norte
The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
DARMO, Panabo, Davao
The Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
Panabo, Davao
The Regional Director
DAR region XI
Quimpo Avenue, Ecoland, Davao City