DIGESTS OF DOJ OPINIONS (1962-2010)

Administrative Settlement Under Presidential Decree No. 242

 

ADMINISTRATIVE SETTLEMENT UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 242

        It appearing that the subject matter of our query involves a controversy between the NIA and the DAR, both government agency, arising from the interpretation and application of the provisions of R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 8532 and 3610, in relation to Proclamation No. 131, the same is matter proper for administrative settlement or adjudication under Presidential Decree No. 242, as adopted in Chapter 14, Book IV of Executive Order No. 242.

DOJ Opinion No. 33, S. 2007
June 21, 2007

Agrarian Reform Fund, Cumulative Amount

 

AGRARIAN REFORM FUND, CUMULATIVE AMOUNT

        The amount of P52.7 billion represents the amount actually and automatically appropriated for the ARF consisting of the initial amount of P50 billion appropriated under Section 2 of Proclamation No. 131 and as reiterated in Section 20 of E.O. No. 229, and the supplemental amount of P2.7 billion appropriated under Section 21 of the same E.O. No. 229.

DOJ Opinion No. 103, S. 1996
November 18, 1996

CARP Coverage, Agricultural Lands Owned by Kalakalan 20 Beneficiaries

 

CARP COVERAGE, AGRICULTURAL LANDS OWNED BY KALAKALAN 20 BENEFICIARIES

        The agricultural lands which are exempted from the reach of the CARP are enumerated in Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657.  If the Congress had intended those agricultural lands belonging to Country Side and Barangay Business Enterprises (CBEEs) excluded from CARP coverage, it could have expressly stated so in R.A. No. 6810;  but such intention is not even clearly manifest from a close reading of the said law.

DOJ Opinion No. 180, S. 1990
October 15, 1990

CARP Coverage, Untitled Private Agricultural Lands

 

CARP COVERAGE, UNTITLED PRIVATE AGRICULTURAL LANDS

        (By said rules .................... titled or untitled …………………………… While the payment of compensation to landowners of untitled or unregistered land may not have been expressly provided for in the CARL, the authority to make such payment may be found in the applicable agrarian reform laws and duly issued rules and regulations of the DAR.)

DOJ Opinion No. 176, S. 1992
December 17, 1992

Coconut Levy Funds as Funding Source for the ARF

 

COCONUT LEVY FUNDS AS FUNDING SOURCE FOR THE ARF

        Thus, even assuming argumentatively, that the coconut levy funds, per se, are not special funds, by express mandate of the law, before the same can be classified as funding sources for the ARF, the Sandiganbayan must make a prior determination that the said funds are "ill-gotten".  Absent such determination, the funds cannot be included as funding source of the ARF.

DOJ Opinion No. 61, S. 2007
October 05, 2007

Compulsory Acquisition, Procedure

 

COMPULSORY ACQUISITION, PROCEDURE

        This procedure requires that the LBP pay the landowner the purchase price of the land, which may have been mutually agreed upon or fixed by summary administrative proceedings, and for the FBs to pay the LBP the amortization installments over the land awarded to them.

DOJ Opinion No. 12, S. 1993
January 22, 1993

Consultancy Services for Mindanao Sustainable Settlement Area Development (MINSSAD)

 

CONSULTANCY SERVICES FOR MINDANAO SUSTAINABLE SETTLEMENT AREA DEVELOPMENT (MINSSAD)

        Based on the provisions of the JBIC Guidelines and the pertinent provisions of E.O. No. 40 and its IRR, there is no other recourse but to disqualify outright the said first-ranked firm since its financial proposal exceeds the bid ceiling as approved by DAR.

DOJ Opinion No. 105, S. 2002
December 12, 2002

Conversion, Authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform

 

CONVERSION, AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

        DAR exercises authority over land conversion case under the CARL.  However, in view of Section 20 of the Local Government Code of 1991 which devolved to LGUs the authority to reclassify agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses in certain cases, DAR’s land conversion authority under the CARL will have to be exercised in conjunction with the devolved power of LGUs under said Section 20. 

DOJ Opinion No. 52, S. 1996
May 14, 1996

 

CONVERSION, AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

        Opinion No. 44, series of 1990 of this Department ruled that the authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) to approve conversions of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses may be exercised from the date of the law’s effectivity on June 15, 1988.  Prior to said date, the exercise of such authority was "coordinated effort" of all concerned agencies, namely,  the Department of Local Governments and Community Development, the Human Settlements Commission and the DAR. 

DOJ Opinion No. 136, S. 1993
September 22, 1993

 

CONVERSION, AUTHORITY OF THE DAR

        The authority of the DAR to approve or disapprove conversions of agricultural lands to non-agricultural uses applies only to conversions made on or after June 15, 1988, the date of effectivity of R.A. No. 6657.

DOJ Opinion No. 44, S. 1990
March 16, 1990

Coverage, Agro-Industrial Land Being Offered by GHI/NFC

 

COVERAGE, AGRO-INDUSTRIAL LAND BEING OFFERED BY GHI/NFC

        The legislative intent is clear.  Agro-industrial enterprise vis-à-vis agro-industrial land is covered by CARL.  This, taken in conjunction with how the actual definition of Agricultural land as contained in Section 3 (c) of the CARL, one can clearly conclude that the legislative intent is to promote the objective of land reform by not unduly restricting its coverage, but by amplifying it to apply to those classes of lands not expressly excluded thereby.

DOJ Opinion No. 67, S. 2006
September 25, 2006

Decision, Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC)

 

DECISION, PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN REFORM COUNCIL (PARC)

        PARC may reconsider its decision and may grant reliefs and other remedies whenever applicable under existing laws.

DOJ Opinion No. 111, S. 1994
July 28, 1994

DOJ Opinion No. 105, Series of 2002, Clarification

 

DOJ OPINION NO. 105, SERIES OF 2002, CLARIFICATION

        The JBIC and NEDA letters express in no uncertain terms the respective positions of the JBIC, which is the funding agency, and the NEDA, which prepared and issued the Implementing Rules and Regulations of E.O. No. 40, on the applicability of the JBIC Guidelines in this case.  We have no reason to dispute or disregard their positions which, we believe, are consistent with law.

DOJ Opinion No. 20, S. 2003
March 20, 2003

Exemption, by Virtue of Presidential Proclamations

 

EXEMPTION, BY VIRTUE OF PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATIONS

        Since the lands covered by the two Proclamations in question have been reserved for townsite purposes to be developed as human settlements by the proper land and housing agency, the same are not deemed "agricultural lands" within the meaning and intent of Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657 and are beyond the purview of DAR A.O. No. 01, Series of 1990.

DOJ Opinion No. 181, S. 1990
October 19, 1990

Fishpond Excluded from CARP Coverage

 

FISHPOND EXCLUDED FROM CARP COVERAGE

        The Supreme Court has ruled that "the above-mentioned provisions of R.A. No. 7881 expressly state that fishponds and prawn farms are excluded from the coverage of CARL."  (Resolution of the SC En Banc in Atlas Fertilizer Corp. vs. The Hon. Sec. of the DAR, G.R. No. 93100 and in Philippine Federation of Fishfarm Producers, Inc. vs. The Hon. Sec. of DAR, G.R. No. 97855, promulgated on June 19, 1997).  In view thereof, a person’s right to own or retain any fishpond or prawn far, is not subject to the restrictions imposed by the CARL, particularly Section thereof.  It follows that an FLA involving a land exceeding the size prescribed  in Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 may already be issued to any qualified applicant.

DOJ Opinion No. 75, S. 1998
June 18, 1998

Foreclosure of Mortgage Under Presidential Decree No. 27

 

FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27

        Foreclosure of mortgage is a remedy by which the property covered may be subjected to sale to pay the debt for which the mortgage stands as security, and since the land is by law no longer transferable except to the heirs of the tenant-farmer or to the government, I do not see how the right to foreclose can subsist when the mortgaged property has ceased to be alienable property of the mortgagor, and the property cannot be transferred to the purchaser in the foreclosure proceedings.

DOJ Opinion No. 92, S. 1978
July 5, 1978

Foreclosure, Undertaken by GFI on Sugarlands

 

FORECLOSURE, UNDERTAKEN BY GFI ON SUGARLANDS

        Sugarlands already foreclosed by GFIs as of the effectivity of R.A. No. 7202 are not excluded from the coverage of the CARL although their respective owners are entitled to the benefit of recomputation of their paid loan accounts for the purpose of determining if they had made any excess payments on interests, penalties and surcharge which are condoned and if so, for such excess payments to be credited  to payment of their remaining accounts, if any, or refunded to them.

DOJ Opinion No. 91, S. 1995
September 12, 1995

Implementation, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law

 

IMPLEMENTATION, COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW

        It bears emphasis that the ten-year period of implementation is only a time frame given to the DAR for the acquisition and distribution of public and private agricultural lands covered by R.A. No. 6657.  It is a schedule to guide the DAR in setting its priorities, but it is not by any means a limitation of authority in the absence of more categorical language providing to that effect.

DOJ Opinion No. 9, S. 1997
February 14, 1997

Jurisdiction, Bureau of Lands

 

JURISDICTION, BUREAU OF LANDS

        All areas thus reserved will remain under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Lands, which may deal with them in accordance with the provisions of the Public Land Act.  The areas so reserved may not, however, be leased because under Section 88 of the Public Land Act, such reserved lands "shall be non-alienable and shall not be subject to occupation, entry, sale, lease or other disposition until again declared alienable under the provisions of this Act or by proclamation by the President".

DOJ Opinion No. 77, S. 1962
July 9, 1962

Jurisdiction, Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)

 

JURISDICTION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM (DAR)

        The primary responsibility to determine whether the documents submitted by the Heirs of Colicario B. Abayon are in order  lies with the appropriate Regional, Provincial and Municipal Offices of the DAR.  This is clear from a perusal of A.O. No. 06.  As stated earlier, these are factual issues over which this Department cannot rule upon.

DOJ Opinion No. 36, S. 2006
May 29, 2006

 

JURISDICTION, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

        The aforesaid Act also explicitly grants the DAR quasi-judicial powers vesting it with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and in the exercise of said power, it shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Section 50).

DOJ Opinion No. 174, S. 1988
August 26, 1988

Just Compensation, Notice of Land Acquisition and Valuation as Reckoning Date of Landowners Payment

 

JUST COMPENSATION, NOTICE OF LAND ACQUISITION AND VALUATION AS RECKONING DATE OF LANDOWNERS PAYMENT

        Since the query relates to a landowner’s landholding which is compulsorily covered under the CARP, it will not matter on whether the offer is accepted or rejected by the landowner.  From the time that the DAR sends a notice of land acquisition and valuation to the landowner, there is already deemed an existing obligation for the DAR to pay the landowner.

DOJ Opinion No. 13, S. 2009
March 2, 2009

LBP Bonds, Use Thereof

 

LBP BONDS, USE THEREOF

        LBP bonds "shall be eligible at face value for the purchase of government assets" (Sec. 6, E.O. 229) and by Resolution No. 87-3-1, the PARC has decided that such bonds be accepted as payment for such assets "at 100% face value".

DOJ Opinion No. 110, S. 1988
May 19, 1988

Mediation and Conciliation;  Under R.A. No. 6657 and P.D. No. 1508

 

MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION;  UNDER R.A. NO. 6657 AND P.D. NO. 1508

        The requirement of mediation and conciliation before the BARC under R.A. No. 6657 must be deemed to have superseded the similar requirement of mediation and conciliation before the Lupong Tagapayapa.

DOJ Opinion No. 68, S. 1991
April 23, 1991

Period, Directory

 

PERIOD, DIRECTORY

        There is no absolute prohibition against the PARC to act beyond the period fixed therein.  The provision only states that the failure of the PARC to act within the two-year period will result in the subjection of the land area "to the compulsory coverage of" R.A. 6657.

DOJ Opinion No. 115, S. 1990
June 14, 1990

Powers, Department of Agrarian Reform

 

POWERS, DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM

        While the DAR has been granted quasi-judicial powers to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matter, the same law provided for an exception, i.e., "those falling under exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture" which could only refer to such power as have heretofore been exercised by the DA under existing laws, e.g., P.D. No. 704 (the Fisheries Decree of 1975), provided, of course, that in the grant of such lease or permits for fishpond purposes, the limitations set by the Constitution and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law shall be respected.

DOJ Opinion No. 53, S. 1989
March 13, 1989

Public Records and Documents Access by the Public

 

PUBLIC RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS ACCESS BY THE PUBLIC

        As DAR OIC, it is perfectly within your authority to allow the public access to official records and documents on file with the DAR.  The Constitution guarantees the people’s right to be informed on all matters of public concern and to make this effective.  The Constitution imposes a corresponding duty on the part of the State and its agents to afford the public access to official records, documents, papers and government research  data used as basis for policy development, subject to such limitations as may be provided by law.

DOJ Opinion No. 124, S. 1989
June 29, 1989

Realty Taxes, on Tenanted Rice and/or Corn Lands (Who Should Hear the Burden)

 

REALTY TAXES, ON TENANTED RICE AND/OR CORN LANDS (WHO SHOULD HEAR THE BURDEN)

        With respect to tenanted rice and/or corn lands 100 hectares or more in area, it is beyond question that the tenant-farmers are already deemed owners of the land they till and, as such owners, they ought to pay the real property taxes assessable on the said lands regardless for whether or not land transfer certificates have been issued.  However, as regards lands containing less than 100 hectares, it is believed that, all things considered, it would be more logical and reasonable to conclude that pending implementation of the decree as to those lands, the ownership of the lands remains with or still retained by the present landowners.

DOJ Opinion No. 35, S. 1973
February 27, 1973

Reform Fund, Distinctionsagrarian Reform Operating Fund and Agrarian Reform Fund, Distinctions

 

REFORM FUND, DISTINCTIONSAGRARIAN REFORM OPERATING FUND AND AGRARIAN REFORM FUND, DISTINCTIONS

        The Agrarian Reform Operating Fund under E.O. No. 228 is intended to finance the cost of Operation Land Transfer pursuant to P.D. No. 27, while the Agrarian Reform Fund under E.O. No. 229 is intended to cover the funding requirements of the CARP.

DOJ Opinion No. 35, S. 1988
March 2, 1988

Refusal to Render Opinion

 

REFUSAL TO RENDER OPINION

        The Secretary of Justice, pursuant to the settled policy and precedent, renders opinion or gives legal advice not only upon request of national government functionaries such as heads of departments, chiefs of bureaus and offices of equivalent ranks and then only on specific questions of law.  Accordingly, he has, in practice, consistently declined to render opinion or give legal advice to other government officials and to individual entities.

DOJ Opinion No. 23, S. 2010
May 19, 2010

 

REFUSAL TO RENDER OPINION

        The Secretary of Justice, time and again, has desisted from passing upon issues that have already been the subject of official action by other officials/offices over whose actuations he possesses no revisory authority.  This rule arises not only from practical considerations but also out of due respect and deference for the competence and expertise of the office having primary jurisdiction to resolve the matter for its familiarity with the policy repercussions of the question as well as from logical recognition of the lawful exercise of an authority conferred by law.

DOJ Opinion No. 12, S. 2008
March 13, 2008

 

REFUSAL TO RENDER OPINION

        By established policy and precedents, this Department has desisted from passing upon the official actuations/rulings of any government officials, over whom this Department has neither supervisory nor revisory authority.

DOJ Opinion No. 26, S. 2006
April 3, 2006

 

REFUSAL TO RENDER OPINION

        The Secretary of Justice, however, has, time and again, desisted from passing upon issues which have already been the subject of official action by other offices/officials, including the courts, over whose actuations he possesses no revisory authority.

DOJ Opinion No. 23, S. 1999
March 5, 1999

 

REFUSAL TO RENDER OPINION

        Pursuant to established policy, this Department has consistently declined to pass upon issuances and/or official actuations of other government officials over which the Secretary of Justice exercises no supervisory jurisdiction and over whose actions he possesses no revisory authority.

DOJ Opinion No. 62, S. 1997
August 4, 1997

 

REFUSAL TO RENDER OPINION

        It is noted that the issues raised relate to the sale of the foreclosed properties (acquired assets) of the bank.  The resolution of said questions will inevitably affect the substantive rights not only of the bank but also of the buyers of the foreclosed properties and which opinion, if adverse to either of them, may likely be contested in the courts.  By settled policy and precedents, the Secretary of Justice does not render opinion on matters which affect the substantive rights of private parties and which subsequently become the subject of a judicial controversy.

DOJ Opinion No. 52, S. 1997
July 7, 1997

 

REFUSAL TO RENDER OPINION

        Pursuant to settled policy and practice, this Department has consistently refrained from expressing its views on matters falling within the primary jurisdiction of another office or agency, such as the DAR.

DOJ Opinion No. 77, S. 1996
July 25, 1996

 

REFUSAL TO RENDER OPINION

        In line with existing policy and practices, the Secretary of Justice does not render opinion or give legal advice on matters which fall within the primary jurisdiction of another office or agency, in this case, the DAR, whose rulings and actuations are not subject to its revisory authority.

DOJ Opinion No. 74, S. 1996
August 1, 1996

 

REFUSAL TO RENDER OPINION

        As a matter of policy, this Department does not render opinion on matters which fall within the primary jurisdiction of another office or agency, in this case, the DAR, whose rulings and actuations are not subject to its revisory authority.

DOJ Opinion No. 101, S. 1995
October 5, 1995

 

REFUSAL TO RENDER OPINION

        The resolution of your query would unavoidably pass upon the powers and functions of the DAR which is vested with "primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform".

DOJ Opinion No. 82, S. 1995
August 24, 1995

 

REFUSAL TO RENDER OPINION

        Since there is already a Presidential issuance on the matter, we decline, as a matter of courtesy, from making any comment which might be misconstrued as a review of the official actuations of the President.

DOJ Opinion No. 137, S. 1994
September 26, 1994

 

REFUSAL TO RENDER OPINION

        Under established precedents and practice of this Department, the Secretary of Justice refrain from passing upon factual issues or legal questions mixed with factual matters, inasmuch as, by law, he is mandated to resolve purely legal issues.

DOJ Opinion No. 52, S. 1994
April 18, 1994

 

REFUSAL TO RENDER OPINION

        By established practice and precedents, the Secretary of Justice has consistently refrained from rendering opinion or legal advice involving the interpretation or application of court orders or decisions, since the resolution of such issues primarily pertains to the court.

DOJ Opinion No. 1, S. 1994
January 17, 1994

 

REFUSAL TO RENDER OPINION

        Pursuan to settled precedents, however, this Department has consistently declined opinions on issues regarding the application or interpretation of the administrative circulars or regulations of another office or agency.

DOJ Opinion No. 80, S. 1992
June 18, 1992

 

REFUSAL TO RENDER OPINION

        As a matter of policy, therefore, the Secretary of Justice has consistently refrained from rendering opinion on questions which are justiciable in nature or those which may be the subject of litigation before the courts.

DOJ Opinion No. 1, S. 1992
January 7, 1992

 

REFUSAL TO RENDER OPINION

        Pursuant to settled precedents, however, this Department has consistently declined opinions on issues regarding the application or interpretation of the administrative circulars or regulations of another office or agency (Secretary of Justice Opn. No. 160, S. 1988) or on queries involving the examination of the legal propriety of such issuances, unless upon the request of said office or agency.

DOJ Opinion No. 81, S. 1991
May 7, 1991

 

REFUSAL TO RENDER OPINION

        By established policy and practice, the Secretary of Justice refrains from expressing his views on matters that fall within the primary jurisdiction of a co-equal, and coordinate Department, unless it is upon the request of said office or agency in connection with a question of law arising in the performance of their respective functions.

DOJ Opinion No. 26, S. 1988
February 12, 1988

Registration Fees, Transactions Under R.A. No. 6657 Exempt from Payment of

 

REGISTRATION FEES, TRANSACTIONS UNDER R.A. NO. 6657 EXEMPT FROM PAYMENT OF

        Indeed, Sections 66 and 67 of R.A. No. 6657 clearly provide that only those transactions under this Act are exempted from the payment of registration fees and that the Register of Deeds are to register free from payment of all fees and other charges, patents, titles and documents required for the implementation of the CARP.  Nowhere does it state that it also covers homestead and free patents issued by the DENR under C.A. No. 141.

DOJ Opinion No. 59, S. 2004
June 17, 2004

Registration, Land Transactions

 

REGISTRATION, LAND TRANSACTIONS

        It is legally proper for that Department to give clearance for the registration of titles of agricultural properties acquired prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 (15 June 1988), which were not registered within the three month period after such effectivity in cases where the said properties are voluntarily offered for sale to the Department for purposes of CARP coverage.

DOJ Opinion No. 41, S. 1992
April 2, 1992

Sale or Disposition, Right of Landowner

 

SALE OR DISPOSITION, RIGHT OF LANDOWNER

        The proper interpretation of both sections is that under R.A. No. 6657, the sale or transfer of a private agricultural land is allowed only when said land area constitutes, or is a part of, the landowner-seller’s retained area and only when the landholdings of the purchaser-transferee, including the property sold, does not exceed five hectares.  Conversely, any sale or disposition of land in excess of the five-hectare retention limit is invalid.

DOJ Opinion No. 184, S. 1988
September 13, 1988

Timberland, Excluded from CARP Coverage

 

TIMBERLAND, EXCLUDED FROM CARP COVERAGE

        It only goes to show that it is not the intention of the said Presidential Issuance to include such natural resources in its coverage, which necessarily include timberland.

        The fact that the timberland component of the subject reservation may look like or appear to be suited for agricultural purposes does not in any way affect its present classification as timberland, unless there is clear and convincing basis that the same has been withdrawn from its present classification.  The said E.O., therefore, is not sufficient and cannot be taken to have converted the subject timberland into agricultural land.

        It is likewise noteworthy that R.A. No. 6657, supra, has suspended the authority of the President to reclassify forest or mineral lands into agricultural lands.  It specifically provides that, "no reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into account ecological, development and equity considerations shall have delimited by law, the specific limits of the public domain.

DOJ Opinion No. 11, S. 2004
February 3, 2004

Valuation of Lands, Subject of Voluntary Offer to Sell and Compulsory Acquisition

 

VALUATION OF LANDS, SUBJECT OF VOLUNTARY OFFER TO SELL AND COMPULSORY ACQUISITION

        What should control is the "just-ness" of the proposal taking into account the "revolutionary" nature of the expropriation under the CARL (see Ass’n. of Small Landowners vs. Sec. of Agrarian Reform, supra, at pp. ‘385 & 386), which necessarily calls for some measures of liberality in the application of the law to the end that the rights secured to both landowners and tenant-beneficiaries under the Constitution and the CARL are protected, respected and upheld.

DOJ Opinion No. 109, S. 1991
July 25, 1991