October 27, 1999

DAR OPINION NO. 59-99

Director Reynaldo D. Villas

DAR Region 08

Sto. Niño Extention, Tacloban City

Dear Dir. Villas:

This refers to your letter dated 12 February 1999 addressed to Undersecretary Conrado S. Navarro which was referred to this Office for opinion regarding your queries posed therein, to wit:

1.         Where there is a pending resolution of protest/petitions for coverage, exemption, retention, conversion, etc.

a)         Can the MARO still proceed with the documentation of a landholding?

b)         Will this prevent the Register of Deeds to register the CLOAs generated on the basis of Certificate of Cash Deposit issued by the Land Bank?

c)         Can the MARO proceed with the distribution of the registered CLOAs and physically install the beneficiaries?

2.         Where there are land valuation cases pending at the PARAD, DARAB or Special Agrarian Court (SAC)

a)         Can the MARO still proceed with the distribution of the registered CLOAs and physically install the farmer-beneficiaries?

b)         Will this prevent the Register of Deeds from registering the generated CLOAs based on the Certificate of Deposit issued by the Land Bank of the Philippines?

3.         Where the landholding is with standing sugarcane crops but with registered CLOAs and FBs not yet installed

a)         Can the MARO proceed with the physical installation of the FBs immediately after the harvest of the main crop?

b)         Are the first, second and third ratoons considered standing crops?

c)         Until what cropping stage could the MARO proceed with the physical installation of the FBs with registered CLOAs?

Anent your first query, DAR Opinion No. 9, Series of 1999 pertinently provides, quote:

". . . it is deemed wise and prudent to resolve first the pending petition for exemption filed . . . before proceeding to the coverage of the landholding in issue to avoid possible absurdity where the property subject of the request might later on be declared as exempt from CARP coverage. This policy procedure aims to prevent the government from probable wastage of time, effort and resources incident to the coverage. Hence, the coverage process should momentarily be deferred to give way to the resolution of the pending application for exemption/exclusion."

In view thereof, we submit that in cases where there are pending applications for exemption or conversion or protests on coverage, the documentation and coverage process shall be held in abeyance until such time that said applications or protests are resolved with finality. However, insofar as the applications for exemption and conversion and protests involving CARP coverage which are pending with the DAR, it behooves and it is incumbent upon us that the resolution thereof should be directed and rendered the soonest in order that the implementation of the Program shall not be unduly delayed or derailed. Earnest efforts and representations shall likewise be accordingly exerted and made by the Department in cases where said applications or protests are already with the Office of the President or the courts in order that the same shall likewise be resolved the soonest time possible.

As regards your query No. 2(a), we submit that where there 6 are land valuation cases pending at the DARAB or Special Agrarian Court in view of the refusal of the landowner to accept the value offered by the government or is likewise contesting the valuation of the land, the government through the MARO may proceed with the distribution of the registered CLOAs and physically install the farmer beneficiaries thereon upon deposit in cash or LBP bond of the land value offered. The issue of just compensation should not be a bar in the continuity of the coverage process since the landowner may still bring said issue before the DARAB for preliminary determination thereof and if not yet satisfied, the same may be brought before the Special Agrarian Court (SAC) concerned for final determination of just compensation (Sections 16 (f) and 57 of R.A. No. 6657).

It must be noted however that although the final determination of the value of the land is a judicial function, the Land Bank valuation may be contested in the DARAB, and, unless the landowner or any party-in-interest files a case with the SAC within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the decision, the decision of the adjudicator/s shall become final and executory.

We answer your No. 2(b) query in the negative. Section 16 (c) of R.A. No. 6657 provides that "upon the deposit with the LBP of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries." Pursuant to said provision of law, it is very clear that the Register of Deeds (ROD) is not restrained from registering the generated CLOAs based on the Certificate of Deposit in order that the DAR may thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries.

Anent your No. 3(a) query, the answer is in the affirmative. Physical installation of the FBs may take place immediately after the harvest of the main crop. However, the landowner shall retain his share of any standing crops unharvested at the time the DAR shall take possession of the land pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. 6657, and shall be given reasonable time to harvest the same (Section 28, R.A. No. 6657).

As regards your No. 3(b&c) queries, it is believed that the first, second and third ratoons are still considered standing crops. However, the MARO may proceed with the physical installation of the FBs since the CLOAs had already been registered. Pursuant to Section 16 (e) of R.A. No. 6657, the initial issuance of TCT could already pave the way for the redistribution of the land to qualified ARBs. It follows therefore and with more reason that the FBs could already be installed where the CLOAs had already been registered. In fairness to the landowner, however, he should be given reasonable time to harvest the unharvested standing crops. Under these circumstances, it is submitted that mutual arrangement should be arrived at where notwithstanding the installation of the FBs, the landowner could still harvest his standing crops. This is imperative to all concerned in order to effect an orderly and peaceful implementation of the Program without, however, unduly delaying the same.

Thank you for communicating with us and we hope to have clarified you on the matter.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) DANILO T. LARA

Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning

Copy furnished:

CONRADO S. NAVARRO

Undersecretary, FOSSO

This Department

PARO FRISCO B. MACARIOLA, JR.

DAR Provincial Office

Tanghas, Tolosa, Leyte