SUMMARY OF COMMON/GRAY ISSUES ADDRESSED BY DAR LEGAL OPINION 2001-2004
AFFIDAVIT OF TRANSFEROR AND TRANSFEREE, NECESSITY OF
- To preclude possible circumventions/violations thereof, and in order not to set a bad/dangerous precedent, the requirement of the Affidavit of Transferor as well as the Affidavit of the Transferee pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989 should not be dispensed with
- It is the PARO who is authorized to issue the DAR Clearance
- No appeal process to the DAR Regional Director was provided therein. The Regional Director may not, therefore, issue a DAR Clearance in case the applicant brings the case to the Regional Office on appeal
ARBs ARE PROHIBITED TO SELL, TRANSFER OR CONVEY RIGHT TO USE OF AWARDED LAND
- ARBs, within the 10-year prohibitory period as provided in Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 (or even beyond said period if the awarded lands are not yet fully paid), are under obligation to cultivate the landholdings awarded to them and not to lease or have them tenanted by other people who are not members of their immediate household
ARBs, COMMENCEMENT OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS/RESPONSIBILITIES OF
- The rights and obligations of beneficiaries shall commence only from the time of the award pursuant to Section 24 of R.A. No. 6657
- Under Section 24 of R.A. No. 6657, the rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence from the time the DAR makes an award to him, which means that the FB is responsible for the payment of the real property taxes that accrue on the land only from the date of said award
ARBs, IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF QUALIFIED
- Under Section 15 of R.A. No. 6657 and its implementing guidelines, Administrative Order No. 10, series of 1989, it is the DAR in coordination with the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) which shall identify and register all agricultural lessees, tenants and farmworkers who are qualified to be beneficiaries of the CARP
ARBs (RULE ON THE ORDER OF PRIORITY UNDER SECTION 22 OF R.A. NO. 6657)
- The order of priority applies only in cases where a given landholding covered under the agrarian reform program is not sufficient to be distributed to all affected potential beneficiaries. Otherwise, there is no reason to apply the order of priority
- Should the order of priority be applicable, as worded, Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657 appears clear and unequivocal. It must be strictly followed
ARB SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED FOR NON-PAYMENT OF ARREARAGES IN REAL PROPERTY TAXES
- It is clear under said provision of law (Section 66, R. A. No. 6657) that it is the previous landowner who should pay the arrearages in real property taxes. Thus, awardees/beneficiaries should not be penalized or made to suffer, through foreclosure by Local Government Units (LGUs) of their awarded lands, due to non-payment of said taxes by previous landowners. Such foreclosure is unwarranted
ARBs, WAIVER OF RIGHTS OF POTENTIAL
- One of the basic qualifications to be considered a potential beneficiary is the willingness to cultivate a land
- Refusal to be identified and/or registered as a potential beneficiary and failure to question inclusion of seasonal and other farmworker is contrary to the "willingness" qualification
- It is correct to state that the above-mentioned acts or omissions are considered waiver of the right to be recognized as a beneficiary
- However, in cases were the regular farmworkers are under duress, which resulted in their refusal to be recognized as a beneficiary or failure to question/inclusion of seasonal and other farmworkers, these are matters which are evidentiary in nature and may be threshed out administratively
- Furthermore, the implementors must take all necessary action to ensure that proper notice are sent to the regular farmworkers
- To avoid further complications, the notices should state clearly the consequence of inaction on the part of a potential farmer-beneficiary
AWARD CEILING, EXCEPTION TO THE RULE ON
- In no case shall the award ceiling for beneficiaries be more than three (3) hectares
- Exception may be allowed only if the excess is negligible and it would be technically and administratively impractical to allocate the same to another
BAIL BOND (CLOA, ON CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS, MAY BE USED AS BAIL BOND)
- As regards farmlots covered by CLOAs or lands acquired under R.A. No. 6657, we submit that within ten (10) years from award, the same cannot be offered as property bonds in view of the prohibition provided under Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657
- However, since the awarded land in the instant case is already fully paid as it appears in the CLOA, and since the CLOA was issued way back 02 July 1991 (thus, the 10-year prohibitory period on the transferability of awarded lands had already lapsed), and considering, further, that the presiding judge had accepted the same as a bail, a DAR clearance may be issued
- In case the land is forfeited, the same may nonetheless be repurchased or redeemed by the children or spouse of the owner, or, be acquired by DAR for distribution to any qualified heir/s or qualified beneficiaries pursuant to the provisions of Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 and DAR Administrative Order No. 08, Series of 1995
- The offer to use the CLOA as bail bond must advisably be with the consent of the wife and, the offer notwithstanding, the CLOA holder should not be deprived of his peaceful use and possession of the land
BANK MORTGAGE (BANKS MAY ACQUIRE TITLE)
- Banks may acquire title to mortgaged agricultural properties regardless of area (that is, even more than the 5-hectare retention limit) pursuant to Section 71 of R.A. No. 6657
- However, banks cannot exercise the right of retention over said foreclosed agricultural properties since they are subject to the aforequoted provisions of existing laws and guidelines on their eventual compulsory transfer and acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
BARC CHAIRMAN, QUALIFICATION AND RE-ELECTION OF
- Elected BARC representatives may serve a maximum period of two (2) years wherein before or after the lapse of said period, the elected sectoral representatives may elect the chairman and other officers of the BARC pursuant to the aforequoted provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 14, Series of 1990, particularly Items IV, VI and VII thereof
- Nowhere in the provisions of said guideline does it suggest that a public elective office such as Barangay Chairmanship is a legal impediment for election or re-election as BARC Chairman provided, however, that one is a resident of the barangay and a representative of an accredited sector who is a voting member
CARP COVERAGE VIS-À-VIS MATTER OF COMPENSATION AND WHAT CONSTITUTES FULL PAYMENT
- The CARP Law conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank (Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343)
- Thus, upon deposit with an accessible bank (i.e., Land Bank) of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds, it already constitutes as compliance with the full payment requirement
- The DAR may then take immediate possession of the land, request issuance of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines and, thereafter, proceed with the redistribution of the land to qualified beneficiaries
- The matter of "just-ness" of the compensation, if raised by the landowner, may initially be determined by the DAR Adjudication Board but final determination thereof is with the courts of justice of competent jurisdiction
- The landowner may still be contesting the land valuation or the non-payment of rentals or arrears by the tenant-beneficiaries but title to the land may already be transferred, first to the Republic of the Philippines, then to the beneficiaries, for as long as there is already receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with the Land Bank
CARP COVERAGE, COMPLAINT FOR ILLEGAL CONVERSION NOT A BAR FOR
- Section 4 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (R.A. No. 6657) is explicit. It mandates the coverage, regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture, regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised therein
- Thus, for as long as the land in issue is agricultural and coverable, we may proceed with the coverage
- Under Section 14 (a) of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 2000 [Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases], a notice of coverage may not be issued if there is already a pending application for conversion
- However, it appears that there was no application for conversion filed in the instant case. What was filed was a complaint for illegal conversion, hence, the coverage of subject landholding may proceed
CARP COVERAGE (COMPLETION OF COVERAGE PROCESS SUSPENDED)
- The Certification of Deposit (COD) to the PARO shall not be issued until the application, protest or petition is finally resolved. The rationale for this is given in DAR Opinion No. 9, series of 1999 which is to preclude the government from incurring unnecessary wastage of valuable time, effort and resources incident to the coverage in case the petition, application or protest will later be resolved against the coverage of the land in issue
CARP COVERAGE (EFFECT WHEN ALI CASES ARE FILED AS DISTINGUISHED WHEN COURT CASES ARE FILED)
- In ALI cases mentioned in Section 14 of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 2000, they should first be resolved with finality pursuant to existing applicable rules of procedure before complete coverage may be effected
- On the other hand, insofar as lands subject of cases which were brought before the lower courts as contemplated in Sections 55 and 68 of R.A. No. 6657 are concerned, where there are no ALI cases filed with the DAR, CARP coverage thereof may proceed to its completion
CARP COVERAGE IF NO LONGER USED FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS EXEMPTED
- In all cases, the DAR shall conduct a continuing review and verification of exempted lands to ascertain which of the areas declared exempt or which portions thereof are no longer actually, directly and exclusively used and found necessary for said purpose. If the purpose for the grant of exemption no longer exists, the area or portion involved shall be covered under CARP pursuant to the guidelines on land acquisition and distribution
CARP COVERAGE IN CASE OF FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT AND COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT AS PRESCRIBED IN THE CONVERSION ORDER
- DAR will place the property under CARP compulsory coverage should there be failure to implement and complete the development of the areas within the specified time
CARP COVERAGE IN CASE OF REVOCATION OR WITHDRAWAL OF CONVERSION ORDER
- The land subject thereof shall revert to the status of agricultural lands and shall be subject to CARP coverage as circumstances may warrant
CARP COVERAGE MAY PROCEED NOTWITHSTANDING PENDENCY OF INVESTIGATION OR LITIGATION ON THE ISSUE OF OWNERSHIP
- Although ownership of said landholdings is under investigation or litigation, the DAR may still proceed with their acquisition considering that no matter what the outcome of the investigation or litigation may be, the lands are still covered under CARP
CARP COVERAGE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS WITHIN CITY LIMITS
- Conversion of agricultural lands within the city to non-agricultural use still needs DAR approval. Notwithstanding the provision of Section 73, paragraph (e) of R.A. No. 6657, it is clear that under Section 4 of the same law, all public and private agricultural lands contemplated therein are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
- The aforequoted provisions of law are clear and did not distinguish. If a piece of land is agricultural, whether it is within or outside urban centers or city limits, it is coverable under CARP and any change in the nature of its use to non agricultural may not be allowed except with the approval of DAR under its rules on conversion or exemption. When the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish
CARP COVERAGE OF BANK-FORECLOSED AGRICULTURAL LANDS SOLD TO THIRD PARTIES
- Although private banks may sell to third parties their foreclosed assets, the same are still subject to acquisition under Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657 (CARL)
CARP COVERAGE OF BANK-FORECLOSED ASSETS
- Notwithstanding the issuance perchance of title to a bank, such is still subject to existing laws on compulsory transfer of foreclosed assets pursuant to the aforequoted provision of Section 71 of R.A. No. 6657
- The phrase "subject to existing laws on compulsory transfer of foreclosed assets" refers to the provision in Section 25 of R.A. No. 337 (The General Banking Act) that no bank shall hold the possession of any real estate under mortgage or trust deed, or the title and possession of any real estate purchased to secure any debt due to it for a longer period than five (5) years
- In other words, acquired assets and mortgaged properties foreclosed by banks shall be disposed of within a period of five years after foreclosure
- Although Section 6 of R.A. No. 7881 allows the transfer by banks of such foreclosed assets to third parties, they shall nonetheless be eventually acquired by the government through the DAR, under Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657, for distribution to qualified farmer-beneficiaries
CARP COVERAGE OF HOMESTEAD AND FREE PATENT LANDS ENCUMBERED WITHIN THE PROHIBITORY PERIOD AND FORECLOSED BY PRIVATE BANKS
- To preclude circuitous and complex reversion proceedings, and pursuant to the aforequoted/aforecited more recent special provisions of R.A. No. 6657 (CARL) and R.A. No. 337 (The General Banking Act) vis-à-vis a general provision of the Public Land Act (Section 118 thereof), the subject properties foreclosed by private banks, consolidated in their favor and offered for CARP coverage may be placed under the Program since in the final analysis said properties will end up/revert to the State, through the DAR, for distribution to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries
CARP COVERAGE OF LANDS RESERVED BY PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATIONS
- Given the aforequoted provisions in relation to each other, joint or coordinative determination between DAR and NHA should first be undertaken before the lands in issue or portions thereof may eventually be covered under the Program
CARP COVERAGE, SPIRIT/INTENT OF THE LAW AND GENERAL POLICY ON
- It is the spirit and intent of the law to cover all agricultural lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture
- Since R.A. No. 6657 is a social welfare legislation, the rules on exemptions, exclusions and/or conversions must be interpreted restrictively and any doubt as to the applicability of the law should be resolved in favor of inclusion
CHILD AWARDEE, RECKONING DATE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF A
- The reckoning date is the effectivity of the CARL itself, which is 15 June 1988, obviously since Section 6, paragraph 1 forms part of said law
- The setting of the reckoning date by the DAR, which in the instant case was deemed as effective 15 June 1988 pursuant to DAR Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 1994 (and not at the time of coverage or notice of coverage), is an exercise of its sound discretion and authority under Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657 that "the DAR shall have the power to issue rules and regulations, whether substantive or procedural, to carry out the objects and purposes of this Act
- The reckoning date of 15 June 1988 was expressly reiterated and underscored in DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 2003 (2003 Rules and Regulations Governing Landowner Retention Rights), particularly Section 7.4 thereof
CLOA AS BAIL BOND, CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS ON THE USE OF
- As regards farmlots covered by CLOAs or lands acquired under R.A. No. 6657, we submit that within ten (10) years from award, the same cannot be offered as property bonds in view of the prohibition provided under Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657
- However, since the awarded land in the instant case is already fully paid as it appears in the CLOA, and since the CLOA was issued way back 02 July 1991 (thus, the 10-year prohibitory period on the transferability of awarded lands had already lapsed), and considering, further, that the presiding judge had accepted the same as a bail, a DAR clearance may be issued
- In case the land is forfeited, the same may nonetheless be repurchased or redeemed by the children or spouse of the owner, or, be acquired by DAR for distribution to any qualified heir/s or qualified beneficiaries pursuant to the provisions of Section 27 of R.A. No. 6657 and DAR Administrative Order No. 08, Series of 1995
- The offer to use the CLOA as bail bond must advisably be with the consent of the wife and, the offer notwithstanding, the CLOA holder should not be deprived of his peaceful use and possession of the land
CLOA/EP AWARDEES, RIGHTS OF DISPLACED/AFFECTED
- Rights and interests of CLOA or EP awardees and other farmworkers who may be displaced/affected in the process, if any, should in all cases be protected/safeguarded pursuant to existing laws, rules and regulations. Moreover, they should still be entitled as ARBs/awardees in other landholdings, if qualified
CLOA, RECKONING DATE OF THE 10-YEAR PROHIBITORY PERIOD
- If the agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) who were first issued a collective CLOA are the same persons later issued with individual CLOAs, then the reckoning date of the 10-year prohibitory period should be the issuance of the collective CLOA which is the time when the rights and responsibilities of the ARBs commenced
COMMENCEMENT OF RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS/RESPONSIBILITIES OF ARBs
- Under Section 24 of R.A. No. 6657, the rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence from the time the DAR makes an award to him, which means that the FB is responsible for the payment of the real property taxes that accrue on the land only from the date of said award
- The rights and obligations of beneficiaries shall commence only from the time of the award pursuant to Section 24 of R.A. No. 6657
COMPENSATION, DETERMINATION OF "JUSTNESS" OF
- On the matter of "just-ness" of the compensation, if raised by the landowner, it may initially be determined by the DAR Adjudication Board but final determination thereof is with the courts of justice of competent jurisdiction. In other words, if the landowner refuses to accept the compensation offered to him, the issue of just compensation is perforce brought before the DARAB for its preliminary determination and if landowner is not yet satisfied, the same may be brought before the Special Agrarian Court (SAC) for final determination of just compensation [Sections 16 (d and f) and 57 of R.A. No. 6657]
COMPENSATION TO LANDOWNERS (WHAT CONSTITUTE FULL PAYMENT)
- The CARP Law conditions the transfer of possession and ownership of the land to the government on receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with an accessible bank (Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, 175 SCRA 343)
- Thus, upon deposit with an accessible bank (i.e., Land Bank) of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds, it already constitutes as compliance with the full payment requirement
- The DAR may then take immediate possession of the land, request issuance of title in the name of the Republic of the Philippines and, thereafter, proceed with the redistribution of the land to qualified beneficiaries
- The matter of "just-ness" of the compensation, if raised by the landowner, may initially be determined by the DAR Adjudication Board but final determination thereof is with the courts of justice of competent jurisdiction
- The landowner may still be contesting the land valuation or the non-payment of rentals or arrears by the tenant-beneficiaries but title to the land may already be transferred, first to the Republic of the Philippines, then to the beneficiaries, for as long as there is already receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or the deposit by the DAR of the compensation in cash or LBP bonds with the Land Bank
CONVERSION CLEARANCE IS REQUIRED ON OR AFTER 15 JUNE 1988
- With respect to agricultural lands which are reclassified as commercial, industrial or residential after June 15, 1988, Conversion Clearance must be secured from the DAR before these lands may be converted to such uses
CONVERSION CLEARANCE IS STILL REQUIRED FOR ERECTING A CELLSITE
- DAR Conversion Clearance is still required where a portion of an agricultural land is to be leased by Globe Telecom for the purpose of erecting a cellsite
CONVERSION CLEARANCE NOT REQUIRED IF EXEMPTED UNDER DOJ 44
- DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1994 is the only ground for exemption which does not require a conversion order/clearance. All other grounds for CARP-exemption of agricultural land provided under R.A. No. 6657 always require a conversion order/clearance whenever its use is changed from agricultural non-agricultural
CONVERSION CLEARANCE REQUIRED IN FARMLOT SUBDIVISION
- "Farmlot Subdivision" is defined as "a planned community intended primarily for intensive agricultural activities, and secondarily for housing"
- The fact that there is a housing requirement is an indication to change the use of an agricultural land to residential and this is covered by the definition of "land use conversion"
- The slightest change in the agricultural land use to some other non-agricultural use (which in this case is residential), no matter how minimal the area to be covered by such change and even if housing is a secondary purpose, will be interpreted as land use conversion
- As such, there is a need to apply for a conversion clearance from the DAR
- Additionally, Section 2 (C1) of the above mentioned HLURB Rules and Regulations provides that a clearance from the Department of Agrarian Reform is required from applicants of farmlot subdivisions
CONVERSION DISTINGUISHED FROM RECLASSIFICATION
- Reclassification, which is the Local Government Unit's (LGU's) act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses, such as residential, industrial, tourism or commercial, as embodied in the land use plan, is not synonymous with land use conversion, which is the act or process of changing the current physical use of a piece of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses as duly approved by DAR
- Under the law, approval of applications for land use conversion remains the exclusive responsibility of DAR
CONVERSION, EFFECT OF FAILURE TO IMPLEMENT AND COMPLETE DEVELOPMENT
- DAR will place the property under CARP compulsory coverage should there be failure to implement and complete the development of the areas within the specified time
CONVERSION, EFFECT OF PENDING APPLICATION FOR
- Under Section 14 (a) of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 2000 [Rules of Procedure for Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases], a notice of coverage may not be issued if there is already a pending application for conversion
CONVERSION ORDER, EFFECT OF REVOCATION OR WITHDRAWAL OF
- The land subject thereof shall revert to the status of agricultural lands and shall be subject to CARP coverage as circumstances may warrant
- If a conversion order is revoked or withdrawn, the lands subject thereof shall revert to the status of agricultural lands and shall be subject to CARP coverage as circumstances may warrant (Section 49, DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2002)
CONVERSION/EXEMPTION (CUT-OFF DATE)
- A conversion order is no longer necessary for properties already reclassified as non-agricultural prior to June 15, 1988 or before the effectivity of CARP. However, an exemption clearance is required
- On the other hand, a conversion order is necessary for those agricultural properties reclassified as non-agricultural from June 15, 1988 onwards
CONVERSION/EXEMPTION, GENERAL/GUIDING POLICIES AND RULES ON
- It is the spirit and intent of the law to cover all agricultural lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture
- Since R.A. No. 6657 is a social welfare legislation, the rules on exemptions, exclusions and/or conversions must be interpreted restrictively and any doubt as to the applicability of the law should be resolved in favor of inclusion
CONVERSION/EXEMPTION, NOT AUTOMATIC (APPLICATION STILL NECESSARY AND MUST BE DULY FILED AND APPROVED ON THE MERITS)
- Conversion or exemption is not automatic. It must be on the merits after proper and thorough determination pursuant to the requirements and provisions of existing law and guidelines on conversion and/or exemption, as the case may be
- Thus, an application for and order of conversion or exemption is still required
- In order that an exemption clearance/order may be deemed as of the same nature and effect as a conversion clearance/order, said exemption order or clearance should have been issued on the basis of a duly filed application for exemption and approved on the merits by the DAR Secretary pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994, since exemption is not automatic
- Applications for exemption/exclusion should still be filed with the DAR to determine on the merits whether landholdings subject of applications are indeed exempt/excluded from CARP coverage pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 03, series of 1995 (Rules and Regulations Governing the Exemption/Exclusion of Fishponds and Prawn Farms from the Coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), Pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, as Amended by R.A. No. 7881)
- DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990 ruled that all lands already classified as commercial, industrial or residential before June 15, 1988 pursuant to a Municipal/City Ordinance or zoning plan duly approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) before June 15, 1988 is exempted from CARP coverage
- However, the landowner or his duly authorized representative of the properties falling under this category must still apply for an Exemption Clearance from the DAR before any change in its actual use may be introduced
CONVERSION, MORTGAGE OF ARB-OWNED LANDS SUBJECT OF
- In order not to possibly unduly put the ARBs at risk, it is our considered opinion that subject lands should not be mortgaged by the ARBs
- We have to safeguard and protect the welfare and interests of the ARBs since there is the possibility that should the business venture (petroleum depot) not prosper or materialize the agrarian reform beneficiaries will be at risk of losing their lands in case of foreclosure
- For the landowner-ARBs to mortgage their awarded lands to fund the cost of constructing the petroleum depot would mean that they are not merely delivering the possession and use of their landholdings as agreed in the JVA but they will likewise in effect be providing for the capitalization of the business venture
- This will be violative and not in keeping with the terms and conditions of the Joint Venture Agreement that the Corporation shall undertake conversion of the landholdings by putting up its facilities for petroleum depot, shouldering all the expenses therefore until its completion
CONVERSION OF ECOZONE PROJECTS ON A CASE TO CASE BASIS; NOT EXEMPT FROM CONVERSION PROCESS–SWEEPING CONVERSION NOT ALLOWED
- While ECOZONE projects are prioritized by the government, these projects are not exempt from the land use conversion process
- The criteria for conversion that would serve as guide in the resolution/approval of applications for conversion clearly affirmed conversion on a case to case basis and not a massive conversion through presidential proclamation
- Allowing the sweeping conversion of agricultural lands through the issuance of presidential proclamation may open the floodgates for other regions or provinces to avail of same. The eventual result is a diminution of CARP coverage and a greatly weakened and watered-down agrarian reform program which is not the intent of the Constitution and the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
- In view of the foregoing, we could not give our blanket concurrence on the proposed proclamation
CONVERSION OF RESTRICTED AND PRIORITY DEVELOPMENT AREAS STILL NEEDED
- Highly restricted and priority development areas or projects will still have to undergo conversion process pursuant to the provisions of said guideline (Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 2002 (2002 Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion)
CONVERSION, PAYMENT OF DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION IN CASE OF
- Payment of disturbance compensation as provided and contemplated under Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended by Section 7 of R.A. No. 6389, pertains to the compensation given to the agricultural lessee who is dispossesed of the land he tills in cases of legal conversion, that is, in cases where the use of the land for purposes other than agricultural is approved by DAR upon application of the landowner
- As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Pagtalunan vs. Tamayo, G.R. No. 54281, March 19, 1990, payment of disturbance compensation only covers legal conversion undertaken at the instance of the landowner
CONVERSION REMAINS THE EXCLUSIVE RESPONSIBILITY OF DAR
- Under the law, approval of applications for land use conversion remains the exclusive responsibility of DAR
- Pursuant to Section 4 of Memorandum Circular No. 54, series of 1993 of the Office of the President, in relation to Section 65 of R.A. No. 6657 and Sections 4 (j) and 5 (l) of Executive Order No. 129-A, actions on applications for land use conversions shall remain as the responsibility of DAR
CONVERSION STILL REQUIRED FOR AGENCIES ATTACHED TO THE NATIONAL GOVERNMENT [FOR EXAMPLE, NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION (NPC)]
- We do not believe that the case of Province of Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 103125, May 17, 1993 is applicable to your case, previous opinions notwitstanding
- That case involved expropriation by a local government unit; the Supreme Court held that the local government's power of eminent domain could not be restricted by agrarian reform law. This interpretation is consistent with the general principle of local autonomy, which should not be reduced by mere implication. It would also be consistent with the Presidential power over LGUs, which is limited to supervision, but not control
- Such considerations would not apply in case of expropriation by agencies attached to the national government, including government corporations, over which the President exercises the power of control (Namarco vs. Arca, G.R. No. L-25743, September 30, 1969)
- In such situations, there is no diminution of the agencies delegated power of eminent domain, since the exercise of such power is inherently subject to the control of the President
- Each head of a department is the President's alter ego in the matters of that department where the President is required by law to exercise authority (Philippine American Management Company, Inc. vs. Philippine American Management Employees Association, G.R. No. L-35254, May 25, 1973)
- The DAR conversion clearance would be necessary whether the land is originally owned by government, or acquired through expropriation, so long as the agency involved is an agent of the national government
CONVERSION, WHEN DOES IT ACTUALLY TAKE PLACE
- Actual land use conversion takes place only upon the issuance of a DAR Order approving said application
CONVERSION WITHIN CITY LIMITS STILL NEEDS DAR APPROVAL
- Conversion of agricultural lands within the city to non-agricultural use still needs DAR approval. Notwithstanding the provision of Section 73, paragraph (e) of R.A. No. 6657, it is clear that under Section 4 of the same law, all public and private agricultural lands contemplated therein are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
- The aforequoted provisions of law are clear and did not distinguish. If a piece of land is agricultural, whether it is within or outside urban centers or city limits, it is coverable under CARP and any change in the nature of its use to non agricultural may not be allowed except with the approval of DAR under its rules on conversion or exemption. When the law does not distinguish, we should not distinguish
DAR AS THE LEAD AGENCY TO IMPLEMENT THE CARP, DELIMITATION AND/OR ENCROACHMENT ON THE POWERS AND FUNCTION OF
- Should the recommendations/resolutions duly signed by the Chairman of the Task Force be deemed approved for implementation as final decisions, the exclusive original jurisdiction of DAR over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform; the DAR Regional Director's exercise of primary jurisdiction over all agrarian law implementation cases; the DAR Secretary's exercise of appellate jurisdiction over all ALI cases; and the steps, procedures and appeal processes laid down under DAR Administrative Order No. 03, Series of 2003 and other existing laws, rules and guidelines, may be rendered nugatory and ineffective
- Otherwise stated, the proposed amendment may constitute as a delimitation and/or encroachment on the powers and functions of the DAR which, we reiterate, is mandated by law as the lead agency primarily tasked to implement the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
DAR CLEARANCE (LAND TRANSFER)
- The above provisions of law and guideline, taken together, clearly delimit the ownership and/or transfer/sale of agricultural lands to not more than the legally mandated retention limit or landownership ceiling of five (5) hectares. Thus, to issue a clearance or certification for the sale or disposition of agricultural lands in excess of the 5-hectare retention limit or landownership ceiling would be violative of the aforequoted provisions of law and guideline
DAR CLEARANCE NOT NEEDED FOR BANKS TO ACQUIRE TITLE TO FORECLOSED ASSETS (WITH QUALIFICATION, HOWEVER)
- Acquisition of title by banks to mortgaged or foreclosed agricultural properties may be allowed upon compliance with existing legal procedures without need of a DAR Clearance
- However, considering that there are pending cases in court on the nullification of the foreclosure or annulment of the mortgage, title may not pass to the bank pending resolution thereof
- Thus, DAR could not properly issue a DAR Clearance under such circumstances
DAR CLEARANCE ON LAND TRANSACTION, LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE ISSUANCE OF
- Provided there is no violation of the provisions of Sections 6, 70 and 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657 as regards the 5-hectare retention limit and landownership ceiling, DAR clearance may be issued pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1989 (Rules and Procedures Governing Land Transactions)
DAR LAND TRANSFER/CLEARANCE
- To preclude possible circumventions/violations thereof, and in order not to set a bad/dangerous precedent, the requirement of the Affidavit of Transferor as well as the Affidavit of the Transferee pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989 should not be dispensed with
- It is the PARO who is authorized to issue the DAR Clearance
- No appeal process to the DAR Regional Director was provided therein. The Regional Director may not, therefore, issue a DAR Clearance in case the applicant brings the case to the Regional Office on appeal
DAR LAND TRANSFER CLEARANCE DISTINGUISHED FROM CONVERSION CLEARANCE
- The issuance of a DAR clearance involving the disposition or transfer of agricultural lands coverable under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) merely signifies that the transaction is not in circumvention of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) and may therefore be registered
- It is not synonymous with a DAR Conversion Order/Clearance which is issued only after determination on the merits of a duly filed application for conversion the effect of which is to change the current physical use of a piece of agricultural land into some other use
DISTURBANCE COMPENSATION TO PAID IN CASE OF CONVERSION
- Payment of disturbance compensation as provided and contemplated under Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended by Section 7 of R.A. No. 6389, pertains to the compensation given to the agricultural lessee who is dispossessed of the land he tills in cases of legal conversion, that is, in cases where the use of the land for purposes other than agricultural is approved by DAR upon application of the landowner
- As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Pagtalunan vs. Tamayo, G.R. No. 54281, March 19, 1990, payment of disturbance compensation only covers legal conversion undertaken at the instance of the landowner
EASEMENT, COMPENSABILITY OF LANDS SUBJECT OF LEGAL
- Portions of titled or registered private agricultural lands subject of legal easements form as inseparable part of the landholding of the landowner, thus, they may be covered under Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) and accordingly be compensated by the Land Bank of the Philippines
EXCLUSIVE RESPONSIBILITY/AUTHORITY OF DAR TO CONVERT
- Under the law, approval of applications for land use conversion remains the exclusive responsibility of DAR
EXEMPTED LANDS, CONTINUING REVIEW AND VERIFICATION OF (TO BE COVERED IF NO LONGER USED FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH THEY WERE EXEMPTED
- The MARO shall conduct a continuing review and verification of excluded lands to ascertain which of the areas or portions thereof are no longer used for livestock, poultry and swine raising purposes
- If the area or portion thereof is no longer used for livestock, poultry and swine raising, the area or portion involved shall automatically revert to the category of agricultural land, and shall be covered under CARP
- In all cases, the DAR shall conduct a continuing review and verification of exempted lands to ascertain which of the areas declared exempt or which portions thereof are no longer actually, directly and exclusively used and found necessary for said purpose. If the purpose for the grant of exemption no longer exists, the area or portion involved shall be covered under CARP pursuant to the guidelines on land acquisition and distribution
EXEMPTION CLEARANCE, REQUIRED BEFORE 15 JUNE 1988
- On the assumption that said lands were classified as residential and non-agricultural before 15 June 1988, the date of effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), no further conversion order or clearance may be necessary. However, there is still the need to apply for exemption clearance to ascertain that said lands are indeed exempt from CARP coverage and no agrarian laws, rules and regulations are violated
EXEMPTION/CONVERSION (CUT-OFF DATE)
- A conversion order is no longer necessary for properties already reclassified as non-agricultural prior to June 15, 1988 or before the effectivity of CARP. However, an exemption clearance is required
- On the other hand, a conversion order is necessary for those agricultural properties reclassified as non-agricultural from June 15, 1988 onwards
EXEMPTION/CONVERSION, GENERAL/GUIDING POLICIES AND RULES ON
- It is the spirit and intent of the law to cover all agricultural lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture
- Since R.A. No. 6657 is a social welfare legislation, the rules on exemptions, exclusions and/or conversions must be interpreted restrictively and any doubt as to the applicability of the law should be resolved in favor of inclusion
EXEMPTION/CONVERSION, NOT AUTOMATIC (APPLICATION STILL NECESSARY AND MUST BE DULY FILED AND APPROVED ON THE MERITS)
- Conversion or exemption is not automatic. It must be on the merits after proper and thorough determination pursuant to the requirements and provisions of existing law and guidelines on conversion and/or exemption, as the case may be
- Thus, an application for and order of conversion or exemption is still required
- In order that an exemption clearance/order may be deemed as of the same nature and effect as a conversion clearance/order, said exemption order or clearance should have been issued on the basis of a duly filed application for exemption and approved on the merits by the DAR Secretary pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994, since exemption is not automatic
- Applications for exemption/exclusion should still be filed with the DAR to determine on the merits whether landholdings subject of applications are indeed exempt/excluded from CARP coverage pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 03, series of 1995 (Rules and Regulations Governing the Exemption/Exclusion of Fishponds and Prawn Farms from the Coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), Pursuant to Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, as Amended by R.A. No. 7881)
- DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990 ruled that all lands already classified as commercial, industrial or residential before June 15, 1988 pursuant to a Municipal/City Ordinance or zoning plan duly approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board (HLURB) before June 15, 1988 is exempted from CARP coverage
- However, the landowner or his duly authorized representative of the properties falling under this category must still apply for an Exemption Clearance from the DAR before any change in its actual use may be introduced
EXEMPTION (DISTINCTION BETWEEN EXEMPTIONS UNDER DOJ 44 AND THE OTHER GROUNDS FOR EXEMPTION)
- Aforesaid exemption (i.e., exemption under DOJ Opinion No. 44) does not include or contemplate exemption order or clearances issued not in pursuance of DOJ 44 or Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657 in relation to DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994 such as those exempted pursuant to DAR Administrative Order No. 13, series of 1990 (Section 10, R.A. No. 6657 as amended), DAR Administrative Order No. 9, series of 1993 (Livestock, Poultry and Swine) and DAR Administrative Order No. 3, series of 1995 (Fishponds and Prawn Farms)
- The lands under the latter-enumerated exemptions may revert to agricultural if they are no longer actually, directly and exclusively used for the purpose for which they were exempted
- Thus, they would still necessitate a conversion clearance should they later be converted to other non-agricultural uses such as residential, commercial or industrial
- It should be emphasized that DOJ opinion No. 44 is the only ground for exemption which does not require a conversion order/clearance
- All other grounds for CARP-exemption of agricultural land provided under R.A. No. 6657 always require a conversion order/clearance whenever its use is changed from agricultural to non-agricultural
- Accordingly, your request for certification as to the validity and effectivity of the subject exemption order, even assuming arguendo that it will be granted, will not operate to do away with the requisite application for conversion and DAR conversion order
EXEMPTION NOT UNDER DOJ 44 STILL NECESSITATES CONVERSION CLEARANCE IF TO BE CONVERTED
- The latter-enumerated exemptions [(Section 10, R.A. No. 6657), (Livestock, Poultry and Swine) and (Fishpond and Prawn Farms)] may revert to agricultural if they are no longer actually, directly and exclusively used for the purpose for which they were exempted. Thus, they would still necessitate a conversion clearance should they later be converted to other non-agricultural uses such as residential, commercial or industrial
DAR Opinion No. 03, S. 2003
March 19, 2003
EXEMPTION OF FISHPONDS, REQUIREMENTS, CONDITIONS AND CUT-OFF DATE IN THE
- Pursuant to Section 2 of R.A. No. 7881, which amends Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for fishponds as of 12 March 1995 are exempt from CARP coverage, provided that said lands have not been distributed and no Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) have been issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs)
DAR Opinion No. 10, S. 2002
February 21, 2002
EXEMPTION, PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION DOES NOT WARRANT AUTOMATIC
- The provisions of P.P. No. 1474 do not warrant automatic exemption of subject landholdings from the requirement of DAR exemption clearance
DAR Opinion No. 15, S. 2001
August 29, 2001
EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO SECTION 10 OF R.A. NO. 6657, EFFECT OF (CONVERSION IS STILL NECESSARY IF USE IS CHANGED)
- The effect of an exemption granted pursuant to the said provision of R.A. No. 6657 is merely to remove the land from its possible acquisition and distribution under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
- This does not render a total exemption from the application of Agrarian Reform laws and their implementing rules and regulations. The DAR may still implement the other components of the program, i.e., leasehold and the Integrated Social Forestry Program, where applicable
- A DAR Order of Exemption must be secured because the exemption referred hereto is not automatic. It is incumbent upon the landowner to prove that his land is exempted from CARP coverage
- A DAR Order of Exemption does not operate as a sanction for the landowner to modify the actual use of the land
- When the land is removed from CARP coverage, it does not follow that conversion of the land into other uses is authorized
- If the intention of the landowner is to convert the agricultural land into residential, commercial or industrial, thereby changing the agricultural use of the land into non-agricultural use, a DAR Order of Exemption will not suffice. Instead, a DAR Order of Conversion must still be obtained
DAR Opinion No. 16, S. 2001
September 10, 2001
EXEMPTION UNDER DOJ 44 (CONVERSION CLEARANCE NO LONGER NECESSARY BUT EXEMPTION CLEARANCE STILL NECESSARY)
- In the case of reclassified lands duly exempted pursuant to DOJ 44, series of 1990 and Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657 in relation to DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994, it is explicit in the abovequoted provisions of DAR rules and regulations on exemption/conversion that they no longer need any conversion clearance. An exemption order to that effect suffices
DAR Opinion No. 03, S. 2003
March 19, 2003
- DAR conversion clearance is no longer needed for lands exempted from CARP coverage by reason of its reclassification as commercial, residential or industrial before 15 June 1988. Only an exemption clearance is required
- Exemption from CARP coverage pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990 partakes in effect of the nature of a conversion of agricultural lands from agricultural to non-agricultural use since said lands reclassified as non-agricultural prior to 15 June 1988 are no longer deemed agricultural and covered by CARP pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990 and Sections 3 (c) and 4 of R.A. No. 6657
- Accordingly, there is no longer any necessity for you to secure from the DAR an Exemption from DAR Conversion in addition to the Exemption from CARP coverage issued earlier by this agency as still being required by the Regional HLURB. The DAR Exemption Order dated 24 October 2001 suffices
DAR Opinion No. 21, S. 2002
July 12, 2002
EXEMPTION UNDER DOJ OPINION NO. 44 IS THE ONLY GROUND FOR EXEMPTION WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE CONVERSION CLEARANCE WHEN USE IS CHANGED
- DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1994 is the only ground for exemption which does not require a conversion order/clearance
- All other grounds for CARP-exemption of agricultural land provided under R.A. No. 6657 always require a conversion order/clearance whenever its use is changed from agricultural to non-agricultural
- The lands under the latter-enumerated exemptions i.e., (Section 10, R.A. No. 6657), (Livestock, Poultry and Swine), (Fishpond and Prawn Farms) may revert to agricultural if they are no longer actually, directly and exclusively used for the purpose for which they were exempted
- Thus, they would still necessitate a conversion clearance should they later be converted to other non-agricultural uses such as residential, commercial or industrial
DAR Opinion No. 07, S. 2004
March 02, 2004
- DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1994 is the only ground for exemption which does not require a conversion order/clearance. All other grounds for CARP-exemption of agricultural land provided under R.A. No. 6657 always require a conversion order/clearance whenever its use is changed from agricultural to non-agricultural
DAR Opinion No. 11, S. 2001
August 7, 2001
EXEMPTION UNDER DOJ 44 PARTAKES OF THE NATURE OF CONVERSION
- Exemption from CARP coverage pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990 as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 6, series of 1994 may be deemed to partake, in effect, of the nature of a conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural use
- This is so since said lands reclassified as non-agricultural prior to 15 June 1988 are no longer deemed agricultural and covered by CARP pursuant to DOJ Opinion No. 44, series of 1990 and Sections 3 (c) and 4 of R.A. No. 6657
DAR Opinion No. 03, S. 2003
March 19, 2003
EXEMPTION UNDER DOJ NO. 44 REQUIRES EXEMPTION CLEARANCE
- Under said opinion, a parcel of land is considered non-agricultural land, therefore beyond the coverage of CARP, if it has been reclassified as residential, commercial, or industrial before 15 June 1988, the date of effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL)
- If, indeed, subject properties fall within the purview of the aforesaid DOJ Opinion, the landowner may no longer be required to secure conversion clearance. What he/she or his/her duly authorized representative basically needs, however, is an exemption clearance from the DAR
DAR Opinion No. 07, S. 2001
July 09, 2001
EXPROPRIATION AS DISTINGUISHED FROM VOLUNTARY TRANSACTION/ PURCHASE (IN RELATION TO THE CONCEPTS OF RETENTION LIMIT AND LANDOWNERSHIP CEILING)
- It has to be established, differentiated and clarified, therefore, whether said transaction/s was/were by purchase (i.e., voluntary transaction) and/or through expropriation proceedings duly approved by the court
- Accordingly, if the expropriation proceeding proving the public purpose was duly approved by the court, the ruling in the Province of Camarines Sur vs. CA (222 SCRA 173, 17 May 1993) may be applied, viz: ". . . . . a fair and reasonable reading of the decision is that this Court viewed the power of expropriation as superior to the power to distribute lands under the land reform program"
- Thus, even landholdings in the process of being covered under CARP may still be expropriated if it will be for the best interest of the majority, that is, for public purpose. Said expropriation is not tantamount to circumvention of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL)
- On the other hand, if the acquisition of the property by the Municipality of Bansud is by purchase (voluntary transaction), this may constitute a circumvention of the CARL
- A landowner may only transfer or sell not more than his legally mandated retained area of five (5) hectares, provided that the transferee should not own an aggregate of more than five (5) hectares inclusive of the land to be acquired
- To allow a landowner to transfer or sell more than his/her retention limit of 5 hectares would be violative of the provisions of Section 6 (paragraph 1) of R.A. No. 6657 that "in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares"
- The transfer or sale by a landowner of agricultural lands after 15 June 1988 in excess of the retention limit, even if it is to the government purportedly for public use, cannot, ipso facto, make the transaction legal and valid
- Such transaction could not automatically exempt CARP-covered agricultural properties from acquisition and distribution to qualified ARBs. Notwithstanding Item II.1.b of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1989 (Rules and Procedures Governing Land Transactions) stating that transactions in favor of the government are valid, such transactions should not be violative of the provisions of R.A. No. 6657, particularly the aforequoted provisions of Sections 6 (1st and 4th paragraphs), 70 and 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657
- Otherwise stated, in cases where agricultural lands are to be acquired by purchase or voluntary transaction in favor of the government and not through expropriation duly approved by the court, the prohibition on the transfer in excess of the 5-hectare retention limit insofar as the landowner-transferor is concerned shall apply
- Said land should wholly and truly be used for public purpose, as envisioned, for the benefit of the people of Bansud and surrounding areas. Otherwise, should the local government fail to make use of the subject landholdings in accordance with the purposes for which it was intended, said land or portions thereof devoted to or suitable for agriculture may eventually be covered under the CARP
- In the meantime that the property is not yet fully developed, the agricultural portion/s occupied by EP/CLOA holders, if any, should be maintained
- The rights and interests of CLOA and EP awardees and other farmworkers who may be displaced/affected by the expropriation as duly approved by the court, if any, should in all cases be protected/safeguarded pursuant to existing laws, rules and regulations. They should likewise still be entitled as ARBs/awardees in other landholdings, if qualified
DAR Opinion No. 14, S. 2004
May 25, 2004
EXPROPRIATION BY NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION (NPC)
- Here, since the acquisition is by the government through expropriation for public use or national interest in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, your request for DAR clearance which is necessary for registration is hereby granted
- However, it must be stressed that this clearance is solely for purposes of registration without prejudice to NPC still applying for conversion
DAR Opinion No. 07, S. 2003
June 6, 2003
EXPROPRIATION DISTINGUISHED FROM PRIVATE TRANSACTIONS BY LGUs
- The ruling in Camarines Sur may not be applicable in the instant case since it appears that the subject land was not expropriated by the LGU but was acquired through a private transaction
- Thus, an application for conversion and DAR conversion clearance shall still be required if said agricultural lands shall be converted into residential or housing
- On the other hand, should the subject lands be expropriated by the LGU rather than privately acquired, DAR conversion clearance may no longer be required pursuant to the said ruling in Camarines Sur
DAR Opinion No. 04, S. 2004
February 04, 2004
- Agricultural lands expropriated by Local Government Units (LGUs) pursuant to the power of eminent domain need not be subject of DAR conversion clearance prior to change in use (Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 173)
DAR Opinion No. 11, S. 2003
July 09, 2003
EXTRAJUDICIAL PARTITION BY THE HEIRS IS A PROHIBITED TRANSACTION IF EXECUTED ON OR AFTER 15 JUNE 1988
- What is considered as not a prohibited transaction (necessitating no prior clearance from DAR before registration) is a Deed of Extra-judicial Partition of the property of a deceased who died prior to June 15, 1988. Thus, conversely, we could infer that a Deed of Extra-judicial Partition of the property of the deceased insofar as the excess of his/her 5-hectare retention limit or landownership ceiling is concerned, who died after June 15, 1988, is a prohibited transaction precisely because said agricultural landholdings are, by operation of law, immediately put under the coverage of CARP upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 on 15 June 1988
DAR Opinion No. 24, S. 2002
October 18, 2002
FARMLOT SUBDIVISION, CONVERSION CLEARANCE IS STILL NECESSARY TO CONVERT INTO
- If subject properties are to be developed into a farmlot subdivision under such facts and circumstances as planned, said lands will in effect revert to agricultural since they will no longer be actually, directly and exclusively used for the purpose for which they were exempted (i.e., livestock)
- They may be covered under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Accordingly, conversion clearance is necessary if said landholdings are to be converted into a farmlot subdivision
- "Farmlot subdivision" is "a planned community intended primarily for intensive agricultural activities and secondarily for housing"
- If the farmlot subdivision falls squarely within the aforecited definition, there would be a change in the use of the land necessitating application for a DAR conversion clearance
DAR Opinion No. 07, S. 2004
March 02, 2004
- If we are to opine, as requested, that portions of the proposed farmlot subdivision devoted to agricultural use will no longer require a conversion clearance, we would in effect be saying that they are not coverable under CARP contrary to the spirit and intent of the law (R.A. No. 6657) to cover all agricultural lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture
DAR Opinion No. 18, S. 2003
September 17, 2003
- "Farmlot Subdivision" is defined as "a planned community intended primarily for intensive agricultural activities, and secondarily for housing"
- The fact that there is a housing requirement is an indication to change the use of an agricultural land to residential and this is covered by the definition of "land use conversion"
- The slightest change in the agricultural land use to some other non-agricultural use (which in this case is residential), no matter how minimal the area to be covered by such change and even if housing is a secondary purpose, will be interpreted as land use conversion
- As such, there is a need to apply for a conversion clearance from the DAR
- Additionally, Section 2 (C1) of the above mentioned HLURB Rules and Regulations provides that a clearance from the Department of Agrarian Reform is required from applicants of farmlot subdivisions
DAR Opinion No. 10, S. 2001
August 9, 2001
FARMWORKERS, SEASONAL AND OTHER
- Given the aforequoted provision of law (Section 22, R.A. No. 6657), it is clear that a seasonal farmworker and others therein enumerated may not be excluded as CARP beneficiaries for as long as the order of priority is followed and they possess the basic qualification of a beneficiary
DAR Opinion No. 17, S. 2002
June 07, 2002
FISHPONDS, EXEMPTION OF (CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS)
- Pursuant to Section 2 of R.A. No. 7881, which amends Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law), private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for fishponds as of 12 March 1995 are exempt from CARP coverage, provided that said lands have not been distributed and no Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) have been issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs)
DAR Opinion No. 10, S. 2002
February 21, 2002
FREE PATENTS AND HOMESTEAD LANDS ENCUMBERED WITHIN THE PROHIBITORY PERIOD, CARP COVERAGE OF
- To preclude circuitous and complex reversion proceedings, and pursuant to the aforequoted/aforecited more recent special provisions of R.A. No. 6657 (CARL) and R.A. No. 337 (The General Banking Act) vis-à-vis a general provision of the Public Land Act (Section 118 thereof), the subject properties foreclosed by private banks, consolidated in their favor and offered for CARP coverage may be placed under the Program since in the final analysis said properties will end up/revert to the State, through the DAR, for distribution to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries
DAR Opinion No. 12, S. 2003
August 28, 2003
GLOBE TELECOM (CONVERSION CLEARANCE REQUIRED IN ERECTING A CELLCITE)
- DAR Conversion Clearance is still required in case a portion of an agricultural land is to be leased by Globe Telecom for the purpose of erecting a cellsite
DAR Opinion No. 18, S. 2002
June 07, 2002
HAZARD PAY, PAYMENT OF
- Payment of said hazard duty pay may only be granted to officials and employees who are exposed to physical, health, weather and/or environmental hazards in hazardous work areas as defined/contemplated in Item 5 of NBC No. 451 and as declared/duly certified by the agency officials concerned mentioned therein
DAR Opinion No. 23, S. 2003
November 28, 2003
HOMESTEAD AND FREE PATENT LANDS ENCUMBERED WITHIN THE PROHIBITORY PERIOD, CARP COVERAGE OF
- To preclude circuitous and complex reversion proceedings, and pursuant to the aforequoted/aforecited more recent special provisions of R.A. No. 6657 (CARL) and R.A. No. 337 (The General Banking Act) vis-à-vis a general provision of the Public Land Act (Section 118 thereof), the subject properties foreclosed by private banks, consolidated in their favor and offered for CARP coverage may be placed under the Program since in the final analysis said properties will end up/revert to the State, through the DAR, for distribution to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries
DAR Opinion No. 12, S. 2003
August 28, 2003
IDENTIFICATION AND REGISTRATION OF BENEFICIARIES
- Under Section 15 of R.A. No. 6657 and its implementing guidelines, Administrative Order No. 10, series of 1989, it is the DAR in coordination with the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) which shall identify and register all agricultural lessees, tenants and farmworkers who are qualified to be beneficiaries of the CARP
DAR Opinion No. 17, S. 2002
June 07, 2002
ILLEGAL TRANSFER
- If what is transferred/acquired is more than the 5-hectare retention area and/or transferee will own an aggregate of more than five (5) hectares, the transfer is null and void insofar as the excess of the 5-hectare retention limit or landowner ceiling is concerned (Section 6, 1st paragraphs, 70, 73(a) and DAR A.O. No. 1, series of 1989)
DAR Opinion No. 19, S. 2003
September 23, 2003
JUST COMPENSATION, DETERMINATION OF
- On the matter of "just-ness" of the compensation, if raised by the landowner, it may initially be determined by the DAR Adjudication Board but final determination thereof is with the courts of justice of competent jurisdiction. In other words, if the landowner refuses to accept the compensation offered to him, the issue of just compensation is perforce brought before the DARAB for its preliminary determination and if landowner is not yet satisfied, the same may be brought before the Special Agrarian Court (SAC) for final determination of just compensation [Sections 16 (d and f) and 57 of R.A. No. 6657]
DAR Opinion No. 17, S. 2002
June 07, 2002
LAND TRANSACTION (APPLICABILITY OF DAR A.O. NO. 1, SERIES OF 1989)
- Agricultural lands reclassified on or after 15 June 1988 (effectivity of R.A. No. 6657) if not yet applied for conversion and duly approved on the merits by DAR pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2002 remain as agricultural lands, thus, the provisions of DAR A.O. No. 01, series of 1989 shall still apply
DAR Opinion No. 13, S. 2003
August 28, 2003
LANDOWNERSHIP CEILING/RETENTION LIMIT
- The abovequoted provisions of Sections 6 (1st and 4th paragraph), 70 and 73 (a) of Republic Act No. 6657 and Item II.2.a of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1989 are explicit. They clearly restrict and limit the retention area and landownership ceiling of agricultural lands to five (5) hectares. Hence, in no case shall the retention limit or landownership ceiling of any person, natural or juridical, exceed five (5) hectares upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 on 15 June 1988
- All agricultural lands in excess thereof shall, by operation of law, be immediately put under CARP coverage and should be acquired and distributed to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries except only if the children of the landowner/s are qualified beneficiaries or awardees
DAR Opinion No. 14, S. 2004
May 25, 2004
- If what is transferred/acquired is more than the 5-hectare retention area and/or transferee will own an aggregate of more than five (5) hectares, the transfer is null and void insofar as the excess of the 5-hectare retention limit or landowner ceiling is concerned (Section 6, 1st paragraphs, 70, 73(a) and DAR A.O. No. 1, series of 1989)
DAR Opinion No. 19, S. 2003
September 23, 2003
- Provided there is no violation of the provisions of Sections 6, 70 and 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657 as regards the 5-hectare retention limit and landownership ceiling, DAR clearance may be issued pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1989 (Rules and Procedures Governing Land Transactions)
DAR Opinion No. 02, S. 2003
January 20, 2003
LANDOWNERSHIP CEILING/RETENTION (TO BE EFFECTED, BY OPERATION OF LAW, ON 15 JUNE 1988)
- It is clear from the aforecited provisions of law and policy pronouncement that in no case shall the retention limit or landownership ceiling of a landowner exceed five (5) hectares upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) on 15 June 1988
- Any agricultural landholding in excess thereof shall perforce, by operation of law, be acquired and distributed to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries except only if the children of the landowner are qualified beneficiaries or awardees
- What is considered as not a prohibited transaction (necessitating no prior clearance from DAR before registration) is a Deed of Extra-judicial Partition of the property of a deceased who died prior to June 15, 1988. Thus, conversely, we could infer that a Deed of Extra-judicial Partition of the property of the deceased insofar as the excess of his/her 5-hectare retention limit or landownership ceiling is concerned, who died after June 15, 1988, is a prohibited transaction precisely because said agricultural landholdings are, by operation of law, immediately put under the coverage of CARP upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 on 15 June 1988
- His/her heirs will thus only be entitled to the compensation for the land
- To hold otherwise would be violative of the provisions of Sections 6 and 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657 that in no case should the retention limit or landownership ceiling of a landowner exceed five (5) hectares
DAR Opinion No. 24, S. 2002
October 18, 2002
LANDOWNERSHIP CEILING/RETENTION LIMIT (TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS WHERE THE TRANSFEREE ALREADY OWNS 5 HECTARES)
- Subject acquisition will be violative of the provisions of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) mandating a landownership ceiling and/or retention limit of not more than five (5) hectares (paragraphs 1 and 4, Section 6, Section 70 and Section 73(a) of R.A. No. 6657)
- Furthermore, DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1989 provides in Item II, B(3) thereof that transactions executed in favor of a person or persons not qualified to acquire land under Republic Act No. 6657 are not valid
DAR Opinion No. 08, S. 2001
July 13, 2001
LBP BONDS MAY BE USED AS PAYMENT FOR TAXES AND FEES TO GOVERNMENT
- The above stated provisions of RA 6657 clearly provides that the said bonds are negotiable, among others, as payment for various taxes and fees to the government which includes real property/land taxes
- In Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals (194 SCRA 81), the Supreme Court ruled: "if landowners are called to sacrifice in the interest of land reform, by their acceptannce of Land Bank bonds in payment of their agricultural lands, government lending institutions should share in the sacrifice by accepting the same Land Bank bonds at their face value
- Further, in Maddumba vs. GSIS (182 SCRA 281), the Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus seeking to compel respondent GSIS to accept Land Bank bonds at their face value as payment for a pre-existing obligation
- Given the aforegoing, it is our considered opinion that LBP bonds offered for payment of land taxes be accepted. Proper representations then be made with the Department of Finance or the City Government, as the case may be, in the event the City Treasurer will still insist on his denial
DAR Opinion No. 18, 2001
September 19, 2001
LEASEHOLD HAD ALREADY ABOLISHED AGRICULTURAL SHARE TENANCY
- By virtue of Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code), which took effect on 08 August 1963, agricultural share tenancy was declared to be contrary to public policy and was, thereby, abolished
- This was further strengthened in Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6389, which provided that agricultural share tenancy throughout the country shall be automatically converted to agricultural leasehold
DAR Opinion No. 19, S. 2002
June 07, 2002
LEASEHOLD, EFFECT OF TRANSFER/SALE OF LANDS UNDER
- Isinasaad sa mga nasabing probisyon ng batas na kung sakali man na ipagbili o magkaroon ng paglilipat sa pagmamay-ari ng lupang sinasaka, magpapatuloy ang ugnayan ng magsasaka at ng bagong may-ari ng lupa. Yamang magpapatuloy ang samahang buwisan sa pagsasaka, nararapat lamang na kayo po ay magbigay pa rin ng buwis sa bagong may-ari ng lupang sinasaka
DAR Opinion No. 22, S. 2001
October 30, 2001
LEASEHOLD, EMPLOYMENT OF SUB-LESSEE PROHIBITED IN
- Section 27(2) of R.A. No. 3844, as amended provides that it shall be unlawful for the agricultural lessee to employ a sub-lessee on his landholding: Provided, however, That in case of illness or temporary incapacity, he may employ laborers whose services on his landholding shall be on his account
DAR Opinion No. 06, S. 2002
February 21, 2002
LEASEHOLD, PERSONAL CULTIVATION IS NOT A GROUND TO TERMINATE TENANCY RELATIONSHIP
- Personal cultivation is no longer a ground to terminate tenancy relationship, considering that the same has already been deleted as a ground for ejectment of the tenant under Section 7 of R.A. No. 6389, which amended Section 36 (1) of R.A. No. 3844
- Such being the case, a landowner may not dispossess his tenant of his farmlot on the ground that the landowner will now personally cultivate the landholding
DAR Opinion No. 06, S. 2002
February 21, 2002
DAR Opinion No. 04, S. 2001
May 2, 2001
LEASEHOLD, SALE OF LAND UNDER (LESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO A SHARE BUT HE/SHE IS ENTITLED TO SECURITY OF TENURE)
- In case a property under leasehold is sold, the lessee is not entitled to a share
- However, Under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3844, tenants are entitled to security of tenure. They may not therefore be ejected from their tillage unless authorized by the court (now DAR Adjudication Board) for causes provided by law
- And the tenant continues to enjoy security of tenure on the farmholding despite sale of the property for the leasehold is not extinguished by transfer of legal ownership of the land from one landowner to another
- In such cases, the purchaser or transferee shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the original agricultural lessor
- Likewise, in Sections 11 and 12, it is explicit that in case the agricultural lessor decides to sell the landholding, the agricultural lessee shall have the preferential right to buy the same
- In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration
DAR Opinion No. 19, S. 2002
June 07, 2002
LEASEHOLD (SECURITY OF TENURE)
- Section 7 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, provides that agricultural leasehold relation, once established, shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished
- The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court (now, DAR Adjudication Board) for causes provided for in said law
- Section 36 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, further provides in part: ". . . . . an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory . . . . ."
DAR Opinion No. 04, S. 2001
May 02, 2001
- Pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by R.A. No. 6389 (Code of Agrarian Reforms), the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding, and, he cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court (now, the DAR Adjudication Board) for causes provided under said law
- As elucidated in the case of Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals (168 SCRA 439), security of tenure is a legal concession to agricultural lessees which they value as life itself and deprivation of their landholding is tantamount to deprivation of their only means of livelihood
- More specifically, Section 10 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, provides that the leasehold relation is not extinguished by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding
- And, 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 (owner)
DAR Opinion No. 02, S. 2001
April 27, 2001
LEGAL EASEMENTS, COMPENSABILITY OF LANDS SUBJECT OF
- Portions of titled or registered private agricultural lands subject of legal easements form as inseparable part of the landholding of the landowner, thus, they may be covered under Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) and accordingly be compensated by the Land Bank of the Philippines
DAR Opinion No. 05, S. 2004
February 04, 2004
LGUs, EXPROPRIATION BY (DAR CLEARANCE NOT NECESSARY)
- Agricultural lands expropriated by Local Government Units (LGUs) pursuant to the power of eminent domain need not be subject of DAR conversion clearance prior to change in use (Camarines Sur vs. Court of Appeals, 222 SCRA 173)
DAR Opinion No. 11, S. 2003
July 09, 2003
LGUs (EXPROPRIATION VIS-À-VIS PRIVATE TRANSACTION)
- The ruling in Camarines Sur may not be applicable in the instant case since it appears that the subject land was not expropriated by the LGU but was acquired through a private transaction
- Thus, an application for conversion and DAR conversion clearance shall still be required if said agricultural lands shall be converted into residential or housing
- On the other hand, should the subject lands be expropriated by the LGU rather than privately acquired, DAR conversion clearance may no longer be required pursuant to the said ruling in Camarines Sur
DAR Opinion No. 04, S. 2004
February 04, 2004
MORTGAGE, BANK (BANKS MAY ACQUIRE TITLE)
- Banks may acquire title to mortgaged agricultural properties regardless of area (that is, even more than the 5-hectare retention limit) pursuant to Section 71 of R.A. No. 6657
- However, banks cannot exercise the right of retention over said foreclosed agricultural properties since they are subject to the aforequoted provisions of existing laws and guidelines on their eventual compulsory transfer and acquisition under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
DAR Opinion No. 20, S. 2003
October 08, 2003
MORTGAGE OF ARB-OWNED LANDS SUBJECT OF CONVERSION, ARBs' RIGHTS SHOULD BE PROTECTED IN THE
- In order not to possibly unduly put the ARBs at risk, it is our considered opinion that subject lands should not be mortgaged by the ARBs
- We have to safeguard and protect the welfare and interests of the ARBs since there is the possibility that should the business venture (petroleum depot) not prosper or materialize the agrarian reform beneficiaries will be at risk of losing their lands in case of foreclosure
- For the landowner-ARBs to mortgage their awarded lands to fund the cost of constructing the petroleum depot would mean that they are not merely delivering the possession and use of their landholdings as agreed in the JVA but they will likewise in effect be providing for the capitalization of the business venture
- This will be violative and not in keeping with the terms and conditions of the Joint Venture Agreement that the Corporation shall undertake conversion of the landholdings by putting up its facilities for petroleum depot, shouldering all the expenses therefore until its completion
DAR Opinion No. 11, S. 2004
April 13, 2004
NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION (NPC), EXPPROPRIATION BY
- Here, since the acquisition is by the government through expropriation for public use or national interest in the exercise of the power of eminent domain, your request for DAR clearance which is necessary for registration is hereby granted
- However, it must be stressed that this clearance is solely for purposes of registration without prejudice to NPC still applying for conversion
DAR Opinion No. 07, S. 2003
June 6, 2003
PERSONAL CULTIVATION NOT A GROUND TO TERMINATE TENANCY RELATIONSHIP
- Personal cultivation is no longer a ground to terminate tenancy relationship, considering that the same has already been deleted as a ground for ejectment of the tenant under Section 7 of R.A. No. 6389, which amended Section 36 (1) of R.A. No. 3844
- Such being the case, a landowner may not dispossess his tenant of his farmlot on the ground that the landowner will now personally cultivate the landholding
DAR Opinion No. 06, S. 2002
February 21, 2002
DAR Opinion No. 04, S. 2001
May 2, 2001
PRE-EMPTION/REDEMPTION, RIGHTS OF
- Likewise, in Sections 11 and 12, it is explicit that in case the agricultural lessor decides to sell the landholding, the agricultural lessee shall have the preferential right to buy the same
- In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration
DAR Opinion No. 19, S. 2002
June 07, 2002
PREFERRED BENEFICIARIES, RECKONING DATE OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF
- The reckoning date is the effectivity of the CARL itself, which is 15 June 1988, obviously since Section 6, paragraph 1 forms part of said law
- The setting of the reckoning date by the DAR, which in the instant case was deemed as effective 15 June 1988 pursuant to DAR Memorandum Circular No. 04, Series of 1994 (and not at the time of coverage or notice of coverage), is an exercise of its sound discretion and authority under Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657 that "the DAR shall have the power to issue rules and regulations, whether substantive or procedural, to carry out the objects and purposes of this Act
- The reckoning date of 15 June 1988 was expressly reiterated and underscored in DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 2003 (2003 Rules and Regulations Governing Landowner Retention Rights), particularly Section 7.4 thereof
DAR Opinion No. 15, 2004
May 25, 2004
PRIORITY, RULE ON THE ORDER OF (SECTION 22, R.A. NO. 6657)
- The order of priority applies only in cases where a given landholding covered under the agrarian reform program is not sufficient to be distributed to all affected potential beneficiaries. Otherwise, there is no reason to apply the order of priority
- Should the order of priority be applicable, as worded, Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657 appears clear and unequivocal. It must be strictly followed
DAR Opinion No. 21, S. 2001
October 01, 2001
PRODUCTION AND PROFIT SHARING, CONTINUITY OF
- Given all the above-quoted provisions of law, considering that the grant of production and profit shares appears to have already been an established practice, and since the lands are still devoted to agricultural production, it is our considered opinion on equitable considerations that production and profit sharing (PPS) should continue. Accordingly, the submission of reports of compliance may still be required pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 8, series of 1988 (Guidelines and Procedures Implementing Production and Profit Sharing Under Republic Act No. 6657)
DAR Opinion No. 04, S. 2003
May 6, 2003
RECLASSIFICATION AS DISTINGUISHED FROM CONVERSION
- Reclassification, which is the Local Government Unit's (LGU's) act of specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for non-agricultural uses, such as residential, industrial, tourism or commercial, as embodied in the land use plan
- Is not synonymous with land use conversion, which is the act or process of changing the current physical use of a piece of agricultural land to non-agricultural uses as duly approved by DAR
- Under the law, approval of applications for land use conversion remains the exclusive responsibility of DAR
DAR Opinion No. 17, S. 2003
September 09, 2003
RECLASSIFICATION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS, LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS ON THE
- In view of all the above and subject to other existing provisions of law, rules and regulations, reclassification may be allowed provided there is compliance with the requirement of DAR Certification that subject lands are not distributed or covered by a notice of acquisition/valuation and, provided further, that, said lands are not classified as non-negotiable for conversion
- It is worthy to note and it may be inferred that what is now being required under Presidential Administrative Order No. 363 is a Certification from DAR that such lands are not covered as yet by a Notice of Acquisition/Valuation under CARP and no longer a DAR Certification indicating that such lands are not covered by a Notice of Coverage
- The earlier requirement that there should be no Notice of Coverage issued as yet under Memorandum Circular No. 54, series of 1993 of the Office of the President appears to have now been amended by the latter requirement that there should be no Notice of Acquisition/Valuation under Administrative Order No. 363, series of 1997, likewise of the Office of the President
DAR Opinion No. 2-B, S. 2003
March 07, 2003
REDEMPTION/PRE-EMPTION, RIGHTS OF
- Likewise, in Sections 11 and 12, it is explicit that in case the agricultural lessor decides to sell the landholding, the agricultural lessee shall have the preferential right to buy the same
- In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration
DAR Opinion No. 19, S. 2002
June 07, 2002
RETENTION LIMIT/LANDOWNERSHIP CEILING
- The abovequoted provisions of Sections 6 (1st and 4th paragraph), 70 and 73 (a) of Republic Act No. 6657 and Item II.2.a of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1989 are explicit. They clearly restrict and limit the retention area and landownership ceiling of agricultural lands to five (5) hectares. Hence, in no case shall the retention limit or landownership ceiling of any person, natural or juridical, exceed five (5) hectares upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 on 15 June 1988
- All agricultural lands in excess thereof shall, by operation of law, be immediately put under CARP coverage and should be acquired and distributed to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries except only if the children of the landowner/s are qualified beneficiaries or awardees
DAR Opinion No. 14, S. 2004
May 25, 2004
- If what is transferred/acquired is more than the 5-hectare retention area and/or transferee will own an aggregate of more than five (5) hectares, the transfer is null and void insofar as the excess of the 5-hectare retention limit or landowner ceiling is concerned (Section 6, 1st paragraphs, 70, 73(a) and DAR A.O. No. 1, series of 1989)
DAR Opinion No. 19, S. 2003
September 23, 2003
- The above provisions of law and guideline, taken together, clearly delimit the ownership and/or transfer/sale of agricultural lands to not more than the legally mandated retention limit or landownership ceiling of five (5) hectares. Thus, to issue a clearance or certification for the sale or disposition of agricultural lands in excess of the 5-hectare retention limit or landownership ceiling would be violative of the aforequoted provisions of law and guideline
DAR Opinion No. 06, S. 2003
May 9, 2003
- Provided there is no violation of the provisions of Sections 6, 70 and 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657 as regards the 5-hectare retention limit and landownership ceiling, DAR clearance may be issued pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1989 (Rules and Procedures Governing Land Transactions)
DAR Opinion No. 02, S. 2003
January 20, 2003
RETENTION LIMIT/LANDOWNERSHIP CEILING (TO BE EFFECTED, BY OPERATION OF LAW, ON 15 JUNE 1988)
- It is clear from the aforecited provisions of law and policy pronouncement that in no case shall the retention limit or landownership ceiling of a landowner exceed five (5) hectares upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) on 15 June 1988
- Any agricultural landholding in excess thereof shall perforce, by operation of law, be acquired and distributed to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries except only if the children of the landowner are qualified beneficiaries or awardees
- What is considered as not a prohibited transaction (necessitating no prior clearance from DAR before registration) is a Deed of Extra-judicial Partition of the property of a deceased who died prior to June 15, 1988. Thus, conversely, we could infer that a Deed of Extra-judicial Partition of the property of the deceased insofar as the excess of his/her 5-hectare retention limit or landownership ceiling is concerned, who died after June 15, 1988, is a prohibited transaction precisely because said agricultural landholdings are, by operation of law, immediately put under the coverage of CARP upon the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 on 15 June 1988
- His/her heirs will thus only be entitled to the compensation for the land
- To hold otherwise would be violative of the provisions of Sections 6 and 73 (a) of R.A. No. 6657 that in no case should the retention limit or landownership ceiling of a landowner exceed five (5) hectares
DAR Opinion No. 24, S. 2002
October 18, 2002
RETENTION LIMIT/LANDOWNERSHIP CEILING (TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS WHERE THE TRANSFEREE ALREADY OWNS 5 HECTARES)
- Subject acquisition will be violative of the provisions of Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law) mandating a landownership ceiling and/or retention limit of not more than five (5) hectares (paragraphs 1 and 4, Section 6, Section 70 and Section 73(a) of R.A. No. 6657)
- Furthermore, DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1989 provides in Item II, B(3) thereof that transactions executed in favor of a person or persons not qualified to acquire land under Republic Act No. 6657 are not valid
DAR Opinion No. 08, S. 2001
July 13, 2001
SALE OF LAND UNDER LEASEHOLD (LESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO A SHARE BUT HE/SHE IS ENTITLED TO SECURITY OF TENURE)
- In case a property under leasehold is sold, the lessee is not entitled to a share
- However, Under Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3844, tenants are entitled to security of tenure. They may not then be ejected from their tillage unless authorized by the court (now DAR Adjudication Board) for causes provided by law
- And the tenant continues to enjoy security of tenure on the farmholding despite sale of the property for the leasehold is not extinguished by transfer of legal ownership of the land from one landowner to another
- In such cases, the purchaser or transferee shall be subrogated to the rights and substituted to the obligations of the original agricultural lessor
- Likewise, in Sections 11 and 12, it is explicit that in case the agricultural lessor decides to sell the landholding, the agricultural lessee shall have the preferential right to buy the same
- In case the landholding is sold to a third person without the knowledge of the agricultural lessee, the latter shall have the right to redeem the same at a reasonable price and consideration
DAR Opinion No. 19, S. 2002
June 07, 2002
SEASONAL FARMWORKERS NOT EXCLUDED AS CARP BENEFICIARIES
- Given the aforequoted provision of law, it is clear that a seasonal farmworker and others therein enumerated may not be excluded as CARP beneficiaries for as long as the order of priority is followed and they possess the basic qualification of a beneficiary
DAR Opinion No. 17, S. 2002
June 07, 2002
SECURITY OF TENURE UNDER LEASEHOLD
- Section 7 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, provides that agricultural leasehold relation, once established, shall confer upon the agricultural lessee the right to continue working on the landholding until such leasehold relation is extinguished
- The agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding and cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court (now, DAR Adjudication Board) for causes provided for in said law
- Section 36 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended, further provides in part: ". . . . . an agricultural lessee shall continue in the enjoyment and possession of his landholding except when his dispossession has been authorized by the Court in a judgment that is final and executory . . . . ."
DAR Opinion No. 04, S. 2001
May 02, 2001
- Pursuant to Section 7 of Republic Act No. 3844, as amended by R.A. No. 6389 (Code of Agrarian Reforms), the agricultural lessee shall be entitled to security of tenure on his landholding, and, he cannot be ejected therefrom unless authorized by the Court (now, the DAR Adjudication Board) for causes provided under said law
- As elucidated in the case of Bernardo vs. Court of Appeals (168 SCRA 439), security of tenure is a legal concession to agricultural lessees which they value as life itself and deprivation of their landholding is tantamount to deprivation of their only means of livelihood
- More specifically, Section 10 of R.A. No. 3844, as amended, provides that the leasehold relation is not extinguished by the sale, alienation or transfer of the legal possession of the landholding
- And, 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 (owner)
DAR Opinion No. 02, S. 2001
April 27, 2001
SHARE TENANCY, ABOLITION OF AGRICULTURAL
- By virtue of Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code), which took effect on 08 August 1963, agricultural share tenancy was declared to be contrary to public policy and was, thereby, abolished
- This was further strengthened in Section 4 of Republic Act No. 6389, which provided that agricultural share tenancy throughout the country shall be automatically converted to agricultural leasehold
DAR Opinion No. 19, S. 2002
June 07, 2002
STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION, CUT-OFF DATE IN THE AVAILMENT OF
- The last paragraph of Section 31 of R.A. No. 6657 provides:
"If within two (2) years from the approval of this Act, the land or stock transfer envisioned above is not made or realized or the plan for such stock distribution approved by the PARC within the same period, the agricultural land of the corporate owners or corporation shall be subject to the compulsory coverage of this Act."
- A reading of the above provision reveals that the 2-year period contemplated therein from the approval or effectivity of R.A. No. 6657 on 15 June 1988 is mandatory. Thus, corporate farmworkers can no longer avail of voluntary stock distribution at present
DAR Opinion No. 17, S. 2002
June 07, 2002
STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION (SDO) PLAN, AUTHORITY OF PARC TO APPROVE AND REVOKE/CANCEL
- If PARC has the authority to approve the SDO plan, then it also has the power to review, monitor and cancel the implementation of said SDO scheme. The power to approve inherently carries with it the power to revoke or cancel
DAR Opinion No. 10, S. 2004
March 23, 2004
STOCK DISTRIBUTION OPTION (SDO) PLAN, COULD NOT BE HELD IN PERPETUITY
- SDO plan could not be held in perpetuity considering that the Certificate of Compliance may be revoked on the ground of non-compliance with any of the requirements of Section 31 of R.A. No. 6657 as implemented by DAR A.O. No. 10, Series of 1988 (Section 12, DAR A.O. No. 10, Series of 1988)
DAR Opinion No. 03, S. 2004
February 03, 2004
TAXES AND FEES, LBP BONDS AS PAYMENT FOR
- The above stated provisions of RA 6657 clearly provides that the said bonds are negotiable, among others, as payment for various taxes and fees to the government which includes real property/land taxes
- In Ramirez vs. Court of Appeals (194 SCRA 81), the Supreme Court ruled: "if landowners are called to sacrifice in the interest of land reform, by their acceptance of Land Bank bonds in payment of their agricultural lands, government lending institutions should share in the sacrifice by accepting the same Land Bank bonds at their face value
- Further, in Maddumba vs. GSIS (182 SCRA 281), the Supreme Court granted the petition for mandamus seeking to compel respondent GSIS to accept Land Bank bonds at their face value as payment for a pre-existing obligation
- Given the aforegoing, it is our considered opinion that LBP bonds offered for payment of land taxes be accepted. Proper representations then be made with the Department of Finance or the City Government, as the case may be, in the event the City Treasurer will still insist on his denial
DAR Opinion No. 18, 2001
September 19, 2001
TAXES, ARBs' START OF PAYMENT OF REAL PROPERTY
- Under Section 24 of R.A. No. 6657, the rights and responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence from the time the DAR makes an award to him, which means that the FB is responsible for the payment of the real property taxes that accrue on the land only from the date of said award
DAR Opinion No. 01, S. 2003
January 09, 2003
TAXES, ARREARAGES ON REAL PROPERTY (TO BE DEDUCTED ON LANDOWNER'S COMPENSATION)
- It is clear under Section 66 of R.A. No. 6657 that arrearages in real property taxes, without penalty or interest, shall be deducted from the compensation due the landowner
DAR Opinion No. 01, S. 2003
January 09, 2003
TAXES, NON-PAYMENT OF ARREARAGES IN REAL PROPERTY (ARB SHOULD NOT BE PENALIZED
- It is clear under said provision of law (Section 66, R. A. No. 6657) that it is the previous landowner who should pay the arrearages in real property taxes. Thus, awardees/beneficiaries should not be penalized or made to suffer, through foreclosure by Local Government Units (LGUs) of their awarded lands, due to non-payment of said taxes by previous landowners. Such foreclosure is unwarranted
DAR Opinion No. 19, S. 2001
September 21, 2001
TAXES (REAL PROPERTY), EXEMPTION IN THE PAYMENT THEREOF DURING THE INTERIM PERIOD
- With respect to the real property taxes from the time the landholdings are transferred to the Republic of the Philippines up to the time the CLOAs are generated and registered in the name of the farmer beneficiaries, they shall be deemed exempt as, meanwhile, the owner is the government itself
DAR Opinion No. 03, S. 2001
May 02, 2001
TRANSFER, ILLEGAL
- If what is transferred/acquired is more than the 5-hectare retention area and/or transferee will own an aggregate of more than five (5) hectares, the transfer is null and void insofar as the excess of the 5-hectare retention limit or landowner ceiling is concerned (Section 6, 1st paragraphs, 70, 73(a) and DAR A.O. No. 1, series of 1989)
DAR Opinion No. 19, S. 2003
September 23, 2003
TRANSFER, LAND (APPLICABILITY OF DAR A.O. NO. 1, SERIES OF 1989)
- Agricultural lands reclassified on or after 15 June 1988 (effectivity of R.A. No. 6657) if not yet applied for conversion and duly approved on the merits by DAR pursuant to the provisions of DAR Administrative Order No. 1, series of 2002 remain as agricultural lands, thus, the provisions of DAR A.O. No. 01, series of 1989 shall still apply
DAR Opinion No. 13, S. 2003
August 28, 2003
TRANSFER OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS, LIMITATIONS AND CONDITIONS ON
- The productivity of the land shall be maintained and any change in the nature of its use shall not be allowed except with the approval of the DAR under its rules on conversion or exemption
DAR Opinion No. 02, S. 2003
January 20, 2003
TRANSFER OF AWARDED LANDS ALLOWED AFTER THE 10-YEAR PROHIBITORY PERIOD, CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS
- Such allowance to transfer is not absolute. Section 6 of Executive Order No. 228 provides that lands acquired by farmer-beneficiaries may be transferred only after full payment of amortizations
- Moreover, the productivity of the land shall be maintained
- The total landholdings that shall be owned by the buyer or transferee inclusive of the land to be acquired, shall not exceed five (5) hectares, which is the land ownership ceiling
And any change in the nature of its use shall not be allowed except with the approval of the DAR under its rules on conversion or exemption
DAR Opinion No. 09, S. 2001
July 31, 2001
TRANSFER OF AWARDED LANDS, RECKONING DATE IN COUNTING THE 10-YEAR PROHIBITORY PERIOD
- The reckoning date of the 10-year prohibition provided by law is the original issuance of the collective CLOA, the actual date of award, not the date of subsequent issuance of individual CLOAs
DAR Opinion No. 09, S. 2001
July 31, 2001
TRANSFER OF BANK-FORECLOSED AGRICULTURAL LANDS TO THIRD PARTIES ALLOWED EVEN WITHOUT DAR CLEARANCE
- Section 6 of Republic Act No. 7881, amending certain provisions of R.A. No. 6657, which took effect on 12 March 1995, provides that the transfer and/or sale by banks of agricultural lands in cases where such sale, transfer or conveyance is made necessary as a result of a bank's foreclosure of the mortgaged land is permitted
- DAR Memorandum Circular No. 05, Series of 1996, was issued contemplating that the asset involved is an agricultural land foreclosed on or after 12 March 1995
- It must be noted, however, that although private banks may sell to third parties their foreclosed assets, the same are still subject to acquisition under Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657 (CARL)
DAR Opinion No. 12, S. 2001
August 21, 2001
TRANSFER OF LANDS TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY, RESTRICTION ON THE (RULE ON RETENTION LIMIT INSOFAR AS TRANSFEROR IS CONCERNED STILL TO BE OBSERVED)
- It must, however, be made a condition that should the CEZA fail to make use of the subject landholdings in accordance with the purposes for which it was created, said lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture, shall eventually be covered under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
- Moreover, the transferor should only be allowed to sell not more than his/her 5-hectare retention area, otherwise, the disposition in favor of CEZA may be used as a scheme to avoid coverage under the CARP
DAR Opinion No. 14, S. 2003
August 25, 2003
VOS OF LANDS COVERED UNDER PD 27 ALLOWED
- In view of the aforementioned provisions of law (Sections 4(d), 7 and 19 of R.A. No. 6657; paragraph 13, PD 27; and Item I, 1st paragraph of DAR A.O. No. 8, Series of 1995) the voluntary offer for sale to the government of lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture may be allowed and given due course
DAR Opinion No. 05, S. 2003
May 9, 2003
VOS OF LANDS TRANSFERRED ON OR AFTER JUNE 15, 1988 ALLOWED SOLELY FOR PURPOSES OF CARP COVERAGE BUT WITHOUT PREJUDICE ON THE ISSUE OF ILLEGAL/IRREGULAR TRANSFER
- Solely for purposes of CARP coverage, the processing of the Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) of these properties, although transferred/acquired on or after 15 June 1988, may be allowed. This is without prejudice, however, to the determination by the proper forum of the issue of illegal/irregular transfer, if raised, and to the incidents and legal consequences thereof
DAR Opinion No. 19, S. 2003
September 23, 2003
WAIVER OF RIGHTS OF POTENTIAL BENEFICIARIES
- One of the basic qualifications to be considered a potential beneficiary is the willingness to cultivate a land
- Refusal to be identified and/or registered as a potential beneficiary and failure to question inclusion of seasonal and other farmworker is contrary to the "willingness" qualification
- It is correct to state that the above-mentioned acts or omissions are considered waiver of the right to be recognized as a beneficiary
- However, in cases were the regular farmworkers are under duress, which resulted in their refusal to be recognized as a beneficiary or failure to question of seasonal and other farmworkers, these are matters, which are evidentiary in nature and may be threshed out administratively
- Furthermore, the implementors must take all necessary action to ensure that proper notice are sent to the regular farmworkers to avoid further complications. The notices should state clearly the consequence of inaction on the part of a potential farmer-beneficiary