June 7, 2002
DAR OPINION NO. 17-02
Mr. Sixto T. Pongos
Chairman, OLFAMCA, Inc.
Cogon, Ormoc City P.O. Box 26
Province of Leyte
Dear Mr. Pongos:
This refers to your letter dated 15 February 2002 addressed to the Honorable Ma. Victoria L. Locsin, Representative, 4th District, Province of Leyte, indorsed to this Department by her for consideration, concerning the following various recommendations of your association, the Occidental Leyte Farmer's Multi-Purpose Cooperative Association, Inc. (OLFAMCA, Inc.), with our corresponding comments thereon, to wit:
1. Opportunity should first be given the landowners to offer alternative schemes in lieu of land transfer before compulsory acquisition shall be resorted to.
Compulsory acquisition (CA) is mandatory for all private agricultural lands which become due for coverage under the phase of implementation provided in Section 7 of R.A. No. 6657. CA is also done in idle and abandoned lands regardless of their size and phasing and in lands whose commercial farm deferment is revoked. However, CA is suspended in those cases where the landowners opt for other modes of compliance, such as voluntary offer to sell or voluntary land transfer. However, CA is resumed once the negotiations in these other modes fail.
2. Land titles should not be cancelled merely on the basis of an initial deposit of landowner's compensation made by the Land Bank. Such cancellation, transfer of title to the Republic of the Philippines and the issuance of CLOAs shall be effected only upon receipt by the landowner of just compensation in full.
Section 16(e) of R.A. No. 6657 provides:
"Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or, in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land to the qualified beneficiaries." (emphasis supplied)
Although the Supreme Court in the case of Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform had ruled that:
"The recognized rule, indeed, is that title to the property expropriated shall pass from the owner to the expropriator only upon full payment of the just compensation. Jurisprudence on this settled principle is consistent both here and in other democratic jurisdictions."
The Court, however, likewise ruled:
"A reading of the aforecited Section 16 (d) will readily show that it does not suffer from the arbitrariness that rendered the challenged decrees constitutionally objectionable. Although the proceedings are described as summary, the landowner and other interested parties are nevertheless allowed an opportunity to submit evidence on the real value of the property. But more importantly, the determination of the just compensation by the DAR is not by any means final and conclusive upon the landowner or any interested party, for Section 16 (f) clearly provides:
Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation.
The determination made by the DAR is only preliminary unless accepted by all parties concerned. Otherwise, the courts of justice will still have the right to review with finality the said determination in the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function."
xxx xxx xxx
"The CARP Law, for its part, 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." (emphasis and underscoring supplied)
Thus, upon deposit with an accessible 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.
3. The landowner must first be consulted before the final list of agrarian reform beneficiaries shall be prepared to insure that only legitimate farmworkers of the land are included.
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. SACEca
It is worthy to note here Item V.C of DAR Administrative Order No. 10, series of 1989 (Rules and Procedures Governing the Registration of Beneficiaries), quote:
"C. Post-Registration
1. Posting and Data Processing
Upon completion of registration in a particular barangay, a copy of the registry or list of all potential prospective CARP beneficiaries shall be posted in the barangay hall, school or other appropriate public building(s) for a period of fifteen (15) days for validation by the public.
Within the same period, any interested party may object in the inclusion of any person in the list by appearing before the Chairman or Secretary of the BARC and stating the reason for his objection. The BARC shall render the appropriate decision in each particular case.
After the validation of the posted list, a masterlist of potential beneficiaries by landowner landholdings and by barangay shall be prepared, certified and submitted by the BARC to the DAR Provincial Office concerned." (emphasis supplied)4. CLOAs shall not be awarded to those who are not farmworkers or tenants of the land. Seasonal farmworkers shall likewise be excluded as qualified beneficiaries.
Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657 provides:
"SECTION 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. — The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the following order of priority:
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;
(b) regular farmworkers;
(c) seasonal farmworkers;
(d) other farmworkers;
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collective or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries, and
(g) others directly working on the land.
Provided, however, That the children of landowners who are qualified under Section 6 of this Act shall be given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents. And provided, further, that actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or removed therefrom.
xxx xxx xxx
A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude, and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible . . . .
xxx xxx xxx"
(emphasis supplied)
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.
5. DAR should not takeover physical possession of the land pending finalization of the list of beneficiaries prepared in consultation with the landowners.
This is already accordingly answered in the discussions under issues/recommendations Nos. 2 and 3.
6. Regular Courts or Special Agrarian Courts should be allowed to assume jurisdiction over: a) just compensation; b) major controversies arising from the application, implementation and enforcement of agrarian reform law; c) issuance of injunctions and other reliefs to protect and enforce the rights of landowners.
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].
Referring to recommendations b and c, the following provisions of R.A. No. 6657 are pertinent:
a) Section 50
"SECTION 50. Quasi-Judicial Powers of the DAR. — The DAR is hereby vested with primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform, except those falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture (DA) and the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR)." (emphasis supplied)
b) Section 55
SECTION 55. No Restraining Order or Preliminary Injunction. — No court in the Philippines shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction against the PARC or any of its duly authorized or designated agencies in any case, dispute or controversy arising from, necessary to, or in connection with the application, implementation, enforcement, or interpretation of this Act and other pertinent laws on agrarian reform." (emphasis supplied)
c) Section 68
"SECTION 68. Immunity of Government Agencies from Undue Interference. — No injunction, restraining order, prohibition or mandamus shall be issued in the lower courts against the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), the Department of Agriculture (DA), the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in their implementation of the program." (emphasis supplied)
The abovequoted provisions of law are explicit vis-à-vis the given recommendations.
7. Corporate landowners should not be limited as to the period of availment allowing them to divest of their corporate shares in favor of agrarian reform beneficiaries.
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.
We hope to have clarified the matters.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) VIRGILIO R. DE LOS REYES
Undersecretary for Policy, Planning and
Legal Affairs Office