May 2, 2001
DAR OPINION NO. 04-01
RONELO O. BINADAY
4427 Mauling Creek
Camp Bagong Diwa
Bicutan, Taguig
Metro Manila
Dear Mr. Binaday:
This refers to your letter-request for legal opinion and interpretation of Section 36 of R.A. No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code), as amended, concerning a tenanted riceland, less than two (2) hectares, inherited by your late father and his two (2) living brothers located at Malilipot, Albay, which you want to cultivate personally. You alleged that the MARO and the tenant insist that you must pay the latter disturbance compensation.
There are two (2) issues involved:
First, whether or not the decision of the heirs to personally cultivate the property in issue could be a ground to eject the tenant; and
Second, whether or not the tenant is entitled to disturbance compensation if the landowners will personally cultivate subject property.
As regards the first issue, personal cultivation is no longer a ground to terminate tenancy relationship considering that it 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, the landowner may not dispossess the tenant of his farmlot on the ground that the landowner will now personally cultivate the landholding.
Moreover, 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 provide 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 judgment that is final and executory . . . ".
On the second issue, 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.
We hope to have clarified the matters with you.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) VIRGILIO R. DE LOS REYES
Undersecretary for Legal Affairs, and Policy and Planning
Copy furnished:
PARO Rogelio Rondan
DAR Provincial Office
Rawis, Legazpi, Albay
The Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer
DAR Municipal Office
Malilipot, Albay