October 1, 2001

DAR OPINION NO. 21-01

DIRECTOR RAMON BENJAMIN

OIC-Regional Director

DAR Region IV

Balantang, Jaro, Iloilo City

Dear Director Benjamin:

This refers to the letter of then OIC-Regional Director Othelo C. Clement requesting legal opinion on the following:

1.      Whether or not the order of priority among possible agrarian reform beneficiaries in accordance with Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657 should be strictly followed;

2.      Whether or not the continued refusal of the farmworkers to be identified/registered as potential beneficiaries, and the failure to question the inclusion of seasonal and other farmworkers, result to a waiver of right to be recognized as agrarian reform beneficiaries; and

3.      Whether or not the Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Fortich, et al., vs. Corona, et al., G.R. No. 131415, August 19, 1999, declaring the intervenors to have no legal or actual substantive interest over the subject land in as much as they have no right to own the land, is conclusive upon the status of seasonal and other farmworkers.

On the first query, it must be qualified that 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. 6657 appears clear and unequivocal. It must be strictly followed.

As to the second query, it must be remembered that 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 farmworkers is contrary to the "willingness" qualification. Also, 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. After such notice, proof of receipt and the date on which they were received must be kept as part of the file. In order to avoid further complications, perhaps the notices should state clearly the consequence of inaction on the part of a potential farmer beneficiary.

As regards the last query, the Supreme Court ruling on the right of seasonal farmworkers over the subject land seem to pertain to the cases with similar facts. In the said case, the basis of the seasonal farmworkers for claiming a right to the subject land was premised on a "Win-Win" Resolution which was declared void. Since no right can emanate from a void resolution the seasonal farmwokers right to intervene must necessarily fail. However, given a different set of facts, it is submitted that the Supreme Court might have entertained the intervention in a positive note.

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) VIRGILIO R. DE LOS REYES

Undersecretary for Policy, Planning and Legal affairs