Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Lapuz, Jesus Jr.

Ros
Agrarian Law and Social Legislation
Atty. Ferdinand Casis

FINAL EXAMINATION

1. Mr. Sic Lee may either avail of the Permanent Total Disability benefits or
the Separation benefits. As Mr. Sic Lee can no longer report for work after
contracting tuberculosis, he may avail of Permanent Total Disability benefits
caused by a disease resulting in complete, irreversible, and permanent
incapacity to work or to engage in any gainful occupation. This means that
since he has been a member of GSIS in good standing for more than 20 years
and the permanent total disability was suffered while in the service, lifetime
monthly income benefit equal to the basic monthly pension should be given
to him. On the other hand, should he opt to avail of the Separation benefits
being a member who resigns from the service after rendering at least 15
years of service and is below 60 years of age a cash payment equivalent to
18 times his basic monthly pension payable at the time of resignation or
separation, plus an old-age pension benefit equal to the basic monthly
pension payable monthly upon reaching the age of 60 may be given to him.

2. Regarding application:

PD 27 applies to tenant farmers of private agricultural lands primarily


devoted to rice and corn under a system of sharecrop or lease-tenancy,
whether classified as landed estate or not. RA 6657 covers more kinds of
land:

The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1989 shall cover, regardless of


tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and private
agricultural lands, as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order
No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.
More specifically the following lands are covered by the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program:
(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to or
suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to
agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act until
Congress, taking into account ecological, developmental and equity
considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific limits of the public
domain.
(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as
determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph;
(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for
agriculture; and
(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the
agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon.

Regarding retention limits:

PD 27 permits a landowner to retain an area of not more than 7 hectares if


such landowner is cultivating the area or will now cultivate it.

CARL has a retention limit of 5 hectares. The retained area need not be
personally cultivated by the landowner - cultivation can be done indirectly
through labor administration.

Regarding limitations on ownership:

PD 27 prescribes that the tenant farmer, whether in land classified as landed


estate or not, shall be deemed owner of a portion constituting a family-size
farm of 5 hectares if not irrigated and 3 hectares if irrigated.

CARL, on the other hand, states that no qualified beneficiary may own more
than 3 hectares of agricultural land.
3. Yes, the DAR has the power to object a transaction that is less
favorable to tenants under the voluntary land transfer-direct payment
scheme.

According to item C of the policy statement of Administrative Order No. 08 or


the Revised Guidelines on the Acquisition or Distribution of Compensable
Agricultural Lands under Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment Scheme, the
terms and condition of the VLT/DPS shall not be less favorable to the agrarian
reform beneficiaries and it is incumbent upon the DAR to ensure that these
beneficiaries are made fully aware of and understand the options available to
them in land distribution.

4. The limit to the right of retention of Spouses Malakas and Maganda is


determined by the property regime that controls their marriage. If the
property regime is Conjugal, or Absolute Community - the spouses can only
retain a total of 5 hectares; whereas if the property regime is Separation of
Property, then the spouses can retain 5 hectares each, for a total of 10
hectares. This is based on Sec. 9 (g) and (h) of DAR AO No 05-00

In the case at bar, the tenants agreed to buy land despite the fact that the
consideration for the land that is offered by the landowner is 20% higher than
the valuation of the land seemingly due to the fact that they are unaware of
its real valuation making the deal less favorable to them. It is therefore
incumbent upon the having the ministerial duty DAR to object to such
unfavorable sale and inform the tenants of the governments would-be offer
to purchase the land based from the valuation conducted by the Land Bank
of the Philippines.

5. Yes, a land that is classified as an agro-residential may be subjected to


land conversion as it does not come within the purview of lands non-
negotiable for conversion contemplated and enumerated in section 4 of
Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion. In addition, a conversion may
be allowed when the land has ceased to be economically feasible and sound
for agricultural purposes OR the locality has become urbanized and the land
will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial, industrial, or
other non-agricultural purposes. Therefore, as long as the applicant may be
able to substantiate his claim for the propriety of conversion in accordance
with the law, his agro-residential land may be a subject of conversion.

6. The limit to the right of retention of Spouses Malakas and Maganda is


determined by the property regime that controls their marriage. If the
property regime is Conjugal, or Absolute Community - the spouses can only
retain a total of 5 hectares; whereas if the property regime is Separation of
Property, then the spouses can retain 5 hectares each, for a total of 10
hectares. This is based on Sec. 9 (g) and (h) of DAR AO No 05-00

7. The application may prosper. It must be noted that the irrigated


agricultural land was re classified into a residential land in 1980, and had it
been converted after the issuance of RA 6657 in 1988, then it would have
been regarded as a non-negotiable for conversion to a non agricultural land.
Therefore, the landowner may apply for exemption under DOJ Opinion No. 44
for being a residential land.

8. The limit to the right of retention of Spouses Malakas and Maganda is


determined by the property regime that controls their marriage. If the
property regime is Conjugal, or Absolute Community - the spouses can only
retain a total of 5 hectares; whereas if the property regime is Separation of
Property, then the spouses can retain 5 hectares each, for a total of 10
hectares. This is based on Sec. 9 (g) and (h) of DAR AO No 05-00

9. Yes, it is necessary that another application for conversion be filed with


the DAR. Under Section 10 of Comprehensive Rules on Land Use Conversion,
it enumerated the procedure and the contents of the application of the
applicant for conversion where some of the essential requirements are to
submit a project feasibility study and indicate a narrative description of the
development plan effecting the conversion. In the case at bar, since the
initial application of conversion is for residential purposes, and later on
changed to a cattle ranch instead, there would be an obvious discrepancy
within the two, and therefore, a new application incorporating an updated
feasibility study incorporating the pertinent facts applicable to cattle ranch
conversion must be submitted with the DAR.

10. As underscored in the definition of a Project Feasibility Study, the


purpose of presenting proof of financial and organizational capacity to
develop the land is to investigate the viability of the project, and if it would
generate sufficient benefits to offset the investment and operating costs.
Requiring proof of capacity ensures that implementation will proceed as
planned, and that the facilities, once completed, will be properly operated
and maintained.