Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 136

ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER

No. 02

Series of 2009

SUBJECT: RULES AND PROCEDURES GOVERNING THE ACQUISITION AND


DISTRIBUTION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT
(R.A.) NO. 6657, AS AMENDED BY R.A. NO. 9700

I. PREFATORY STATEMENT

Republic Act (R.A.) No. 9700, which amends R.A. No. 6657, provides for, among
others, the continuing acquisition and distribution of agricultural lands covered under
the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) for a period of five (5) years
under various phases, and the simultaneous provision of support services and the
delivery of agrarian justice to Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs). It further
provides that after June 30, 2009, the modes of acquisition shall be limited to
voluntary offer to sell (VOS) and compulsory acquisition (CA) and that voluntary land
transfer (VLT) shall be allowed only for landholdings submitted for VLT as of June 30,
2009.

The agrarian reform program is founded on the right of farmers and regular
farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in
the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end,
the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands,
subject to the priorities and retention limits set forth under R.A. No. 6657, as
amended, taking into account ecological, developmental, and equity considerations,
and subject to the payment of just compensation. Owners of agricultural land have
the obligation to cultivate directly or through labor administration the lands they own
and thereby make the land productive.

The principles of agrarian reform or stewardship shall be in accordance with law in


the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public
domain, under lease or concession, suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights,
homestead rights of small settlers and the rights of indigenous communities to their
ancestral lands.

To ensure the completion of land acquisition and distribution within the prescribed
period, the following rules and procedures are hereby promulgated.

II. COVERAGE

These rules and regulations shall govern the acquisition and distribution of all
agricultural lands yet to be acquired and/or to be distributed under the CARP in
accordance with R.A. No. 6657, as amended by R.A. No. 9700.

III. DEFINITION OF TERMS


1. Landless Beneficiary is any farmer/tiller who owns less than three (3)
hectares of agricultural land.

2. Share Tenant refers to a person who himself and with the aid available from
within his immediate farm household, cultivates the land belonging to or
possessed by another with the latters consent, for purposes of production,
sharing the produce with the landholder under the share tenancy system, or
paying the landholder a price certain or ascertainable in produce or in money
or both, under the leasehold tenancy system. This arrangement has been
abolished by R.A. No. 3844, as amended, which automatically converted the
relations under leasehold.

3. Agricultural lessee refers to a person who, by himself and with the aid
available from within his immediate farm household, cultivates the land,
belonging to or lawfully possessed by another, with the latters consent for
purposes of agricultural production, for a price certain in money or in produce
or both. It is distinguished from civil lessee as understood in the Civil Code of
the Philippines.

4. Farmworker refers to a natural person who renders service for value as an


employee or laborer in an agricultural enterprise or farm regardless of whether
his/her compensation is paid on a daily, weekly, monthly or pakyaw basis.
The term includes an individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of,
or in connection with, a pending agrarian or labor dispute and who has not
obtained a substantially equivalent and regular farm employment.

5. Regular Farmworker refers to a natural person who is considered employed


on a permanent basis by a landowner engaged in an agricultural enterprise or
farm.

6. Seasonal farmworker refers to a natural person who is employed on a


recurrent, periodic or intermittent basis by an agricultural enterprise or farm,
whether as a permanent or a non-permanent laborer, such as dumaan,
sacada, and the like.

7. Other farmworkers refer to farmworkers who do not fall under Items 5 and 6
of this Section.

8. Cooperatives refer to organizations composed primarily of small agricultural


producers, farmers, farmworkers, or other agrarian reform beneficiaries who
voluntarily organize themselves for the purpose of pooling land, human,
technological, financial or other economic resources, and operate on the
principle of one member, one vote. A juridical person may be a member of a
cooperative, with the same rights and duties as a natural person.

9. Substantially Equivalent and Regular Employment means any employment


or profession from which the applicant farmer derives income equivalent to the
income of a regular farmworker at the time of ARB identification, screening and
selection.

10. Agrarian Dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements,


whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship, or otherwise, over lands devoted to
agriculture, including disputes concerning farmworkers' associations, or
representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or
seeking to arrange terms and conditions of such tenurial arrangements.

It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under


R.A. No. 6657 and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from
landowners to farmworkers, tenants and other ARBs, whether the disputants
stand in proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and
tenant, or lessor and lessee.

11. Usufruct refers to a real right conferred on the beneficiary/usufructuary to


enjoy the fruits of the property of another with the obligation of preserving its
form, substance, and productivity.

12. Direct Management in so far as preferred beneficiaries are concerned, refers


to the cultivation of the land through personal supervision under the system of
labor administration. It shall be interpreted along the lines of farm management
as an actual major activity being performed by the landowners child from
which he/she derives his/her primary source of income.

13. Newspaper of General Circulation refers to newspaper or publication of


general circulation, which may be national or local to where the property is
located.

14. Award is the conferment of Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) title
to qualified agrarian reform beneficiaries.

IV. STATEMENT OF POLICIES

A. NOTICE OF COVERAGE

1. The acquisition and distribution of agricultural lands under CARP shall be


completed by June 30, 2014. However, the process of acquisition and
distribution for landholdings which were issued with Notices of Coverage
(NOCs) on or before June 30, 2014 shall continue even after June 30, 2014
until the said lands have been awarded to qualified beneficiaries.

2. The schedule of the acquisition and distribution of lands covered by CARP


shall be as follows:

2.1 All landholdings of landowners owning more than twenty four (24)
hectares which have been issued Notices of Coverage (NOCs) as of
December 10, 2008, shall be subject to immediate acquisition and
distribution under compulsory acquisition and shall be completed by
June 30, 2012. The landholdings of landowners owning more than
fifty (50) hectares shall be prioritized for coverage within this same
period.
2.2 All private agricultural lands voluntarily offered before July 1, 2009 by
the landowner for agrarian reform shall be subject to immediate
acquisition and distribution under voluntary offer to sell (VOS) and
shall be completed by June 30, 2012.

2.3 Lands under voluntary land transfer (VLT) received by DAR before
July 1, 2009 shall be subject to immediate acquisition and distribution
and shall be completed by June 30, 2012.

2.4 The following types of lands shall likewise be subject of immediate


acquisition and distribution under CARP and shall be completed by
June 30, 2012:

a. Rice and corn lands under Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27;

b. All idle and abandoned lands;

c. All lands foreclosed by government financial institutions;

d. All lands acquired by the Presidential Commission on Good


Government (PCGG); and

e. All other lands owned by the government.

2.5 All landholdings of landowners owning more than 24 hectares but


have not been issued with NOC as of December 10, 2008 shall be
subject to land acquisition and distribution (LAD) by July 1, 2012 and
completed by June 30, 2013.

2.6 All landholdings of landowners owning more than 10 hectares up to 24


hectares, in so far as the excess hectarage above 10 hectares is
concerned, shall be covered under land acquisition and distribution
starting July 1, 2012 and be completed by June 30, 2013.

2.7 All landholdings of landowners owning more than five (5) hectares up
to 10 hectares shall be covered under land acquisition and distribution
starting July 1, 2013 and be completed by June 30, 2014.
Notwithstanding this schedule, coverage of landholdings more than
five (5) hectares up to 10 hectares may commence when the LAD
balance of the concerned province, reckoned as of January 1, 2009, is
already 90 percent complete, as certified to by the Provincial Agrarian
Reform Coordinating Committee (PARCCOM) under existing
guidelines of the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC).

3. For provinces declared by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC)


as priority land reform areas, the acquisition and distribution of private
agricultural lands therein under advanced phases may be implemented
ahead of the above schedules on the condition that prior phases in these
provinces have been completed pursuant to the PARC implementing rules
and regulations on the matter.

4. The Notice of Coverage (NOC) shall be issued to landowners not later than
90 days prior to the scheduled date of acquisition and distribution of their
landholding except for landowners owning more than five (5) up to ten (10)
hectares, in which case, the NOCs shall be issued on or after July 1, 2013.

5. In the case of lands for which NOCs have already been issued, the DAR
Provincial Office (DARPO) shall send a memorandum to the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO), copy furnished the LO, directing him/her to
proceed with the process of land acquisition and distribution of the
landholdings under the CARP, either immediately or on the specific schedule
provided under Item IV(A)(2) of this Order.

6. For lands already in the Inventory of CARP Scope (ICS), the DARPO shall
transmit to the DAR Municipal Office (DARMO) on or before October 30,
2009 the list of LAD balances and the schedule of coverage of each
landholding therein, based on the prioritized phasing under Section 5 of R.A.
No. 9700.

In the case of other landholdings still unacquired and undistributed but


coverable under CARP, the DARMO shall submit the list of such lands to the
DARPO which shall prepare and issue NOCs and transmit these to the
DARMO for service to the landowners (LOs) based on specific schedules
under Item IV(A)(2) of this Order.

7. Landholdings subject of expropriation or acquisition by the Local


Government Units (LGUs) or any portions thereof not actually, directly and
exclusively used for non-agricultural purposes are subject to CARP coverage
if one or more of the following conditions apply:

7.1 There is agricultural activity;

7.2 The land is suitable for agriculture; or

7.3 The land is presently occupied and tilled by farmer/s.

8. Excluded from coverage are lands actually, directly and exclusively used and
found to be necessary for the following purposes:

8.1 Parks;

8.2 Wildlife;
8.3 Forest reserves;

8.4 Reforestation;

8.5 Fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds;

8.6 Watersheds;

8.7 Mangroves;

8.8 National defense;

8.9 School sites and campuses including experimental farm stations


operated by public or private schools for educational purposes;

8.10 Seeds and seedlings research and pilot production centers;

8.11 Church sites and Islamic centers appurtenant thereto;

8.12 Communal burial grounds and cemeteries;

8.13 Penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by the inmates;

8.14 Government and private research and quarantine centers;

Also excluded from coverage are:

8.15 All undeveloped lands with eighteen percent (18%) slope and over;

8.16. All lands actually, directly and exclusively used for commercial,
industrial or residential purposes and classified as such before June
15, 1988;

8.17. Fish ponds and prawn farms;

8.18. All lands actually, directly and exclusively used for livestock raising;
8.19. Ancestral lands and domain; and

8.20. Retention areas granted to landowners.

The MARO, together with a representative of the DARPO, shall conduct an


inventory and ocular inspection of all agricultural lands within their area
which are used for the above purposes. A report on the inventoried and
inspected lands shall be submitted by the MARO and the DARPO
representative to the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) indicating
the following:

Name of landowner;

Location of property and area;

OCT/TCT or Tax Declaration Number;

Actual land use;

Existence of agricultural activity;

Land Classification documents available; and

Other information vital to the determination of coverage of the land or


portions thereof under CARP.

9. Any act of the landowner to change or convert his/her agricultural land to


non-agricultural uses shall not affect the coverage of the landholding. Any
diversification or change in the agricultural use of the landholding, or shift
from crop production to non-agricultural uses and purposes shall be subject
to the guidelines on land use conversion.

10. Land subject to a conversion order but not developed within the five-year
period starting from the issuance of the conversion order or the specific time
frame stipulated therein, or if there is a violation of other conditions so
provided, shall be reverted to agricultural use and Notice of Coverage
thereon shall be issued by the PARO. An ocular inspection shall be
conducted by the PARO on all lands covered by conversion orders and shall
submit a factual finding on land development or violations of conditions on
the conversion orders if any, to the Regional Director, copy furnished the
Center for Land Use Policy, Planning and Implementation (CLUPPI), for
appropriate action pursuant to the existing implementing rules and
regulations (IRR) on land use conversion.

11. As a general rule, the Notice of Coverage (NOC) shall be addressed to and
received by the LO through the following modes of service:

11.1 Personal Service This is made by handing a copy of the NOC


to the LO in person and having him receive it by affixing his signature
or thumbmark with a witness to the thumbmark who will set his
signature in the receiving copy.

11.2 Substituted Service If personal service of the NOC cannot be


served directly to the LO within a reasonable time, service may be
made by leaving copies of the NOC and having this duly received at
the LOs:

a. residence with some person of suitable age and discretion residing


therein; or

b. office or regular place of business with some competent person in


charge thereof.

11.3 Service by Registered Mail If personal or substituted service is


not practicable, the Notice of Coverage shall be sent by registered
mail to the last known address of the LO. The registered mail
envelope shall be marked Deliver to Addressee Only and Return to
Sender based on the possibilities that the LO has moved out,
address is erroneous or insufficient, or the LO refuses to accept or
receive the mailed NOC.

11.4 Service by Publication The mode of service by publication shall


apply if the LO is outside the Philippines, or whereabouts is unknown,
or LO refused to receive the NOC. If any of the three (3) modes of
service {Items IV(A)(11.1 to 11.3) of this Order} fails, the NOC will be
published in a newspaper of general circulation in such places.
Service by publication shall be evidenced by the affidavit of the editor-
in-chief, or circulation/advertising manager attesting to the fact of said
publication and a copy of the said publication. A Return to Sender
stamped on the mailing envelope for registered mail will serve as
proof that the NOC was not received by the LO. The publication need
not state the entire contents of the NOC but only the following
essential particulars:

11.4.1 Coverage of the subject landholding under CARP on the


specific land acquisition schedule based on the prioritized
phasing under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9700;

11.4.2 Original Certificate of Title (OCT)/Transfer Certificate of Title


(TCT)/Latest Tax Declaration No/s.;
11.4.3 Complete name/s of the LO/s and last known address, if
available;

11.4.4 Address or location of the subject landholding (barangay,


city/municipality, province); and

11.4.5 A statement that the LO has thirty (30) calendar days from
date of NOC publication to reply to the NOC, and that failure
to do so shall be a waiver of the right to choose his retention
area, the privilege to nominate child/children who may qualify
as preferred beneficiaries and to apply for
exemption/exclusion from CARP coverage.

12. The other modes of service/delivery/receipt of the NOC shall be as follows:

12.1 Service upon co-owners In case of co-ownership, the NOC


shall be served upon each and every co-owner, unless one is
specifically authorized to receive for the co-owners.

12.2 Service upon minors or incompetents When the LO is a minor,


insane or otherwise incompetent, service shall be made upon him/her
personally and to his/her legal guardian if he/she has one, or if none,
upon his/her guardian ad litem whose appointment shall be applied for
by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR). In the case of a minor,
service may also be made on his/her father and/or mother.

12.3 Service upon entity without juridical personality When the LOs
who are persons associated through an entity without juridical
personality are issued a NOC under the name by which they are
generally or commonly known, service may be effected upon all the
LOs by serving upon any one of them, or upon the person in charge of
the office or place of business maintained in such name. Such service
shall not individually bind any person whose connection with the entity
has, upon due notice, been severed before the proceeding was
brought.

12.4 Service upon domestic private juridical entity When the LO is a


corporation, partnership or association organized under the laws of
the Philippines with a juridical personality, service may be made on
the president, managing partner, general manager, corporate
secretary, treasurer, in-house counsel or administrator.

13. Within thirty (30) calendar days from receipt of NOC or from its date of
publication, the LO has:

13.1 The right to choose a retention area not exceeding five (5)
hectares pursuant to Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended; and
13.2 The privilege to nominate child/ren who may qualify as preferred
beneficiary/ies.

The landowner is likewise given the same thirty (30)-day prescribed period
from receipt or date of publication of NOC, whichever is applicable, within
which to protest coverage. Upon receipt of the protest of coverage by DAR,
the LO is given another thirty (30) days to substantiate his/her protest and/or
application for exemption or exclusion from CARP coverage. Failure to
comply within the aforementioned 30-day reglementary periods shall be
construed as a waiver or abandonment of the right to protest and/or to file for
an application for exemption or exclusion from CARP coverage.

14. Notwithstanding a protest of coverage or an application for exemption or


exclusion by a landowner, the processing of the claim folder, including
valuation and the issuance of Certification of Deposit (COD) by the Land
Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and the transfer of title to the Republic of the
Philippines, shall continue unless the Regional Director or the DAR
Secretary, as the case may be, suspends the processing based on
preliminary findings on grounds for exemption or exclusion or the Supreme
Court issues a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) on the processing of the
claim folder.

B. RETENTION

1. All landholdings five (5) hectares and below shall not be subject to CARP
coverage except for landholdings submitted for voluntary offer to sell (VOS)
before July 1, 2009 wherein the retention right has been waived. The PAROs
shall issue Certification of Retention to landowners who have already availed
of the same and cover all areas in excess thereof.

2. For VOS lands submitted prior to July 1, 2009 where the master list of ARBs
has been finalized, the retention areas of landowners covered under said
VOS shall be processed under the existing guidelines of R.A. No. 6657, as
amended, before July 1, 2009.

3. Landowners who own lands five (5) hectares or less may file a request for
the issuance of Certification of Retention.

4. Landholdings covered by homestead grants and Free Patents issued


pursuant to Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141 still owned by the original
grantees or their direct compulsory heirs shall be retained by them as long
as they were cultivating the said landholdings at the time of the approval of
R.A. No. 9700 and continue to cultivate the same.

5. Heirs of deceased landowners who died after June 15, 1988 and whose
lands are covered under CARP are only entitled to the five (5) hectare
retention area of the deceased landowner.
6. For landholdings under compulsory acquisition (CA), the landowner shall
choose his retained area within thirty (30) days from receipt of Notice of
Coverage (NOC) or date of publication of NOC.

Failure to exercise the right to choose within the prescribed period shall
constitute a waiver thereof. In which case the DAR, through the MARO, shall
automatically choose for the landowner his/her retention area.

For landholdings under voluntary offer to sell (VOS), the landowner shall
exercise his right of retention simultaneously at the time of the offer for sale
of the subject landholding.

7. When landowners waive their right of choice, the following factors shall be
considered in choosing their retention area:

6.1 commodity produced;

6.2 terrain;

6.3 infrastructure available; and

6.4 soil fertility.

8. For marriages covered by the New Civil Code, in the absence of an


agreement for the judicial separation of property, spouses whose agricultural
land properties are all conjugal may retain a total of not more than five (5)
hectares of such properties. However, if either or both of them are
landowners in their respective rights (capital and/or paraphernal), they may
each retain not more than five (5) hectares of their respective landholdings.
In no case shall the total retention of such couple exceed ten (10) hectares.

9. For marriages covered by the Family Code, which took effect on August 03,
1988, a husband owning capital property and/or a wife owning paraphernal
property may retain not more than five (5) hectares each, provided they
executed a judicial separation of properties prior to entering into such
marriage. In the absence of such an agreement, all properties (capital,
paraphernal and conjugal) shall be considered to be held in absolute
community, i.e., the ownership relationship is one, and, therefore, only a total
of five (5) hectares may be retained by each couple.
10. The DAR shall notify the LO, through personal service with proof of receipt or
by registered mail with return card, the portion selected as his/her retention
area if the LO fails to exercise such right within the prescribed period.

11. In case a tenant chooses to remain in the LOs retained area, he/she shall be
a leaseholder in the said land and shall not qualify to be a beneficiary under
CARP. Conversely, if the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another
agricultural land, he/she cannot be a leaseholder in the land retained by the
LO. The tenant must exercise this option within a period of one (1) year from
the time the LO manifests his/her choice of the area for retention.

12. Tenants/lessees in the retained areas who do not wish to become


leaseholders in the retained lands shall be given preference in other
landholdings whether or not these lands belong to the same landowner,
without prejudice to the farmers who are already in place and subject to the
priorities under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended.

13. In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on the LOs
retained land prior to the approval of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, shall be
respected. Further, actual tenant-farmers in the landholdings shall not be
ejected or removed therefrom.

14. Land transactions executed prior to R.A. No. 6657, as amended, shall be
valid only when registered with the Registry of Deeds within a period of three
(3) months after June 15, 1988 in accordance with Section 6 of R.A. No.
6657, as amended.

Where the transfer/sale of a landholding involves a total of five (5) hectares


and below and such landholding is the retention area of the transferor or
subject of retention by the transferor, and the transferee will not own an
aggregate of more than five (5) hectares as a result of the sale, the transfer
is legal and proper. However, a DAR clearance is needed for the purpose of
monitoring and as requisite for the registration of the title in the name of the
transferee with the Registry of Deeds (ROD).

In the case of multiple or a series of transfers/sales, only the first five (5)
hectares sold/conveyed and the corresponding titles issued by the ROD in
the name of the transferee shall be considered valid and be treated as the
transferors retained area, but in no case shall the transferee exceed the five
(5)-hectare landholding ceiling pursuant to Sections 6, 70 and 73(a) of R.A.
No. 6657, as amended. In so far as the excess area beyond five (5) hectares
sold and conveyed is concerned, the same shall be covered under CARP,
regardless of whoever is the current title-holder to the land, considering that
the transferor has no right of disposition of these lands since CARP
coverage of these lands is mandated by law as of June 15, 1988. Any
landholding still registered in the name of the landowner after earlier
dispositions up to an aggregate of five (5) hectares are no longer part of his
retention area and therefore shall be covered under CARP.
15. CARP covered agricultural lands which are to be expropriated or acquired by
the local government units (LGUs) and to be used for actual, direct and
exclusive public purposes, such as roads and bridges, public markets,
school sites, resettlement sites, local government facilities, public parks and
barangay plazas or squares, consistent with the approved local government
land use plan, shall not be subject to the five-hectare retention limit.
However, prior to the expropriation/acquisition by the LGU, the subject land
shall first undergo the land acquisition and distribution process of the CARP,
and the ARBs therein shall be paid just compensation without prejudice to
their qualifying as ARBs in other landholdings under the CARP.

16. The title of the land awarded under the agrarian reform program must
indicate that it is an Emancipation Patent (EP) or Certificate of Land
Ownership Award (CLOA) and any subsequent transfer of title must also
indicate that it is an EP or a CLOA.

17. Pursuant to Section 4 of R.A. No. 9700, an LGU may, through its Chief
Executive and/or an ordinance, exercise the power of eminent domain on
agricultural lands for public use, purpose, or welfare of the poor and the
landless, upon payment of just compensation to agrarian reform
beneficiaries (ARBs) on these lands, pursuant to the provisions of the
Constitution and pertinent laws. The power of eminent domain may not be
exercised unless a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the
ARBs, and such offer was not accepted. In cases where the land sought to
be acquired has been issued with a Notice of Coverage or is already subject
to voluntary offer to sell (with letter-offer submitted to DAR) the concerned
LGU shall suspend the exercise of its power of eminent domain until after the
LAD process has been completed and the title to the property has been
transferred to the ARBs.

Where agricultural lands have been subjected to expropriation, the ARBs


therein shall be paid just compensation. For this purpose, lands subjected to
expropriation includes all agricultural lands which have been reviewed and
approved by the DAR to be actually, directly and exclusively used by the
LGU for public purpose with a case for expropriation already filed by the
LGU before a judicial court. ARBs are those who have been certified by the
Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) and DAR as beneficiaries of the
subject landholdings.

18. The expropriation/conversion of agricultural lands shall be subject to the


existing guidelines of DAR on land conversion. Irrigable and irrigated lands
where (1) there is agricultural activity, (2) land is suitable for agriculture, or
(3) the land is presently occupied and tilled by farmers shall not be subject of
expropriation by the LGUs.

C. LAND ACQUISITION
1. Pursuant to Section 3 of R.A. No. 9700, the landholdings of LOs owning a
total of five (5) hectares or less shall not be subject of acquisition and
distribution under CARP.

2. Landholdings above five (5) hectares which were offered under voluntary
land transfer (VLT) and not approved by the DAR shall be covered under
compulsory acquisition (CA).

All VLT applications submitted to DAR after June 30, 2009 shall no longer be
processed.

3. Landowners (LOs) may voluntarily offer their private agricultural lands for
coverage under R.A. No. 6657, as amended or under R.A. No. 9700. Upon
its acceptance by the DAR, the Letter-Offer for coverage under Voluntary
Offer to Sell (VOS) can no longer be withdrawn. In any case, the DAR can
immediately subject such landholding to coverage under compulsory
acquisition and distribution under CARP notwithstanding the schedule of
prioritized phasing under R.A. No. 9700.

The acceptance letter for VOS shall stipulate that upon offer under VOS, the
schedule of coverage under R.A. No. 9700 is deemed waived.

Landowners who received NOCs for their landholdings under Compulsory


Acquisition (CA) may be allowed to shift to Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS),
provided, that the claim folder (CF) for the subject landholding has not yet
been received by the Claims Processing, Valuation and Payment Division
(CPVPD) of the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) for valuation.

4. Landowners who have voluntarily offered their landholdings for coverage


under CARP and those who have previously waived their rights to retain are
disqualified from becoming ARBs of other landholding/s being covered or to
be covered under CARP. The LOs voluntary offer or his previous waiver is
construed to be his inability and/or unwillingness to cultivate the land and
make it productive.

Likewise, children of the same landowners who were not nominated as


preferred beneficiaries are disqualified from becoming an ARB in another
landholding following the qualification criteria pursuant to Section 22 of R.A.
No. 6657, as amended.

5. For tenanted lands or lands under leasehold, the Agrarian Reform


Beneficiary/ies (ARB/s) shall continue to pay their lease rentals as
tenants/lessees based on their leasehold contracts until such time that the
LBP issues a Certification of Deposit (COD).

6. As a general rule, untitled public alienable and disposable (A & D) lands are
within the jurisdiction of the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) pursuant to Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141 (Public
Land Act). However, subject lands are deemed private and for coverage by
the DAR, if all the requisites specified in R.A. No. 6940, as amended by R.A.
No. 9176 for the determination whether or not private rights over a
landholding have already been acquired based on the following:

a. Continuous occupancy and cultivation by oneself or through ones


predecessors-in-interest for at least thirty (30) years prior to the effectivity
of R.A. No. 9176 on December 4, 2002 (i.e., December 1972);
b. The land must have been classified as alienable and disposable for at
least thirty (30) years prior to the effectivity of R.A. No. 9176;

c. One must have paid the real estate tax thereon; and

d. There are no adverse claims on the land.

In cases where the DAR and DENR have jointly identified specific untitled
properties that may be covered under the LAD component of CARP, the
DENR Community Environment and Natural Resources Office
(CENRO)/Provincial Environment and Natural Resources Office (PENRO) or
Regional Technical Director (RTD) Land Management Service (LMS) shall
issue the certification that the subject tract of land is within an area classified
as alienable and disposable.

7. The current list of all lands covered by NOCs and all remaining unacquired
and undistributed landholdings covered under CARP that are in the process
of acquisition and distribution or will be acquired based on the schedule of
priorities under Section 5 of R.A. No. 9700 shall be submitted by the DARPO
to the ROD concerned for segregation of the corresponding original copy of
the Certificates of Title of all these lands from the regular volume or files of
the Registry, and the compilation of the same in a new separate volume
(CARP Volume) until the customary number of titles constituting a regular
volume is reached. This CARP Volume shall be treated as a restricted
volume and any voluntary transaction on any of the titles included in this
restricted file shall be subject to clearance in writing from the PARO. The
maintenance of the CARP Volume shall be undertaken by the LRA-CARP
personnel under the supervision of the ROD.

8. Any title contained in the CARP Volume shall only be returned to the
general/regular file upon proof that the property covered by said title is
exempted, excluded or ascertained to be outside CARP coverage. Such
proof may be in the form of a Court Order or DAR Order which has become
final and executory.

9. The ROD shall issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (for titled properties) and
an Original Certificate of Title (for untitled properties) in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines (RP title) upon receipt of a copy of the LBPs
Certification of Deposit (COD) from the DARPO.

10. Landholdings distributed by the DENR under R.A. No. 6657, as amended
shall no longer be acquired and distributed by the DAR.

11. Landholdings subject of acquisition shall be validated based on ownership


documents and on the projection by the DAR on DENR land classification
maps to determine whether or not the areas are alienable and disposable.

12. All projections undertaken by the DARPO on land titles, whether


administratively or judicially (survey was based on the cadastral map of the
Department of Environment and Natural Resources {DENR}) issued, shall be
confirmed or validated by the DENR-Community Environment and Natural
Resources Office (CENRO) or Provincial Environment and Natural
Resources Office (PENRO) as to the land classification status of said lands.

All projections undertaken by the DARPO on lands covered by judicially


issued titles and whose survey was based on the Private Survey (Psu) Plan
of the Land Registration Authority (LRA) shall be confirmed or validated by
the LRA on whether these lands do not overlap with other titled or decreed
property.

13. Titles judicially issued prior to 1921 based on Act No. 2874 need not be
validated or confirmed by the DENR-CENRO/PENRO as to their land
classification status as such lands are classified as alienable and disposable.
However, the DARPO shall:

13.1 Undertake the projection as to land classification status; and

13.2 Obtain a certification from the Land Registration Authority (LRA)


that the property does not overlap with a titled or decreed property.
Such certification shall include, among others, the Judicial Decree
number, date of issuance of Decree, name of adjudicatee, location
and area.

Such properties that partially overlap with other titled or decreed properties
shall be segregated accordingly during the conduct of survey by the
landholdings subject of acquisition. The acquisition and distribution of such
landholdings that either partially or fully overlap with decreed properties shall
continue regardless in whose name the decree is.

14. As a general rule, the conduct of survey to determine land use, segregation
of coverable and not coverable area, and subdivision survey shall be
undertaken prior to field investigation (FI). The PARO shall ensure that all
field survey activities shall be completed before the conduct of field
investigation (FI).

However, in the event that the finalization of the master list of ARBs will
necessitate resolution of petitions for inclusion and exclusion of ARBs in the
master list, the PARO shall inform the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP)
regarding the matter, in which case, the conduct of subdivision survey will
come after the field investigation (FI) or upon the finalization of the master
list of ARBs so as not to delay the land acquisition process.

15. The Land Use Management and Development (LUMD) fund shall be
released and utilized only for CARP covered lands with Requisition Survey
Services (RSS) approved by the DARs Bureau of Land Development (BLD),
pursuant to existing guidelines on requisition, approval and monitoring of
survey services.

16. A landowner-mortgagor of a foreclosed agricultural land where the two-year


right of redemption period has already expired and is subsequently to be
covered under CARP, cannot qualify as an ARB on the foreclosed land
notwithstanding his/her being in actual possession and cultivation thereof.
The DAR shall be responsible for taking possession of the land by
negotiating or filing of the appropriate case, if necessary, and to successfully
install the qualified ARB/s.

D. LAND VALUATION AND LANDOWNER COMPENSATION


1. The compensation for lands covered under R.A. No. 9700 shall be: a) the
amount determined in accordance with the criteria provided for in Section 7
of the said law and existing guidelines on land valuation; or b) the value
based on the order of the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB) or the regular
court, which has become final and executory.

The basic formula for the valuation of lands covered by VOS or CA shall be:

LV = (CNI x 0.60) + (CS x 0.30) + (MV x 0.10)

Where: LV = Land Value


CNI = Capitalized Net Income
(based on land use and
productivity)
CS = Comparable Sales (based on
fair market value equivalent to
70% of BIR Zonal Value)
MV = Market Value per Tax
Declaration (based on
Government assessment)

1.1 If three factors are present

When the CNI, CS and MV are present, the formula shall be:

LV = (CNI x 0.60) + (CS x 0.30) + (MV x 0.10)

1.2 If two factors are present

1.2.1 When the CS factor is not present and CNI and MV are
applicable, the formula shall be:

LV = (CNI x 0.90) + (MV x 0.10)

1.2.2 When the CNI factor is not present, and CS and MV are
applicable, the formula shall be:
LV = (CS x 0.90) + (MV x 0.10)

1.3 If only one factor is present

When both the CS and CNI are not present and only MV is applicable,
the formula shall be:

LV = MV x 2

In no case shall the value of idle land using the formula (MV x 2)
exceed the lowest value of land within the same estate under
consideration or within the same barangay, municipality or province (in
that order) approved by LBP within one (1) year from receipt of Claim
Folder (CF.)

The specific guidelines governing the valuation of lands under voluntary offer
to sell (VOS) or compulsory acquisition (CA) pursuant to R.A. No. 6657, as
amended by R.A. No. 9700 are provided in CARP-LAD Annex A of this
Order.

2. All previously acquired lands wherein valuation is subject to challenge by


landowners shall be completed and finally resolved pursuant to Section 17 of
R.A. No. 6657, as amended.

In like manner, claims over tenanted rice and corn lands under P.D. No. 27
and Executive Order (E.O.) No. 228 whether submitted or not to the Land
Bank of the Philippines (LBP) and not yet approved for payment shall be
valued under R.A. No. 6657, as amended.

Landholdings covered by P.D. No. 27 and falling under Phase I of R.A. No.
9700 shall be valued under R.A. No. 9700.

3. In cases of rejection, landowners may withdraw the original value of the


landholding as determined by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and
Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) per Memorandum of Valuation (MOV)
and subsequently deposited in their names, subject to their submission of
the requirements for payment.

When the LO later accepts the original value or as recomputed by the LBP
based on existing valuation guidelines, mere filing of a manifestation by the
LO as regards the acceptance of the original value or a joint manifestation by
the LO and the LBP on the recomputed value with the DAR Adjudication
Board (DARAB) shall automatically terminate the just compensation case
pending thereat.

4. Landowners, other than banks and financial institutions, who voluntarily offer
their lands for sale, shall be entitled to an additional five percent (5%) cash
payment.
5. For landholdings which were conveyed after the effectivity of R.A. No. 6657,
the LBP shall consider the transferor as the payee.

However, payment must be released to the LO-transferee if the LO-


transferor issues a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) or Deed of Assignment
in favor of the former.

6. In the determination of the Annual Gross Production (AGP), Selling Price


(SP) and Cost of Operation (CO) to be used in the land valuation, the
audited financial statement filed with the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR)
shall be obtained by the DARMO from the LO fifteen (15) days prior to the
date of field investigation. If the landowner fails to submit the same, the DAR
and LBP may adopt applicable industry data or, in the absence thereof,
conduct an industry study on the specific crop.

7. Small portions or patches within the covered landholdings which are


determined to be less productive than the bigger portion during the conduct
of joint field investigation shall be valued based on the current use of the
adjacent portions, provided that said small portions or patches shall not
exceed 10% of the productive area.

Likewise, small portions or patches of landholdings above 18 percent slope,


undeveloped and of no use to the landowner shall be valued as idle provided
it shall not exceed 10% of the covered landholding.

E. FARMER BENEFICIARY IDENTIFICATION, SCREENING AND SELECTION

1. Farmers/Tillers and farmworkers who meet the following qualifications shall


be eligible as beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program:

1.1 General Qualifications. All agrarian reform beneficiaries must be:

1.1.1 Landless as defined by R.A. No. 6657, as amended and under


Item III(1) of this Order;

1.1.2 Filipino citizen;

1.1.3 Permanent resident of the barangay and/or municipality where


the landholding is located as provided under Section 22 of R.A.
No. 6657, as amended.

1.1.4 At least fifteen (15) years of age at the time of identification,


screening and selection of farmer-beneficiaries; and

1.1.5 Willing, able, and equipped with the aptitude to cultivate and
make the land productive.
1.2 Specific Qualifications for Farmworkers in Commercial Farms and
Plantations. In addition to Item 1.1 above, the applicant must have
been employed as of June 15, 1988 in the landholding covered under
CARP.

All farmworkers who are holding managerial or supervisory positions


as of June 15, 1988 shall not qualify as ARBs. However, farmworkers
who were promoted to managerial or supervisory positions after they
were identified, screened and selected shall remain as qualified
ARBs.

2. Qualified beneficiaries shall be prioritized as follows:

2.1 agricultural lessees, share tenants and regular farmworkers;

2.2 seasonal farmworkers;

2.3 other farmworkers;

2.4 actual tillers or occupants of public lands;

2.5 collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and

2.6 others directly working on the land.

3. The following are grounds for disqualification in the identification of ARBs of


the CARP:

3.1 Failure to meet the qualifications as provided for under Section 22 of


R.A. No. 6657, as amended;

3.2 Execution of a waiver of right to become an ARB in exchange for due


compensation and such waiver has not been questioned in the proper
government entity as of the approval of this Order;

3.3 Non-payment of an aggregate of three (3) annual amortizations and


failure to exercise the right of redemption/repurchase within two (2)
years resulting in the foreclosure of mortgage by the LBP of a
previously awarded land;

3.4 Deliberate non-payment of three (3) annual amortizations to the


landowner (LO) resulting in the repossession by the landowner (in the
case of voluntary land transfer/direct payment scheme or VLT/DPS) of
the awarded land;

3.5 Dismissal from the service for cause upon a judgment that is final and
executory (and there is no case filed questioning said dismissal) as of
the approval of this Order and if there is any such case, the same has
been affirmed with finality by the proper entity of government;

3.6 Obtaining a substantially equivalent and regular employment, as


defined in Item III(9) of this Order;

3.7 Retirement from the service, whether optional or mandatory, or


voluntary resignation, provided this was not attended by coercion
and/or deception, and there is no case questioning said retirement or
voluntary resignation by the applicant as of the date of approval of this
Order;

3.8 Misuse or diversion of financial support services extended by


government (Section 37 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended);

3.9 Negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended by


government (Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended);

3.10 Material misrepresentation of the ARB's basic qualifications as


provided for under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, P.D. No.
27, and other agrarian laws;

3.11 Sale, disposition, or abandonment of the lands awarded by


government under CARP or P.D. No. 27 which is violative of the
agrarian laws;

3.12 Conversion of agricultural lands to non-agricultural use without


prior approval from the DAR;

3.13 Final judgment for forcible entry into the property or for unlawful
detainer; and

3.14 Commission of any violation of the agrarian reform laws and


regulations, or related issuances, as determined with finality after
proper proceedings by the appropriate tribunal or agency.

4. Only after the agricultural lessees and share tenants, and regular
farmworkers have each been awarded three (3) hectares pursuant to Section
8 of R.A. No. 9700, shall other qualified beneficiaries such as seasonal
farmworkers, other farmworkers, actual tillers/occupants of public lands,
collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries, and others directly
working on the land, be accommodated.

5. The child of an LO shall be given preference in the distribution of his/her


parents land pursuant to existing rules and regulations on award to children
of LOs provided he/she meets all of the following criteria:

5.1 Filipino citizen;

5.2 At least fifteen (15) years of age; and


5.3 Actual tiller or directly managing the farm as of the time of the conduct
of field investigation of the landholding under CARP.

However, only untenanted portions of the landholding may be subject to


award to qualified children of the LO and actual tenant-tillers in the
landholding shall not be ejected or removed therefrom. An LOs child cannot
claim that he/she is directly managing the farm or a specific area of tillage, if
the same has tenants or lessees, considering that the tenants on the land
have the right to directly manage the land or area of tillage with the
obligation to pay the LO lease rental therefor.

6. In the event that the agricultural land for distribution in commercial farms or
plantations is sufficient following the order of priority under Section 22 of R.A.
No. 6657, as amended, the farmworker-beneficiaries therein on or prior to 15
June 1988, shall enjoy priority of award of a maximum of three (3) hectares.

On the other hand, farmworkers who were hired after the effectivity of R.A.
No. 6657 shall be accommodated based on their length of service, reckoned
from 15 June 1988, and subject to Item IV(F)(1.2) of this Order.

7. All potential ARBs of a landholding who have been included in the


preliminary list, including those who have signified their intent or interest with
the DARMO to be included in the preliminary list of potential ARBs thereof,
must submit the essential documents to prove their qualifications as ARBs as
provided under Item V(D.1.d) of this Order within fifteen (15) days from
posting of the said list.

Potential ARBs who fail to comply with the submission of the required
documents to prove their qualifications fifteen (15) days from the last day of
posting of the preliminary list of ARBs shall not be delisted from the
preliminary list of ARBs. The DARMO shall use available documentary
evidence at hand, if any, or exhaust all efforts to gather the necessary
information/evidence as bases in the evaluation of the potential ARBs
qualifications and inclusion in the said list.

8. For the purpose of screening and selection of qualified ARBs in commercial


farms, plantations and other landholdings that qualify for collective
distribution under Item IV(F)(4) of this Order, all concerned PAROs shall
create a Beneficiary Screening Committee (BSC) whose members shall be
composed of the PARO as the Ex-Officio Chairperson, the MARO, the
DARPO Legal Offer, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee
(PARCCOM) Chairman or his representative and the BARC Chairman of the
area where the landholding is located or his representative, pursuant to DAR
A.O. No. 7, Series of 2003.

The BSC may invite the landowner/s and/or civil society organization (CSO)
representatives in the area to serve as resource persons in the ARB
selection and screening process, as may be necessary.

The BSC shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction in the screening and selection
of ARBs in commercial farms, plantations and other landholdings for
collective distribution to ARBs.
9. Qualified beneficiaries in a particular landholding shall include those
determined/identified by the DAR during the actual investigation and
documentation process. The master list of ARBs selected by the MAROs or
the Beneficiaries Screening Committee (BSC) in the case of commercial
farms or plantations, shall be certified under oath by the BARC and further
attested to under oath by the LO in so far as his tenants, lessees and regular
farmworkers in the landholding are concerned, pursuant to Item IV(E)(10) of
this Order.

10. The right of the LO to attest to the master list of ARBs in so far as the
tenants, lessees and regular farmworkers in his/her landholdings are
concerned, is deemed waived after the lapse of fifteen (15) days from his/her
receipt of the said master list of ARBs, if he fails to act on it within the said
period. Thereafter, the master list of ARBs shall become final and executory.
Landowners who fail, refuse or delay the issuance of the attestation despite
proof of qualification of the beneficiaries, shall be liable under Sections 24
and 25 of R.A. No. 9700.

In case of partial or full non-attestation or repudiation by the LO of the ARBs


in the master list, the LO shall be required to submit evidence to sustain his
partial or full non-attestation, repudiation of ARBs, and/or substitution or
addition to the master list of ARBs.

The landowners refusal to attest to all or specific ARB/s in the master list
despite the presentation of proof of their being either tenants or lessees or
regular farmworkers shall not in any way delay the LAD process. The MARO
shall submit a report on this to the PARO.

11. The DARPO shall, within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the DARMOs
report, conduct a revalidation of the qualifications of the ARBs being tenants
or lessees or regular farmworkers in cases where the landowner refuses to
attest to:

11.1Specific ARBs in the master list of ARBs (partial attestation);

11.2Specific ARBs in the master list of ARBs (partial attestation) and


identifies other ARBs either by substitution or addition whom the LO
claims are his tenants, lessees or regular farmworkers; or

11.3All ARBs in the master list of ARBs (full non-attestation) and identifies
other ARBs either by substitution or addition whom the LO claims are
his tenants, lessees or regular farmworkers.

Should the PARO find that there is possible merit to the LOs partial or full
non-attestation of the master list of ARBs, he shall order the BARC to
conduct compulsory arbitration within thirty (30) days to pass upon the issue.

The BARC shall submit a report of its findings within five (5) days after
arbitration to the PARO who shall then evaluate and finally determine the
qualifications of the ARBs in the master list. The PAROs decision shall be
final in so far as the master list is concerned.

12. Protests for inclusion/exclusion from the master list of qualified ARBs may be
filed in writing at the DARPO by an interested party not later than fifteen (15)
days from the last day of posting of the master list, for resolution within thirty
(30) days from receipt of the same.
13. The master list of qualified ARBs becomes final after the lapse of fifteen (15)
days from issuance of the PARO's decision on the protest and receipt of the
same by the parties.

14. The authority of the PARO to determine ARBs qualifications is specifically


limited in the context of partial attestation or full non-attestation by the LO
and to resolve protests and petitions on the ARBs qualifications to be
included in the master list. After this phase, the other processes and the
authority to decide on the determination of ARBs qualifications under
specific issuances (e.g., inclusion/exclusion of ARBs issued with CLOA from
the master list of ARBs under agrarian law implementation cases) shall
remain.

15. In case an appeal/motion for reconsideration is filed on the PAROs


decision/s or order/s for inclusion/exclusion of potential ARBs in/from the
master list, the rules and procedures provided under the existing agrarian
law implementation (ALI) rules shall be followed.

16. The ARBs who qualify under the screening process shall state under oath
before the judge of the city or municipal court that he/she is willing to work on
the land to make it productive and to assume the obligation of paying the
amortization for the compensation of the land and the land taxes thereon as
stipulated in the Application to Purchase and Farmers Undertaking (APFU).

ARBs in the master list who fail or refuse to execute and sign the APFU shall
be given thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the APFU to sign it.
Failure to sign the APFU within the reglementary period of thirty (30) days
shall be considered as a waiver of right to become an ARB. Due notice shall
be given to the concerned parties stating the consequence of such failure to
sign and execute the APFU within the prescribed period.

F. LAND DISTRIBUTION

1. Equitable distribution of the land shall be observed subject to the following


considerations:

1.1 Landholdings covered by CARP shall be distributed first to agricultural


lessees and share tenants and regular farmworkers of the same
landholding up to a maximum of three (3) hectares each. Only when
the qualified agricultural lessees and tenants and regular farmworkers
by order of priority under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended,
shall have received three (3) hectares each, shall the remaining
portion of the subject landholding, if any, be distributed to seasonal
and other farmworkers, actual tillers or occupants of public lands,
collectives or cooperatives of the beneficiaries and others directly
working on the land, pursuant to R.A. No. 9700.

1.2 Excess areas subsequent to the three-hectare award to entitled


beneficiaries pursuant to R.A. No. 9700, shall be distributed to other
qualified beneficiaries without prejudice to the consideration of
immediate family members of agricultural
lessees/tenants/farmworkers who are actually tilling/cultivating such
lands as ARBs, subject to the procedures on screening and selection
of ARBs. However, the tenants/lessees in such excess areas shall be
given reasonable time to harvest the produce of his/her crop, subject
to the rules on standing crops.

In cases where the land area is not enough to meet the three-hectare
award ceiling for each agricultural lessee and tenant in a particular
landholding, the area to be distributed to them shall be based on the
actual size of tillage by each tenant/lessee.

Other qualified beneficiaries under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, as


amended, who are displaced after the distribution of all available land
to tenants/lessees, may still qualify as ARBs in other lands covered
under the CARP.

In cases where the three-hectare award limit is satisfied for tenants,


lessees and regular farmworkers, the remaining lands shall be
distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries following the order of
priority under Section 22, Items c to f of R.A. No. 6657, as amended,
at an award limit of three (3) hectares each, using the following as the
criteria for prioritization in case the land is not economically feasible
and sound to distribute among all the remaining ARBs:

a. willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land as


productive as possible;

b. physical capacity; and

c. length of service.

If there are ARBs who equally meet the foregoing criteria, priority shall
be given to ARBs who have continuously worked on the subject
landholding.

The other farmworkers on the land who cannot be accommodated


shall be put in a wait list of potential ARBs who will be awarded in
other landholdings covered by the CARP.

1.3 For untenanted land, all the farmers/tillers/farmworkers therein who


qualify under the existing guidelines on the identification, screening
and selection of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs), shall be
considered as potential beneficiaries in the estate, provided that the
proportional share of each will not exceed three (3) hectares,
otherwise, additional farmworkers shall be considered.

1.4 For unoccupied lands, each qualified landless farmer shall be allowed
the award ceiling of three (3) hectares.

2. In general, the land awarded to an ARB should be under an individual CLOA-


title covering one (1) contiguous tract or several parcels of land cumulated
up to a maximum of three (3) hectares.

3. Qualified beneficiaries may opt for collective ownership, through a co-


workers or farmers cooperative/association or some other form of collective
organization and for the issuance of collective ownership titles: Provided,
That the total area to be awarded shall not exceed the total number of co-
owners or members of the cooperative or collective organization multiplied
by the award limit of three (3) hectares, except in meritorious cases as may
be determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) and that
the conditions for the grant of collective CLOAs under Item IV(F)(4.1 to 4.4)
of this Order are met.

Under collective ownership, a collective CLOA to the property shall be issued


in the name of the co-owners or the farmers cooperative/association or
collective organization, as the case may be. If the CLOAs are issued to co-
owners or to a farmers cooperatives/association, the names of the
beneficiaries must be listed in the CLOA.

4. Collective CLOAs may be issued to farmers cooperatives/associations under


the following instances:

4.1 The current farm management system of the land covered by CARP
is not appropriate for either individual farming or division of the
landholding into farm parcels;

4.2 The farm labor system is specialized, where the farmworkers are
organized by functions such as spraying, weeding, packing and other
similar activities and not by specific parcels;

4.3 The potential beneficiaries are currently not farming individual parcels
but collectively working on large contiguous areas; and

4.4 The farm consists of multiple crops being farmed in an integrated


manner or includes non-crop production areas that are necessary for
the viability of farm operations, such as packing plants, storage areas,
dikes, and other similar facilities that cannot be subdivided or
assigned to individual farmers.
5. If the conditions for the issuance of collective CLOAs no longer exist, the
landholding shall be parcelized/subdivided and the ARBs subsequently
issued individual CLOA-titles.

6. For idle and abandoned lands or undeveloped agricultural lands to be


covered by CARP, collective ownership shall be allowed only if the
beneficiaries opt for it and there is a clear development plan that would
require collective farming or integrated farm operations exhibiting the
conditions described in Item IV(F)(4.1-4.4) of this Order. Otherwise, such
lands awarded to ARBs should be under individual CLOAs/titles, covering
one (1) contiguous tract or several parcels of land cumulated up to a
maximum of three (3) hectares.

7. As a general rule, the DAR shall take immediate possession of a landholding


upon the issuance of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) or Original Certificate
of Title (OCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines (RP) by the
concerned Registry of Deeds (ROD), and shall thereafter immediately
proceed with the distribution process to the qualified agrarian reform
beneficiaries of the landholding pursuant to Section 16 of R.A. No. 6657, as
amended.

8. The ARBs have the right of usufruct over the land from the time the DAR
takes constructive and actual possession of the same until the award of a
CLOA.

Pending the award of the CLOA and for the purpose of establishing
usufructuary rights, the DAR, upon transfer of the title in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines and it takes actual possession of the land, shall
immediately inform the ARBs that they have been identified and qualified to
receive the land.

9. The existence of labor-related problems between the landowner and the


farmworkers, including questions on ownership of the subject landholding
and payment of just compensation shall in no case deter or delay the
process of land acquisition and distribution.

10. The rights and responsibilities of the ARB shall commence from their receipt
of a duly registered Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) and their
actual physical possession of the awarded land.

10.1 All ARBs shall exercise diligence in the use, cultivation and
maintenance of the land including the improvements thereon.
Negligence, misuse, or unauthorized sale of the land or misuse of any
support extended to an ARB shall be a ground for the forfeiture of
ones right as an ARB.

10.2 Lands awarded to ARBs under this Act may not be sold,
transferred or conveyed except through hereditary succession or to
the Government, or to the LBP, or to other qualified beneficiaries
within a period of ten (10) years; Provided, however, that the children
or the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to repurchase the
land from the government or the LBP within a period of two (2) years
from the date of transfer.

10.3 ARBs have the obligation to pay the LBP in thirty (30) annual
amortizations with interest at six percent (6%) per annum unless the
ARB opts to accelerate payment.

10.4 Amortization payments shall commence one (1) year from the
date of the CLOA registration. However, if the actual occupancy of the
ARB takes place after the CLOA registration, the amortization shall
start one (1) year after the constructive and physical occupation of the
land by the ARB.

11. The ARB Cooperative/Association shall assume the responsibility of paying


the local government unit (LGU) the real property tax (RPT) of collectively
awarded land subject to the provisions of the Cooperative Code of the
Philippines.

12. Land improvements and facilities such as roads, bridges, warehouses,


irrigation systems and the like, for common use and benefit as may be
defined by DAR, may be transferred through a Farmers' Association or
Cooperative, or in the absence thereof, through co-ownership, and equally
shared payments covered under either individual or collective land
amortizations, as the case may be.

13. Agricultural lessees and tenants, regular farmworkers and other qualified
beneficiaries such as seasonal farmworkers, other farmworkers, actual
tillers/occupants of public lands, members of collectives or cooperatives of
the above beneficiaries, and others directly working on the land who are
husband and wife may be entitled to three (3) hectares each provided that
they qualify as ARBs in their own individual rights and that their respective
vested rights to the land have been duly established. A separate CLOA shall
be issued to each spouse in such cases.

14. For legally married spouses, the names of both husband and wife shall
appear in the CLOA and shall be preceded by the word spouses. Should
the couple qualify as individual ARBs, their names shall be registered in the
title, to wit: Juan married to Maria or Maria married to Juan to indicate that
the first name is the awardee. In the case of common-law relationship, the
names of both parties shall likewise appear in the CLOA with the conjunctive
word and between their names. Should they likewise qualify as individual
ARBs, their names shall be registered without the other. The same
provisions shall apply in cases where the married ARBs or ARBs in a
common-law relationship are covered by a collective/co-ownership CLOA
and their names annotated at the back of the said CLOA.

For purposes of ARB inventory and reporting, spouses or parties whose


names appear in a single CLOA shall be counted as one ARB.
15. It is the ministerial duty of the ROD to:

15.1 Issue the title of the land in the name of the Republic of the
Philippines, after the LBP has certified that the claim proceeds have
been deposited in the name of the landowner constituting full payment
in cash and bonds, with due notice to the landowner;

15.2 Register the CLOA generated by DAR;

15.3 Cancel previous titles pertaining thereto; and

15.4 Issue title to the LOs retained area.

16. All registered CLOAs shall be released by the Registry of Deeds (ROD) to
LBP as the mortgagee financing institution. The LBP shall be the responsible
repository of the encumbered CLOAs until the time of their release to the
concerned ARBs upon full payment of the land amortization, and the
cancellation of the encumbrance.

G. INSTALLATION OF AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES ON AWARDED


LANDS

1. As owners of awarded lands under CARP, the ARB/s shall take possession
of the land covered by his/her/their titles from the time the same is awarded
to them through a registered CLOA.

In case taking possession of the awarded land by the ARBs would imperil or
endanger their lives, the DAR shall assume responsibility for the installation
of the ARB/s on the subject land with the assistance of the police or military
until they are settled and in constructive and physical control of the property.

2. As a general rule, there shall only be a one time installation of ARBs on their
specific area of tillage as indicated in their CLOAs, rendering them in
constructive and physical possession of the same.

The DAR shall assist the ARBs in reporting cases of threat/harassment or


ejection attempts by the former landowner or other parties to the police or
military, and the filing of appropriate legal action against those responsible, if
warranted.

3. In case the installation activities would necessitate the provision of police


and/or military forces to assist the DARMO personnel, the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) shall coordinate the said activities with the
Department of National Defense-Armed Forces of the Philippines (DND-
AFP) and the Department of Interior and Local Government-Philippine
National Police (DILG-PNP), pursuant to the existing guidelines per
Memorandum of Agreement executed by the DAR, Department of Interior
and Local Government (DILG), and Department of National Defense (DND).

4. In the event that the former landowner harasses or threatens the ARB/s
installed by the DAR, the affected ARB/s shall immediately report the matter
to the concerned PNP and the DAR. The ARBs should be assisted by the
DAR Regional/Provincial Legal Division, Public Attorneys Office (PAO) and
the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutors.

5. If upon the effectivity of this Order, the former landowner deliberately acts to
delay, stall or obstruct the installation of the ARBs, a criminal case shall be
filed against him/her for violation of Sec. 73 (d) of R.A. No. 6657, as
amended. Moreover, the DAR shall ask that the landowner be held liable by
the Court for actual, compensatory and moral damages suffered by the
ARB/s.

V. OPERATING PROCEDURES FOR THE LAND ACQUISITION AND DISTRIBUTION


PROCESS

STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT


AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

A. PREPARATION, ISSUANCE AND PUBLICATION OF THE


NOTICE OF COVERAGE

(See CARP-LAD Annex E for the Process Flow)

A.1 Projection of Lands for Coverage

A.1.a DARPO Project landholdings for


coverage under CARP in the
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
(DENR) Land Classification
Maps to determine whether or
not the areas are alienable
and disposable, and do not
overlap with any decreed
property.

If the land is found to


be adjacent to forest or
timber land, determine
the date of issuance of
the title. In case the title
was issued prior to 1921
based on Act No. 2874,
the subject land is
definitively considered as
alienable and disposable,
and the procedure in Item
V(A)(2) of this Order shall
be undertaken.
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

If the title was issued


on or after 1921 based on
Act No. 2874, determine
whether these were
issued administratively or
judicially.

For landholdings
covered by judicial titles
and the survey was
based on the Land
Registration Authority
(LRA) Private Survey
(PSu) Plan, the procedure
outlined in Item V(A)(3.1)
of this Order shall be
followed.

For landholdings
covered by administrative
titles or judicial titles and
the survey was based on
the DENR Cadastral
Plan, the procedure
outlined in Item V(A)(3.2)
of this Order shall apply.

A.1.b DARPO In the case of untitled


properties, a certification from
the LRA and DENR regarding
the status of the landholding
shall be obtained observing
the following procedures:

Submit the list of untitled


properties to the DENR
CENRO/PENRO for
validation on whether or
not the said landholdings
are alienable and
disposable, and for
subsequent issuance of a
certification on the matter.
Likewise, submit the same
list to the Bureau of Land
Development (BLD) for it
to obtain the same
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

certification from the LRA


informing whether these
landholdings are within or
outside a decreed
property.

Upon receipt of both


certifications, undertake
the following:

1. If the
untitled land totally
overlaps with a
decreed property,
continue with the
acquisition and
distribution of the
decreed property
regardless in whose
name the decree is;
2. If the
untitled property is
totally not alienable
and disposable,
discontinue with the
coverage of the subject
land.

3. If the
untitled land partially
overlaps with a
decreed property, or it
is partially alienable
and disposable, ensure
that the portions of the
said lands that are
within the decreed
property and those that
are not alienable and
disposable are
segregated during the
conduct of survey.
Likewise, continue with
the acquisition and
distribution of both the
landholding that
partially overlaps with
a decreed property as
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

well as the latter


regardless in whose
name the landholdings
are.

A.2.c DARPO Prepare, in coordination with CARP-LAD


the DARMO, the preliminary Form No. 1
information on all (Preliminary
landholdings which were Information on
validated and projected by the Landholdings
DARPO and subject of joint Validated and
field investigation using Projected and
CARP-LAD Form No. 1. Subject of Joint
Field Investigation)

A.2 Validation of Landholdings for Coverage

A.2.a DARPO Submit to the BLD list of


landholdings with titles or
decrees issued prior to 1921
based on Act No. 2874.

A.2.b BLD Obtain a certification from the


LRA that the subject
landholdings do not overlap
with a titled or decreed
property.

A.2.c LRA Validate if the subject


landholding overlaps with a
titled or decreed property
based on records and
projections.

Prepare and transmit to the


BLD a certification regarding
the status of the subject
landholding which should
include the following
information:
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

Judicial Decree No.;

Date of issuance of
Decree;

Name of Adjudicatee;

Location; and

Area.

A.2.d BLD Upon receipt of the LRAs


certification, record and
forward the same to the
DARPO.

A.2.e DARPO If the subject landholding


partially overlaps with a
titled or decreed property,
ensure that the
overlapping portions
thereof are segregated
during the conduct of
survey. Likewise,
continue with the
acquisition and distribution
of both the landholding
that partially overlaps with
a decreed property as well
as the latter regardless in
whose name the
landholdings are.

If the subject landholding


totally overlaps with a
decreed property, continue
with the acquisition and
distribution of the decreed
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

property regardless in
whose name the decree is.

A.2.f DARPO Prepare, in coordination with CARP-LAD


the DARMO, the preliminary Form No. 1
information on all (Preliminary
landholdings which were Information on
Landholdings
validated and projected by
Validated and
the DARPO and subject of Projected and
joint field investigation using Subject of Joint
CARP-LAD Form No. 1. Field Investigation)

A.3 Landholdings Adjacent to Forest or Timber Land and the Decree was
Issued on or After 1921 Based on Act No. 2874

A.3.1 Landholdings Covered by Judicial Titles and the Survey was Based
on the LRA-PSu Plan

A.3.1.a DARPO Send to BLD the list of


landholdings adjacent to
forest or timber land for
revalidation to ensure that
these are alienable and
disposable.

A.3.1.b BLD Revalidate the said


landholdings which are
adjacent to forest or timber
land vis--vis the DENR Land
Classification Map filed at
BLD.

If the subject
landholding/s is/are found
to be alienable and
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

disposable, issue a
certification as to its
findings and transmit this
back to the DARPO.

In case the subject


landholding/s is/are found
to be totally or partially
not alienable and
disposable, transmit
these to LRA with a
request for it to validate
whether or not these
lands are alienable and
disposable.

A.3.1.c LRA Validate the landholding/s


adjacent to forest or
timber land if this/these
is/are alienable and
disposable or not based
on records and
projections.

Prepare a certification
regarding the status of the
landholding/s (i.e.,
alienable and disposable,
partially or fully not
alienable and disposable).
If a landholding is found to
be partially alienable and
disposable, prepare a
sketch map indicating the
approximate size, contour
and portion of the said
landholding that is
considered alienable and
disposable.

Transmit to BLD the


certification regarding the
status of the landholding,
including the sketch map,
if applicable.
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

A.3.1.d BLD Upon receipt of the


certification and sketch map,
if any, send these to DARPO
for appropriate action.

A.3.1.e DARPO If the land is partially


alienable and disposable,
ensure that portions
thereof which are found to
be not alienable and
disposable are segregated
during the conduct of the
survey.

In case the entire area is


totally not alienable and
disposable, discontinue
with the coverage of the
subject land.

A.3.1.f DARPO Prepare, in coordination with CARP-LAD


the DARMO, the preliminary Form No. 1
information on all (Preliminary
landholdings which were Information on
Landholdings
validated and projected by
Validated and
the DARPO and subject of Projected and
joint field investigation using Subject of Joint
CARP-LAD Form No. 1. Field Investigation)

A.3.2 Landholdings Covered by Judicial or Administrative Titles and the


Survey was Based on the DENR Cadastral Plan

A.3.2.a DARPO Forward to DENR-


CENRO/PENRO the list of
landholdings adjacent to
forest or timber land for
validation to ensure that these
are alienable and disposable.
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

A.3.2.b DENR-CENRO/ Validate the landholdings


PENRO adjacent to forest or
timber land based on its
records and projections.

Prepare a certification
regarding the status of the
landholdings (i.e.,
alienable and disposable,
partially or fully not
alienable and disposable).
If a landholding is found to
be partially alienable and
disposable, prepare a
sketch map indicating the
approximate size, contour
and portion found to be
alienable and disposable.

Transmit to DARPO the


certification regarding the
findings on the
landholding, including a
sketch map, if applicable.

A.3.2.c DARPO If the land is partially


alienable and disposable,
ensure that said portions
found to be not alienable
and disposable are
segregated during the
conduct of the survey.

In case the land is totally


not alienable and
disposable, discontinue
with the coverage of the
subject land.

A.3.2.d DARPO Prepare, in coordination with CARP-LAD


the DARMO, the preliminary Form No. 1
information on all (Preliminary
landholdings which were Information on
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

validated and projected by Landholdings


the DARPO and subject of Validated and
joint field investigation using Projected and
Subject of Joint
CARP-LAD Form No. 1.
Field Investigation)

A.4 Preparation and Issuance of Notices of Coverage (NOCs)

A.4.a DARPO Transmit to the DARMO


the validated and
projected list of
landholdings in the ICS/F1
and other landholdings still
unacquired and
undistributed but
coverable under CARP,
indicating the concomitant
phasing schedule of said
lands, giving priority to
private agricultural lands.

Prepare and send to the CARP-LAD Form


DARMO the claim folder No. 2 (CF
(CF) documentation Documentation
memorandum for each Memorandum)
landholding, including CARP-LAD Form
therein the following: No. 3 (Notice of
Coverage)
1. Notice of Coverage or CARP-LAD Form
Memorandum to the No. 4 (Directive to
MARO directing MARO to Proceed
him/her to proceed with the Coverage
with the coverage of of Agricultural
agricultural lands for Lands with NOCs)
lands already issued
with NOCs, duly
signed by the PARO
and copy furnished the
landowner (LO), as the
case may be; and

2. Preliminary CARP-LAD Form


information on all No. 1 (Preliminary
landholdings which Information on
were validated and Landholdings
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

projected by DARPO Validated and


and subject of field Projected and
investigation (FI) Subject of Joint
which shall form part Field Investigation)
of the claim folder.

A.4.b DARMO Receive the Notices of CARP-LAD Form


Coverage for landholdings No. 3 (Notice of
still unacquired and Coverage)
undistributed but coverable CARP-LAD Form
under CARP or the No. 4) (Directive to
MARO to Proceed
Memorandum to the MARO
with the Coverage
on the coverage of of Agricultural
agricultural lands for lands Lands with NOCs)
already issued with NOCs, as
the case may be, and cause
the service of either
document to the LO, as the
case may be, pursuant to
Item IV(A)(11) of this Order.

A.4.c DARMO In case the LOs residence is CARP-LAD Form


outside the Philippines or No. 5 (Report on
unknown, or the LO refuses Failure to Serve the
to accept the NOC or there is NOC to the LO and
Request for NOC
failure to notify the LO
Publication)
through the regular mode of
CARP-LAD Form
service enumerated under No. 6 (NOC
Item IV(A)(11) of this Order, Publication)
submit a report of this to the
DARPO and request the
PARO to cause the
publication of the NOC in a
newspaper of general
circulation in accordance with
Item IV(A)(11.4) of this Order.

A.4.d DARMO Post copies of the NOC CARP-LAD Form


for at least seven (7) days No. 3 (Notice of
in the bulletin boards or Coverage)
any conspicuous places in CARP-LAD Form
the city or municipality and
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

the barangay where the No. 7 (Certification


property is located and of Posting
obtain from the proper Compliance)
barangay or municipal
officer a Certification of
Posting Compliance.

Commence with the


preparation of claim folder.

A.4.e Landowner Within thirty (30) calendar CARP-LAD Form


days upon receipt of the NOC No. 8 (Landowners
or date of NOC publication, Letter of
submit to the DARMO the Submission of
Sketch Map of
following:
Selected Retained
Area and List of
Nominated
1. Sketch map of the Preferred
entire property with Beneficiaries)
delineation or shading or CARP-LAD Form
any general indication of No. 9 (Sketch Map
the area he/she intends to of the Selected
retain. In case the LO fails Retained Area)
to identify his/her retained Certified copies of
area and submit the said NSO birth
sketch map, the DAR shall certificate/s of
identify and choose the preferred
LOs retention area; beneficiary/ies
nominated by LO
Two (2) other
2. List of name/s of documents
nominated child/ren as indicating parental
preferred beneficiary/ies relationship of LO
with address/es, to each nominated
birthdate/s, certified true preferred
copies of child/rens birth beneficiary/ies
certificate/s and two (2)
other documents with
probative value showing
the parental relationship of
the LO to his/her
nominated preferred
beneficiary/ies.

In cases where the LO


contests the coverage of
his/her land under CARP, the
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

LO has thirty (30) calendar


days from receipt of the NOC,
or if the NOC was served
through newspaper
publication, within thirty (30)
days from date of publication
to file his/her protest/
application for exemption or
exclusion with the DARPO.

A.4.f DARMO Receive from the LO the CARP-LAD Form


letter of submission of sketch No. 8 (Landowners
map of his/her retention area Letter of
and the list of nominated Submission of
Sketch Map of
child/ren as preferred
Selected Retained
beneficiary/ies and supporting Area and List of
documents indicating parental Nominated
relationship to preferred Preferred
beneficiary/ies . Beneficiaries)
CARP-LAD Form
No. 9 (Sketch Map
of Selected
Retained Area)
Certified copies of
NSO birth
certificate/s of
preferred
beneficiary/ies
nominated by LO
Two (2) other
documents
indicating parental
relationship of LO
to nominated
preferred
beneficiary/ies

B. PROCESSING OF LANDOWNERS RETENTION AREAS


(See CARP-LAD Annex F for the Process Flow)

B.1 Landholdings Above Five (5) Hectares


STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

B.1.a DARMO Conduct an Ocular Inspection CARP-LAD Form


(OCI) for reconnaissance No. 10 (OCI
purposes and to validate the Report)
following:

a. The status of the CARP-LAD Form


landholding/s subject of No. 9 (Sketch Map
coverage and the of Selected
retention area chosen by Retained Area)
the LO as identified in the
sketch map; and

b. Names and qualifications CARP-LAD Form


of nominated children as No. 8 (Landowners
preferred beneficiaries Letter of
fifteen (15) years old and Submission of
actually cultivating or Sketch Map of
directly managing the farm Selected Retained
at the time of the conduct Area and List of
of field investigation of the Nominated
landholding under CARP. Preferred
Beneficiaries)

In case the LO fails to choose CARP-LAD Form


his/her retention area within No. 11 (Notice to
the reglementary period Landowner on the
provided in this Order, the Portion Selected as
Retention Area)
MARO identifies the location
and area of the LOs retention
area based on Item IV(B)(7)
of this Order. The MARO
shall notify the concerned LO
through personal service with
proof of receipt or by
registered mail with return
card on the portion selected
as his/her retention area.

B.1.b DARMO Prepare the Retention Folder Retention Folder


which should include the OCI Copy of CARP-
Report, the sketch map or LAD Form No. 8
plan of the retained area (Landowners
identified either by the LO or Letter of
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

the MARO, and copy of Submission of


Notice to Landowner on the Sketch Map of
Portion Selected as Retention Selected
Area and proof of service of Retained Area
said notice, when applicable. and List of
Nominated
Preferred
Beneficiaries)
CARP-LAD
Form No. 9
(Sketch Map of
the Selected
Retained Area)
CARP-LAD
Form No. 10
(OCI Report)
Copy of CARP-
LAD Form No.
11 (Notice to
Landowner on
the Portion
Selected as
Retention Area,
if applicable)
Proof of Service
of the Notice to
LO on the
Portion
Selected as
Retention Area

B.1.c DARMO Submit Retention Folder to Retention Folder


DARPO for review and
evaluation.

B.1.d DARPO Receive, record, review, and Retention Folder


evaluate the Retention Folder CARP-LAD Form
submitted by DARMO. If the No. 12
Retention Folder is in order, (Certification of
prepare the Certification of Retention)
Retention signed by the
PARO and issue the same to
the landowner through
personal service with proof of
receipt or by registered mail
with return card. In case of
incomplete data or
information, notify the
DARMO for appropriate
action.
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

B.1.e Landowner In case the LO opts for the CARP-LAD Form


immediate issuance of a title No. 12
for his/her retention area after (Certification of
the issuance of Certification of Retention)
Retention by the PARO, he
can request, in coordination
with the PARO, the Registry
of Deeds (ROD) to issue a
title in the LOs name on the
portion of his/her retained
area based on the Owner's
Duplicate Copy of title from
the LO, Approved
Segregation Plan, and
technical description, and
Certificate of Retention.

All fees for the immediate


segregation survey of the
LOs retention area and the
issuance of title on the same
by the ROD shall be
chargeable to the account of
the LO.

B.2 Landholdings Five (5) Hectares And Below

B.2.a Landowner LOs who own lands five (5) CARP-LAD Form
hectares or less may file a No. 13 (Request for
request for the issuance of a Certification of
Certification of Retention with Retention)
the DAR Regional Office LOs Affidavit of
sole and aggregate
(DARRO), DARPO or
ownership of
DARMO, which should be agricultural land
accompanied by an affidavit nationwide
by the LO that the said
landholding is his/her sole
and aggregate ownership of
agricultural land nationwide.
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

B.2.b DARRO/ Upon receipt of the request CARP-LAD


DARMO for the issuance of Form No. 13
Certification of Retention and (Request for
LOs Affidavit of sole and Certification of
Retention)
aggregate ownership of
LOs Affidavit
agricultural land nationwide,
of sole and
record and forward the same aggregate
to the DARPO. ownership of
agricultural land
nationwide

B.2.c DARPO Evaluate the LOs request for CARP-LAD


the issuance of Certification Form No. 13
of Retention and validate and (Request for
ensure that the LO has no Certification of
Retention)
other agricultural lands nor
LOs Affidavit
has he previously availed of
of sole and
the right to retention on any aggregate
CARP covered land. ownership of
agricultural land
nationwide

B.2.d DARPO Issue Certification of CARP-LAD Form


Retention to the LO. No. 12
(Certification of
Retention)

B.3 Landholdings with Previous Orders of Retention

B.3.a DARPO Based on its records, issue a CARP-LAD Form


Certification of Retention to No. 12
LOs of all landholdings with (Certification of
Orders of Retention Retention)
previously issued by the
Regional Director.

B.4 Reports on All Lands Issued Certifications of Retention

B.4.a DARPO Prepare a list of all CARP-LAD Form


landholdings issued with No. 14 (List of
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

Certifications of Retention Landholdings with


and submit the same to the Issued Certification
Bureau of Land Acquisition of Retention)
and Distribution (BLAD) for
purposes of creating a
database on all lands subject
of retention and landowners
who have filed for the
issuance of a Certification of
Retention (for landholdings
five (5) hectares and below),
copy furnished the DARRO.
This must be updated every
quarter.

C. LAND ACQUISITION PROCESS


(See CARP-LAD Annex G for the Process Flow)

C.1 Lands Covered under Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS)

C.1.a LO Files VOS in any DAR FOR TITLED


office through a notarized PROPERTIES:
Letter-Offer with
supporting basic CARP-LAD Form
ownership documents as No. 15
stipulated under the (Landowners
Forms/Documents Letter-Offer)
required per Item CARP-LAD Form
V(C.1.a) of this Order. No. 15A (Checklist
of Required
Documents)
Certified copy of
the original
OCT/TCT on file
with ROD and
photocopy of ODC,
if available
Certified Copy of
latest Tax
Declaration in the
name of the
registered owner
duly certified by the
Municipal/City
Assessor
Copy of Approved
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

Survey Plan
certified by the
DENR-LMS
CARP-LAD Form
No. 16 (Landowner
Information Sheet
{LOIS} duly
accomplished and
signed by the LO)

FOR UNTITLED
PRIVATE
PROPERTIES:

CARP-LAD Form
No. 15
(Landowners
Letter-Offer)
CARP-LAD Form
No. 15A (Checklist
of Required
Documents)
Certification of the
DENR-CENRO/
PENRO or
Regional Technical
Director, Lands
Management
Service, that the
tract of land
covered by the
survey is within an
area classified as
alienable and
disposable
pursuant to DAR-
DENR-LBP Joint
Memorandum
Circular No. 12,
Series of 1994 as
reconciled with
R.A. No. 9176
Certified Approved
Survey Plan or
cadastral map and
geographical
position and plane
coordination of the
points duly certified
by the Chief,
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

Survey Division of
DENR
Certified copy of
the latest Tax
Declaration from
the Assessors file
in the name of the
claimant with
verified and correct
lot numbers and
area per approved
survey plan
Instruments of
acquisition
covering the
subject property,
such as deeds of
sale, donation,
transfer, etc. in
favor of claimant
and those of his
predecessor/s-in-
interest
Certification of the
Assessor
concerned showing
the Tax Declaration
issued, the
declarant/s, the
area covered, and
the basis for the
issuances and
cancellations
thereof up to the
Tax Declaration
issued in the name
of the claimant, as
well as any existing
liens on the current
and previous Tax
Declaration, where
applicable
Certification from
the Clerk of Court
concerned whether
or not the
property/ies
identified in the
approved survey
plan is/are covered
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

by land registration
proceedings or any
civil case, and if the
same has been
used as a bond in
other court actions
Certification from
the Assessors
Office concerned
that per their
records, the
property/ies as
appearing in the
Approved Survey
Plan is/are free
from all liens and
encumbrances
LRA certification
that the property is
not within any
decreed or titled
property
CARP-LAD Form
No. 16 (Landowner
Information Sheet
{LOIS} duly
accomplished and
signed by the LO)

C.1.b DARMO/ Receive and review the basic CARP-LAD Form


DARPO/ documents enumerated under No. 15
DARRO/ Item V(C.1.a) of this Order for (Landowners
DARCO-BLAD completeness and require Letter-Offer)
other applicable documents CARP-LAD Form
under different situations. If No. 15A (Checklist
the documents are of Required
incomplete, require the LO to Documents)
submit the pertinent Same documents
document/s within thirty (30) required under Item
days from submission of V(C.1.a)
Letter-Offer. The application
CARP-LAD Annex
shall not be accepted by any
B (List of
of the receiving offices (i.e.,
Documents
DARMO, DARPO, DARRO,
Required under
DARCO-BLAD) until all the
Different Situations)
basic documents are
complied with by the LO.

C.1.c DARMO/ Forward the duly


DARRO/ accomplished Letter-Offer
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

DARCO-BLAD filed by the LO together with


complete basic documents to
the DARPO of the province
where the property is located.

C.1.d DARPO Upon receipt and CARP-LAD Annex


recording of the B (List of
documents forwarded by Documents
the DARMO/DARRO/ Required under
DARCO-BLAD, review Different Situations)
and evaluate the
documents applicable
under different situations
as stipulated in CARP-
LAD Annex B.

Prepare and send to the CARP-LAD Form


concerned LO the No. 17
Acceptance Letter for (Acceptance Letter
VOS duly signed by the for VOS)
PARO. Thereafter, forward
to the DARMO a duplicate
copy of the Acceptance
Letter for VOS, together
with the Letter-Offer and
basic documents, with the
following instruction:

a. Post the Letter-Offer CARP-LAD Form


and Acceptance Letter No. 7 (Certification
for VOS for seven (7) of Posting
days at the barangay Compliance)
and municipal/city halls
where the property is
located and
subsequently obtain
Certification of Posting
Compliance from the
proper municipal or
barangay official; and

b. Secure from LO the


latest BIR-filed Audited
Financial Statement
supported by
accounting records
which shall be
submitted by the LO
fifteen (15) days prior
to the date of field
investigation (FI).
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

C.1.e DARMO Comply with the


requirements as
enumerated under Item
V(C.1.d) of this Order.

Conduct preliminary field CARP-LAD Form


verification on the No. 1 (Preliminary
landholding subject of joint Information on
field investigation using Landholdings
CARP-LAD Form No. 1. Validated and
Projected and
Subject of Joint
Field Investigation)

C.2 Lands Covered under Compulsory Acquisition (CA)

C.2.a DARMO Based on the Memorandum Same documents


to the MARO on the coverage required under Item
of agricultural lands (for lands V(C.1.a) of this
already issued with NOC as Order except
of December 10, 2009) or CARP-LAD Form
based on the NOC and No. 15
posting of the same within (Landowners
seven (7) days at the Letter-Offer)
barangay and municipal/city CARP-LAD Form
halls where the property is No. 1 (Preliminary
located and the issuance of Information on
the Certification of Posting Landholdings
Compliance by the proper Validated and
municipal and barangay Projected and
official (for lands issued with Subject of Joint
NOC under this Order), the Field Investigation)
DARMO shall: CARP-LAD Form
No. 7 (Certification
of Posting
1. conduct preliminary field Compliance)
verification on the
landholding subject of
joint investigation using
CARP-LAD Form No. 1;
and

2. gather basic ownership


documents per
landholding as listed in
CARP-LAD Form No. 1.
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

C.3 Lands Covered under Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) or Compulsory


Acquisition (CA)

C.3.a DARMO In the case of lands for LGU-MAO


collective distribution, certification on
determine, in coordination whether or not land
with the Local Government is economically
Unit (LGU) Municipal feasible and sound
Agriculture Office (MAO) and to divide
other concerned agencies,
whether or not it is
economically feasible and
sound to divide the land
based on the conditions for
the issuance of collective
CLOA-titles as provided
under Item IV(F)(4.1 to 4.4) of
this Order. A corresponding
certification of the LGU-MAO
or other concerned agencies
shall be obtained.

If the conditions for collective


ownership so warrant, inform
the qualified ARBs of the
need to form a farmers
cooperative/association for
purposes of collective
distribution of the land to
them, if not yet existing.

In the case of lands that do


not meet the conditions for
collective ownership, such
lands shall be programmed
for distribution under
individual CLOA-titles.

C.3.b DARMO and Proceed with the screening


BSC and selection of potential
ARBs and preparation of
master list of ARBs pursuant
to Item V(D) of this Order.

C.3.c DARMO Simultaneous with the on- CARP-LAD Form


going preparation of the CF, No. 18 (Requisition
request the DARPO for land for Survey Services
use, segregation and {RSS} Involving
subdivision survey services Lands for
for landholdings subject of Acquisition and
acquisition and distribution. Distribution)
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

C.3.d DARPO Receive, record and


review/evaluate the request
for survey and the documents
submitted by DARMO. In
case of incomplete
documents, data or
information, notify the
DARMO for appropriate
action.

If the documents, data or


information are complete and
in order, approve the request
for survey based on the
priority areas of the province,
and prepare survey modules
by administration or by
contract in accordance with
the existing guidelines on
bidding and award of CARP
survey projects.

C.3.e DAR Geodetic In coordination with the Copy of


Engineer/ concerned DARMO, conduct Segregation and
Surveyor- actual land use, segregation Subdivision Survey
Contractor and subdivision surveys of Returns
the landholding. Thereafter, Copy of Land Use
prepare Land Use Map, and Map
Segregation and Subdivision
Survey Returns, and submit
the same to the DARPO.

During the conduct of survey,


the DARMO shall ensure that
the monuments of survey are
planted in the subject
landholding.

C.3.f DARPO Ensure that the Land Use Segregation and


Map, and Survey Returns Subdivision Survey
(segregation and Returns
subdivision) are in order Copy of Land Use
and complete. Map

Submit the Survey


Returns (segregation and
survey) to the DARRO.
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

C.3.g DARRO Receive, review and evaluate


the Survey Returns and
submit the same to DENR-
LMS for approval.

C.3.h DARPO Forward to DARMO the Schedule of Field


following: Investigation (FI)

1. schedule of field
investigation (FI) of
landholdings for
barangays in proximity
of each other for
purposes of optimizing
time and resources;

2. Land Use Map; and

3. copy of segregation
and subdivision plans
pending approval at
the DENR-LMS.

Coordinate with the LBP


regarding the conduct of
FI, particularly as regards
failure of LO, if applicable,
to submit BIR-filed Audited
Financial Statement. This
is for purposes of
gathering applicable
industry data by the LBP
staff for use during the FI.

C.3.i DARMO Upon receipt of the


documents enumerated in
Item V(C.3.h) of this Order,
the following shall be
undertaken:

a. Secure from the LO the CARP-LAD Form


latest BIR-filed Audited No. 19
Financial Statement (Certification on
supported by accounting Landowners
records fifteen (15) days Failure to Submit
prior to the date of FI. In BIR-filed Audited
case the LO fails to submit Financial
the said document, issue Statement) or LOs
a certification regarding BIR-filed Audited
this. Financial
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

Statement
supported by
accounting records

b. Prepare and submit to CARP-LAD Form


DARPO the corresponding No. 20 (CF
CF containing the Transmittal
following: Memorandum)

Basic documents
enumerated in Item
V(C.1.a) of this Order;

BIR-filed Audited
Financial Statement or
in the absence thereof,
certification on LOs
failure to submit the
said document;

CARP-LAD Form No.


1 (Preliminary
Information on
Landholding Validated
and Projected and
Subject of Joint Field
Investigation)

Land Use Map,


Segregation and
Subdivision Plans still
pending approval; and

Other pertinent
documents

c. Send notice to Barangay CARP-LAD Form


Agrarian Reform Council No. 21 (Notice to
(BARC) and potential Conduct Field
ARBs and invite the LO, Investigation)
DENR, LGU-MAO (if CARP-LAD Form
necessary) to the No. 22 (Invitation
scheduled field Letter to the LO on
investigation (FI) at least the conduct of FI)
fifteen (15) days prior to
the date of the FI.

C.3.j DARPO Receive and review the CF


for completeness of initial
documentation. If the
documents, data or
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

information are complete,


provide a copy of documents
attached in the CF to LBP for
use in the FI. In case of
incomplete documents, data
or information, inform the
DARMO for appropriate
action.

C.3.k DARMO, Conduct FI of the property on CARP-LAD Form


BARC, LBP, LO, the scheduled date together No. 23 (Field
Potential ARBs with representatives of LBP, Investigation
BARC, LO and potential Report)
ARBs, and if necessary, the LGU-MAO
DENR and/or LGU-MAO. Certification on the
Thereafter, prepare the Field suitability of land to
Investigation Report (FIR) agriculture, if
and submit the same to the necessary
DARPO. DENR Certification
on the slope of the
land covered under
CARP, if necessary

C.3.l DARPO If there are discrepancies


between the Field
Investigation Report (FIR)
submitted by the DARMO and
the Segregation and
Subdivision Plans that are
pending approval at the
DENR-LMS, coordinate with
the Geodetic Engineer of
DAR/surveyor-contractor to
resolve the discrepancies and
submit the corrected
Segregation and Subdivision
Plan to the DARRO.

C.3.m DARRO Submit the corrected


Segregation and Subdivision
Plan to the DENR Land
Management Service (LMS).

C.3.n DENR-LMS Issue to the DARRO the


approved segregation and
subdivision plan with
technical description.
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

C.3.o DARRO Upon return by the DENR-


LMS of the Approved
Segregation Plan and
Approved Subdivision Plan
(ASP), with technical
description, forward the same
to the DARPO.

C.3.p DARPO Upon receipt of the DENR- Approved


LMS Approved Segregation Segregation Plan
Plan and Approved and Approved
Subdivision Plan (ASP) with Subdivision Plan
technical description of the with Technical
subject property from the Description
DARRO, record and furnish
the DARMO and Assessors
Office a copy of the same for
reference.

D. IDENTIFICATION, SCREENING AND SELECTION OF


AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES (ARBs)

(See CARP-LAD Annex H for the Process Flow)

D.1 Identification and Preparation of Preliminary List of Potential

Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs)

D.1.a DARMO With the assistance of the


DARPO, and in coordination
with the BARC, or in the
absence thereof, the
Barangay Council and
concerned non-government
organizations/peoples
organizations (NGOs/POs),
undertake information
dissemination on the activities
for the identification,
screening and selection of
ARBs through bandillo
mobile system, distribution of
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

flyers, farmers assembly or


meetings and other means
such as the use of the tri-
media (e.g., radio, local
newspapers, local television
networks).

D.1.b DARMO Gather information on the


potential beneficiaries of the
subject landholding with the
assistance of the BARC, or in
the absence thereof, the
Barangay Council and all
other reliable sources of
information in the community,
to include pertinent
information drawn from the
initial OCI/reconnaissance
activity under Item V(B.1.a) of
this Order, employment
records or payrolls in the
case of commercial farms or
plantations.

D.1.c DARMO Prepare the preliminary list of CARP-LAD Form


potential ARBs, including the No. 24 (Preliminary
names of LOs preferred List of Potential
beneficiaries, if any. Agrarian Reform
Beneficiaries of
CARP)

D.1.d DARMO Cause the posting of the CARP-LAD Form


preliminary list of potential No. 24 (Preliminary
beneficiaries in the specific List of Potential
landholding for a period of Agrarian Reform
Beneficiaries of
fifteen (15) days in at least
CARP)
three (3) conspicuous places:

1. in the respective barangay


halls of the barangays
where the landholding is
located;
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

2. in the municipal halls of


the municipalities where
the landholding is located;
and

3. in other conspicuous
places in the community,
commercial farm or
plantation, as the case
may be.

The preliminary list shall be


posted in a bulletin board
shielded from the elements
and with ample space to
accommodate all the names
of the potential ARBs.

The preliminary list of CARP-LAD Form


potential beneficiaries in the No. 25 (Request/
specific landholding shall be Petition to be
accompanied by information Included as
Potential ARB in
on the inclusion of the
the Preliminary List
potential ARBs in the of Agrarian Reform
preliminary list and a general Beneficiaries)
announcement written in both
English and the local dialect,
enjoining other parties who
are not in the preliminary list,
if any, to signify their intent or
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

interest to the DARMO to be


included as potential ARBs in
the specific landholding if
qualified. Information shall
instruct the listed potential
ARBs and other concerned
parties to submit to the
DARMO within fifteen (15)
days from the last day of
posting of the said list, which
should be stipulated therein,
any or all of the following
documents as proof of their
identity and qualification as
an ARB:

a. Community Tax Certificate


(cedula) or barangay
certificate indicating
potential ARBs as
permanent or bonafide
residents of the barangay;

b. Social Security System


(SSS) identification card
for farmworkers;

c. Voter's identification card


or certified copy of voter's
registration record;

d. Other identification
documents with probative
value.

e. Certificate of aggregate
land owned by the ARB
from the city/municipal
assessor, land titles, tax
declarations, as the case
may be;
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

f. Leasehold contract and/or


proof of tenancy papers, if
available;

g. Employment certificate
indicating length of service
and/or periods of
employment in the
commercial farm or
plantation, if applicable;

h. Payslips or payroll if
applicable;

i. Original or certified copy


of notice of dismissal or
retrenchment for
farmworker beneficiaries;

j. Original or certified copy


of decision, order or ruling
by a court, quasi-judicial
body or administrative
agency in the event that
there was a case related
to the dismissal,
retrenchment, etc., of the
potential ARB;

k. Original or certified copy


of letter of resignation for
farmworker beneficiaries;
and

l. Other documents which


can establish the
qualifications of the
potential beneficiary in a
landholding, commercial
farm, or plantation.
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

D.1.e DARMO After the required fifteen-day CARP-LAD Form


period, obtain a Certification No. 26
of Posting Compliance from (Certification of
barangay/municipal officials, Posting
Compliance for List
and/or other authorized
of ARBs)
officials in the community,
indicating therein the
inclusive days of posting.

D.1.f DARMO Schedule the conduct of a


meeting with potential
ARBs in the preliminary
list and those who may
have signified their
qualification and intent to
be included as farmer
beneficiary in the subject
landholding, commercial
farm or plantation, which
shall be held not later than
thirty (30) days from the
last day of posting of the
Preliminary List of ARBs.

In the case of commercial


farms, plantations and
other landholdings
qualified for collective
distribution, the schedule
of this meeting must be
coordinated with the
Beneficiary Screening
Committee (BSC) at the
DARPO to ensure its
presence and participation
during the meeting with
the potential beneficiaries
as provided under Item
V(D.2.a) of this Order.

D.1.g DARMO Send Invitation Letters by (CARP-LAD Form


personal service or by No. 27 (Invitation
registered mail with return Letter)
card to potential
beneficiaries in the (CARP-LAD Form
preliminary list and all No. 28 (General
those who may have Notice to All
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

signified their qualification Interested Parties)


and intent for inclusion in
the preliminary list
regarding the schedule of
meeting and post a
general notice on the
same at the three (3)
conspicuous places
enumerated under Item
V(D.1.d) of this Order.

The Invitation Letters


regarding the notice of
meeting shall state that
the potential beneficiaries
and other concerned
parties should bring with
them all pertinent and
available documents
provided under Item
V(D.1.d) of this Order as
proof of their identity and
qualification as an ARB, if
not yet submitted.

For invitation letters (CARP-LAD Form


regarding the schedule of No. 29 (Proof of
meeting served by mail or Service of Invitation
personal service and Letter)
positively acknowledged
or received by the
potential ARB and other
concerned parties, the
DARMO shall accomplish
Item I of CARP-LAD Form
No. 29 (Proof of Service of
Invitation Letter), as proof
of personal service to be
placed on file. In case the
potential ARB refuses to
receive/accept the
invitation letter on notice
of meeting, the DARMO
shall fill-up/accomplish
Item II of the same form.
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

D.2 Screening and Preparation of Updated Preliminary List of Agrarian


Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs)

D.2.a DARMO With the assistance of the CARP-LAD Form


BARC, conduct a meeting No. 30 (Agrarian
on the scheduled date Reform Beneficiary
with the potential Application Form)
beneficiaries in the
preliminary list and other
concerned parties, if any,
and undertake the
following:

a. Explain in the local


dialect, the
qualifications, rights,
responsibilities and
obligations of ARBs and
the identification and
screening process for
ARBs;

b. Individually interview all


potential ARBs in the
preliminary list and
concerned parties for the
determination of
qualifications and the
initial review of
documents;

c. Assist potential
beneficiary-applicants in
accomplishing the
Beneficiary Application
Form; and

d. Discuss issues and


concerns on
qualifications of potential
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

ARBs in the preliminary


list and those who may
have signified
qualification and intent
for inclusion in the
preliminary list.

In the case of commercial


farms and plantations and
lands qualified for
collective distribution, the
BSC must be present at
this meeting and take the
lead, in coordination with
the MARO, in the
aforementioned activities
enumerated under Item
V(D.2.a)(a-d) of this Order.

D.2.b DARMO In close coordination with the


BARC, review and evaluate
the potential beneficiaries'
application forms vis-a-vis
documents/evidence
submitted and ensure that
based on the information from
the applicant himself or other
persons and the available
documents, the qualifications
provided in Item IV(E)(1) of
this Order are met.

D.2.c DARMO If the potential ARBs CARP-LAD Form


evaluated qualify as No. 31 (Notice of
beneficiaries, sustain or Disqualification as
include, as the case may be, Agrarian Reform
Beneficiary)
their names in the preliminary
list. The potential ARBs who
do not meet the qualifications
provided in Item IV(E)(1) of
this Order shall be excluded
from the preliminary list and
informed accordingly through
personal service or registered
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

mail with return card.

D.2.d DARMO Prepare an Updated CARP-LAD Form


Preliminary List of Potential No. 32 (Updated
Beneficiaries of CARP for Preliminary List of
subsequent ranking and Potential
Beneficiaries of
prioritization pursuant to
CARP)
Section 8 of R.A. No. 9700
and Section 22 of R.A. No.
6657, as amended, and Item
V(D.3.1.d) of this Order, and
the preparation of the master
list of ARBs.

D.2.e DARMO For commercial farms,


plantations and other
landholdings which qualify for
collective distribution under
Item IV(F)(4.1 to 4.4) of this
Order, DARMO shall submit
the updated preliminary list of
potential ARBs, together with
application forms and
supporting documents/
evidence, to the Beneficiary
Screening Committee (BSC)
through the Provincial
Agrarian Reform Officer
(PARO).

D.2.1.f DARMO For landholdings subject to


individual distribution, cause
the posting of the updated
preliminary list of potential
ARBs for fifteen (15) days in
at least three (3) conspicuous
places as enumerated under
Item V(D.1.d) of this Order:

The updated preliminary list


of potential ARBs shall
contain a statement written in
both English and in the local
dialect that concerned parties
may submit to the DARMO a
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

petition for inclusion or


exclusion from the said list
within fifteen (15) days from
the last day of posting, which
should be stipulated therein.

D.2.1.g DARMO Obtain certification of posting CARP-LAD Form


compliance from the proper No. 26
municipal and barangay (Certification of
officials after the fifteen (15) Posting
Compliance for List
day posting period, indicating
of ARBs)
therein the inclusive dates of
posting.

D.3 Selection and Preparation of the Master List of Agrarian Reform


Beneficiaries (ARBs)

D.3.1 Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) in Landholdings Subject to


Individual Distribution

D.3.1.a DARMO After the lapse of the fifteen


(15) day posting period,
conduct a field validation in
the subject landholding on the
updated preliminary list of
ARBs to further verify the
identity and qualifications of
the potential beneficiary/ies
therein.

D.3.1.b DARMO Re-evaluate the potential


beneficiaries in the updated
preliminary list of potential
ARBs based on the field
validation and
documents/evidence
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

available.

D.3.1.c DARMO In case one or more CARP-LAD Form


conditions for disqualification No. 31 (Notice of
provided under Item IV(E)(3) Disqualification as
of this Order is present, Agrarian Reform
Beneficiary)
exclude disqualified
applicants from the updated
preliminary list of potential
ARBs. Thereafter, send a
Notice of Disqualification,
citing the reason/s therefor,
through personal delivery or
registered mail with return
card.

D.3.1.d DARMO Prepare the master list of CARP-LAD Form


ARBs and prioritize and No. 33 (Master List
classify each qualified of Agrarian Reform
ARB, pursuant to Section Beneficiaries)
22 of R.A. No 6657, as:

a. Agricultural lessees
and share tenants;

b. Regular farmworkers;

c. Seasonal farmworkers;

d. Other farmworkers;

e. Actual tillers or
occupants of public
lands;
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

f. Collectives or
cooperatives of the
above beneficiaries;
and

g. Others directly working


on the land.

Post the master list of CARP-LAD Form


ARBs for fifteen (15) days No. 33 (Master List
in designated areas as of Agrarian Reform
provided in Item V(D.1.d) Beneficiaries)
of this Order. The master CARP-LAD Form
list of ARBs shall be No. 34 (Notice -
accompanied by a notice Master List of
containing a statement Agrarian Reform
that concerned parties Beneficiaries)
may file protest on the
said master list of ARBs
within fifteen (15) days
from the last day of
posting.

D.3.1.e DARMO Obtain a certification of CARP-LAD Form


posting compliance from the No. 26
proper municipal and (Certification of
barangay officials after the Posting
Compliance for List
fifteen (15) day posting
of ARBs)
period, indicating therein the
inclusive dates of posting.

D.3.1.f DARMO If no protest is filed within CARP-LAD Form


fifteen (15) days from the last No. 33-A (Master
day of posting of the master List of Agrarian
list, submit the master list of Reform
Beneficiaries with
ARBs to the BARC for
Provision on BARC
certification and LO Certification and
attestation. LO Attestation)

D.3.2 Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs) in Commercial Farms,


Plantations and Other Landholdings Qualified for Collective Distribution
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

D.3.2.a BSC Review, verify and validate CARP-LAD Form


the updated preliminary list of No. 32 (Updated
potential ARBs submitted by Preliminary List of
the DARMO through the ARB Potential ARBs of
application forms and other CARP)
supporting documents, and
finalize the same based on its
evaluation, fifteen (15) days
from receipt of the updated
preliminary list of potential
ARBs from the DARMO.

D.3.2.b BSC Cause the posting of the


updated preliminary list of
potential ARBs for fifteen (15)
days in at least three (3)
conspicuous places as
enumerated under Item
V(D.1.d) of this Order:

The updated preliminary list


of potential ARBs shall
contain a statement written in
both English and in the local
dialect that concerned parties
may submit to the BSC
through the PARO, a petition
for inclusion or exclusion from
the said list within fifteen (15)
days from the last day of
posting, which should be
stipulated therein.

D.3.2.c BSC Obtain Certification of Posting CARP-LAD Form


Compliance from the proper No. 26
municipal and barangay (Certification of
officials after the fifteen (15) Posting
Compliance for List
day posting period, indicating
of ARBs)
therein the inclusive dates of
posting.

D.3.2.d BSC Schedule the conduct of a


public hearing for petitions for
inclusion and exclusion from
the updated preliminary list of
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

potential ARBs, if any. Said


public hearing/s should
commence no later than thirty
(30) days from the last day of
posting of the updated
preliminary list of potential
ARBs.

D.3.2.e BSC Send by registered mail with CARP-LAD Form


return card, Notice of Public No. 35 (Notice of
Hearing to all potential ARBs, Public Hearing)
which should also be posted CARP-LAD Form
in at least three (3) No. 35-A (General
Notice of Public
conspicuous places in the
Hearing)
commercial farm, plantation
or landholding qualified for
collective distribution.

D.3.2.f BSC Conduct the public hearing/s


on the scheduled date/s with
those who submitted petitions
or protests on the updated
preliminary list of potential
ARBs or other concerned
parties.

D.3.2.g BSC Within thirty (30) days after CARP-LAD Form


the conclusion of public No. 31 (Notice of
hearing/s, evaluate the ARBs Disqualification as
qualifications based on the Agrarian Reform
Beneficiary)
proceedings and documents.

In case one or more


conditions for disqualification
provided under Item IV(E)(3)
of this Order is present,
exclude disqualified
applicants from the updated
preliminary list of potential
ARBs. Thereafter, send a
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

Notice of Disqualification
citing the reason/s therefor,
through personal delivery or
registered mail with return
card.

D.3.2.h BSC Prepare the master list of CARP-LAD Form


ARBs, and prioritize and No. 33 (Master List
classify each qualified ARB, of Agrarian Reform
pursuant to Section 22 of Beneficiaries)
R.A. No. 6657, as amended:

a. Agricultural lessees and


share tenants;

b. Regular farmworkers;

c. Seasonal farmworkers;

d. Other farmworkers;

e. Actual tillers or occupants


of public lands;

f. Collectives or
cooperatives of the above
beneficiaries;

g. Others directly working on


the land.

D.3.2.i BSC Post the master list in the CARP-LAD Form


same manner and for the No. 33 (Master List
same purpose as provided of Agrarian Reform
under Item V.D.1.d of this Beneficiaries)
Order. The Master List of CARP-LAD Form
No. 34 (Notice
ARBs should be
Master List of
accompanied by a notice ARBs)
containing a statement that
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

concerned parties may file


protest on the said Master
List of ARBs within fifteen
(15) days from the last day of
posting.

D.3.2.j BSC Obtain a Certification of CARP-LAD Form


Posting Compliance from the No. 26
proper municipal and (Certification of
barangay officials after the Posting
Compliance for List
fifteen (15) day posting
of ARBs)
period, indicating therein the
inclusive dates of posting.

D.3.2.k BSC In case no protest is filed CARP-LAD Form


within fifteen (15) days from No. 33-A (Master
the last day of posting of the List of Agrarian
master list, transmit the Reform
Beneficiaries with
master list to the DARMO for
Provision on BARC
BARC certification and LO Certification and
attestation. LO Attestation)

D.3.2.l DARMO In case majority of the


qualifying ARBs opt for
collective ownership and the
landholding is not feasible
and sound to divide, based
on the conditions for the
issuance of collective titles as
provided under Item IV(F)(4.1
to 4.4) of this Order, the
following shall be undertaken:

1. Facilitate the
organization and
registration of the
association or cooperative
in coordination with the
appropriate government
agencies, i.e., Cooperative
Development Authority
(CDA), Securities and
Exchange Commission
(SEC) or appropriate non-
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

government agencies,
where applicable.

2. Require the ARBs


cooperative/ association to
submit the following
documents:

Board Resolution
authorizing the specific
member/s of the
association or
cooperative to sign the
application form on
behalf of the
association or
cooperative; and

Articles of
Incorporation and By-
Laws of the
cooperative or
association.

3. In the event that there are


two (2) or more
cooperatives or
associations in the
landholding, determine the
specific area to be allotted
to each cooperative or
association by the drawing
of lots in the presence of
all parties concerned.

D.4 Resolution of Protest in the Selection of

Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs)

D.4.a Potential ARB/s File a written protest for the


or Concerned inclusion in or exclusion from
Parties the master list of ARBs with
the DARPO, not later than
fifteen (15) days from the last
day of posting of the master
list.
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

D.4.b PARO In the case of commercial


farms, plantations, and
landholdings qualified for
collective distribution, order
the BSC to submit all
pertinent records/documents
of the case and conduct an
investigation on the matter.

D.4.c PARO Resolve the petition/protest


within thirty (30) days from
receipt of petition/protest
through summary
proceedings.

D.4.d PARO Pursuant to his/her decision,


instruct the MARO and the
BSC, as the case may be, to
include in the master list the
names of qualified potential
ARBs and/or to exclude the
disqualified ARBs.
Simultaneously inform all
parties concerned of his
decision through registered
mail or personal service, copy
furnished the MARO.

D.4.e DARMO and Based on the PAROs CARP-LAD Form


BSC decision and instruction/s, No. 33-A (Master
finalize the master list of List of Agrarian
ARBs for subsequent BARC Reform
Beneficiaries with
certification and LO
Provision on BARC
attestation. Certification and
LO Attestation)

D.4.f BSC Transmit finalized master list CARP-LAD Form


of ARBs to the MARO for No. 33-A (Master
BARC certification and LO List of Agrarian
Reform
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

attestation. Beneficiaries with


Provision on BARC
Certification and
LO Attestation)

D.5. Barangay Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) Certification and Landowner


(LO) Attestation of Master List of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs)

D.5.a DARMO Submit to the BARC the CARP-LAD Form


master list of ARBs for No. 36 (Transmittal
certification, including the Letter to BARC,
concomitant BARC Re: Certification of
Master List of
Certification form (CARP-LAD
Agrarian Reform
Form No. 33.A.1). Beneficiaries)
CARP-LAD Form
No. 33-A (Master
List of Agrarian
Reform
Beneficiaries with
Provision on BARC
Certification and
LO Attestation)
CARP-LAD Form
No. 33-A.1 (BARC
Certification of
Master List of
ARBs)

D.5.b BARC Upon receipt of the master CARP-LAD Form


list of ARBs and BARC No. 33-A (Master
Certification form from the List of Agrarian
DARMO, the BARC Reform
Chairman or his Beneficiaries with
authorized representative, Provision on BARC
shall review the master list Certification and
of ARBs and certify the LO Attestation)
same under oath before CARP-LAD Form
an authorized No. 33-A.1 (BARC
administering officer, Certification of
affixing his/her signature Master List of
on the said master list of ARBs)
ARBs and the BARC
Certification form, with one
(1) witness signing the
same.
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

Return the certified master CARP-LAD Form


list of ARBs and notarized No. 33-A (Master
BARC Certification to the List of Agrarian
DARMO within fifteen (15) Reform
days from receipt of the Beneficiaries with
master list. Provision on BARC
Certification and
LO Attestation)
CARP-LAD Form
No. 33-A.1 (BARC
Certification of
Master List of
ARBs)

D.5.c DARMO Receive and record the CARP-LAD Form


BARC-certified master list No. 33-A (Master
of ARBs and BARC List of Agrarian
Certification. Reform
Beneficiaries with
Provision on BARC
Certification and
LO Attestation)
CARP-LAD Form
No. 33-A.1 (BARC
Certification of
Master List of
ARBs)

Send to the landowner the CARP-LAD Form


BARC-certified master list No. 37 (Letter to
of ARBs including the LO, Re: Attestation
concomitant Landowner of Master List of
Attestation form (CARP- ARBs)
LAD Form No. 33.A.2) CARP-LAD Form
through personal service No. 33-A (Master
or registered mail with List of Agrarian
return card for attestation Reform
of the LO of his/her/their Beneficiaries with
tenants/lessees/regular Provision on BARC
farmworkers. Certification and
LO Attestation)
CARP-LAD Form
No. 33-A.2
(Landowner
Attestation of
Master List of
ARBs)
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

D.5.d Landowner Upon receipt of the BARC- CARP-LAD Form


certified master list of No. 33-A (Master
ARBs and Landowner List of Agrarian
Attestation form from the Reform
DARMO, attest under oath Beneficiaries with
to the master list of ARBs Provision on BARC
insofar as his/her/their Certification and
share tenants, lessees LO Attestation)
and/or regular
farmworkers in the
landholding are concerned CARP-LAD Form
by indicating his tenant, No. 33-A.2
lessee and regular (Landowner
farmworker among those Attestation of
listed in the master list of Master List of
ARBs, affixing his ARBs)
signature on the same and
on the Landowner
Attestation form, with one
(1) witness signing the
same.

Return the attested master CARP-LAD Form


list and notarized No. 33-A (Master
Landowner Attestation List of Agrarian
form to the DARMO within Reform
fifteen (15) days from Beneficiaries with
receipt of the same. Provision on BARC
Certification and
LO Attestation)
CARP-LAD Form
No. 33-A.2
(Landowner
Attestation of
Master List of
ARBs)

D.5.e DARMO Upon receipt of the LO CARP-LAD Form


attested master list of No. 33-A (Master
ARBs and Landowner List of Agrarian
Attestation on the master Reform
list of ARBs, proceed with Beneficiaries with
the preparation of the Provision on BARC
Application to Purchase Certification and
and Farmers LO Attestation)
Undertaking (APFU) in CARP-LAD Form
accordance with Item No. 33-A.2
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

V(D.7) of this Order, if the (Landowner


LO attested to all the Attestation of
ARBs in the master list. Master List of
ARBs)

In cases where the LO


does not to attest to
specific ARBs or to all
ARBs in the master list of
ARBs and identifies other
ARBs by substitution or
addition whom the LO
claims are his tenants,
lessees or regular
farmworkers, the MARO
shall require the LO to
submit evidence
supporting the
qualification of his
identified ARBs.

Thereafter, submit to the CARP-LAD Form


DARPO a report No. 38 (Report on
regarding the LOs refusal Partial/Full Non-
to attest to specific ARBs Attestation/Inaction
by the LO of the
or to all ARBs in the
Master List of
master list to which he Agrarian Reform
shall attach the Beneficiaries)
documents and other
evidence supporting the
ARB/s qualification as
share tenants,
agricultural lessees or
regular farmworkers, as
submitted by the LO.

If the LO returns the CARP-LAD Form


master list to the DARMO No. 38 (Report on
without attesting to any of Partial/Full Non-
the ARBs in the said list Attestation/Inaction
without comment by the LO on the
whatsoever, or does not Master List of
act at all upon the master Agrarian Reform
list of ARBs after fifteen Beneficiaries)
(15) days from receipt of
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

the same, submit to the


DARPO a report regarding
the matter.

D.5.f DARPO In case of inaction or refusal


of the LO to attest to the
master list of ARBs, instruct
the DARMO to proceed with
the preparation of the APFU
in accordance with Item
V(D.7) of this Order. The right
of the LO to attest to the
master list of ARBs in so far
as the tenants, lessees and
regular farmworkers in his/her
landholdings are concerned is
deemed waived if he fails to
act upon the master list of
ARBs within fifteen (15) days
from receipt thereof, and the
master list of ARBS becomes
final and executory pursuant
to Item IV(E)(10) of this
Order.

D.6 Resolution of Landowner (LO) Partial or Full Non-Attestation of

Tenants, Agricultural Lessees or Regular Farmworkers

in the Master List of Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (ARBs)

D.6.a PARO Within fifteen (15) days from


receipt of the report from the
DARMO of the partial or full
non-attestation of the LO to
the master list of ARBs and
his substitution or addition of
other ARBs whom the LO
claims to be his tenants,
lessees or regular
farmworkers, conduct a
revalidation on the
qualifications of the ARBs in
the master list and those
submitted by the LO either as
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

substitutes or additions.

Should the PARO sustain the


master list prepared by the
MARO and certified to by the
BARC subsequent to his
revalidation of ARB
qualifications, return the
same to the DARMO with an
instruction to prepare the
APFUs in accordance with
Item V(D.7) of this Order.

If based on the PAROs CARP-LAD Form


revalidation, there is possible No. 39 (Letter to
merit to the LOs partial or full BARC for the
non-attestation of the master Conduct of
Compulsory
list, and to the qualification of
Arbitration)
other ARBs whom the LO
claims to be his tenants,
lessees or regular
farmworkers, the PARO shall
instruct the BARC to conduct
compulsory arbitration to
resolve the matter and to
make a determination of the
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

qualifications of the ARBs


who were not attested to by
the LO vis--vis the
qualifications of the ARBs
substituted or added by the
LO as his alleged tenants,
lessees or regular
farmworkers, or those who
were simply repudiated by the
LO as his tenants/lessees/
regular farmworkers.

D.6.b BARC Within thirty (30) days


from receipt of the
instruction from the PARO,
conduct a compulsory
arbitration to resolve the
matter and make a
determination of the
qualifications of the ARBs
who were not attested to
by the LO vis--vis the
qualifications of the ARBs
substituted or added by
the LOs as his alleged
tenants, lessees or regular
farmworkers or those who
were simply repudiated by
the LO as his
tenants/lessees/regular
farmworkers.
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

Submit a report of its CARP-LAD Form


findings and include No. 40 (BARC
therein all the pertinent Report of Findings
documents to the PARO on the Compulsory
within five (5) days after Arbitration)
the completion of the Pertinent
compulsory arbitration. Documents

D.6.c PARO Within fifteen (15) days CARP-LAD Form


from receipt of the report No. 40 (BARC
and findings of the BARC Report of Findings
on the compulsory on the Compulsory
arbitration, the PARO shall Arbitration)
undertake an evaluation of
the BARC report and
render his decision.

Should the PAROs CARP-LAD Form


decision affirm the ARBs in No. 33-A (Master
the BARC certified master List of Agrarian
list, return the same to the Reform
DARMO with an instruction Beneficiaries with
to proceed with the Provision on BARC
preparation of the APFU in Certification and
accordance with Item LO Attestation)
V(D.7) of this Order.

If the PAROs decision CARP-LAD Form


fully or partially sustains No. 41 (Master List
the LOs partial or full non- of Agrarian Reform
attestation of the master Beneficiaries as
list of ARBs and his Finalized by the
substitution or addition of PARO per
other potential ARBs, he Resolution on LO
shall finalize the master Non-Attestation)
list of ARBs and
thereafter, forward the
same to DARMO with the
instruction to proceed with
the preparation of the
APFU in accordance with
Item V(D.7) of this Order.
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

D.6.d DARMO Based on the master list of CARP-LAD Form


ARBs finalized by the PARO, No. 41 (Master List
prepare the APFU for signing of Agrarian Reform
of the ARBs in accordance Beneficiaries as
Finalized by the
with Item V(D.7) of this Order.
PARO per
Resolution on LO
Non-Attestation)
CARP-LAD Form
No. 42 (Application
to Purchase and
Farmers
Undertaking
{APFU})

D.7 Preparation of the Application to Purchase and

Farmers Undertaking (APFU)

D.7.a DARMO Upon receipt of the BARC CARP-LAD Form


certified and LO-attested No. 42 (Application
master list of ARBs or the to Purchase and
master list of ARBs finalized Farmers
by the PARO, undertake the Undertaking
following: {APFU})
CARP-LAD Form
1. Prepare the APFU; No. 43 (Letter to
ARBs Regarding
2. Coordinate with a city/ the Schedule of the
municipal judge on the APFU Signing)
schedule for the swearing
under oath of the APFU by
the ARBs; and

3. Notify the qualified ARBs


of the subject
landholding/s by personal
service or registered mail
with return card regarding
the schedule of a meeting
with the DARMO on the
APFU, and if applicable,
the signing and swearing
to under oath of the APFU
before a judge on the said
date.
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

D.7.b DARMO Conduct meeting with the


ARBs on the scheduled date
to:

1. Explain the following:

1.1 Importance,
necessity and
significance of
accomplishing and
signing the APFU in
the acquisition and
distribution of lands
covered by CARP;

1.2 Contents of the


APFU, i.e.,
willingness to work
on the land to make it
productive, obligation
to pay land
amortization and land
taxes thereon; and

1.3 Requirement to have


this signed and
sworn to under oath
before a city or
municipal judge.

2. Cause the signing and


swearing to under oath of
the AFPU by the
beneficiaries before a city/
municipal judge.

D.7.c ARB/s Attend the meeting


scheduled by the DARMO
on the APFU.

Sign and swear to the CARP-LAD Form


APFU under oath before a No. 42 (Application
city or municipal judge to Purchase and
during the designated Farmers
schedule per Item Undertaking)
V(D.7.b) of this Order.

D.7.d DARMO In case the concerned CARP-LAD


ARB fails to attend the Form No. 44
scheduled meeting or (Notice to Absent
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

refuses to sign the APFU ARB Re: Waiver of


during the meeting, issue Rights as an ARB
a letter to be duly received for Failure to Sign
by the ARB, or send a the APFU)
notice to the absent ARB CARP-LAD
informing that they have Form No. 45 (Letter
thirty (30) days from to Present ARB Re:
receipt of the letter or Waiver of Rights as
notice, as the case may an ARB for Failure
be, to report to the to Sign the APFU)
DARMO and to sign the
APFU. The said letter or
notice shall state that
ARBs failure to execute
and sign the APFU within
the prescribed period shall
constitute a waiver of right
to become an ARB.

D.7.e DARMO After the APFUs have been


signed and sworn to under
oath by the ARB/s, record and
transmit the same to the
DARPO for inclusion in the
claim folder. Simultaneously,
the MARO, with the
assistance of the BARC shall
undertake the activities
necessary for the ARB
carding and identification
system pursuant to DAR A.O.
No. 03, Series of 2008.

D.7.f MARO In case the qualified ARB


fails to report to the
DARMO within thirty (30)
days from receipt of letter
or notice on the waiver of
rights as an ARB if APFU
is not signed and sworn to
under oath within the
prescribed period
pursuant to Item IV(E.16)
of this Order, the DARMO
shall identify and select
other qualified ARB/s as
replacement giving
consideration to the
desisting ARBs immediate
farm household
member/s, if qualified, in
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

accordance with Item


IV(F)(1.2) of this Order.

In the case of commercial CARP-LAD Form


farms and plantations, No. 46 (Report on
prepare a report on the the ARBs Failure
ARBs failure or refusal to or Refusal to Sign
sign the APFU and send APFU)
the same to the BSC,
through the DARPO, for
identification and selection
of another qualified ARB
as replacement.

E. REVIEW, EVALUATION AND PROCESSING OF CLAIM FOLDERS (CFs)


(See CARP-LAD Annex I for the Process Flow)

E.1 DARPO Attach the Field CARP-LAD Form


Investigation Report (FIR), No. 23 (Field
ASP, land use map, APFU Investigation
and Land Distribution Report)
Information Schedule ASP
(LDIS) to the claim folder Land Use Map
(CF) for verification and CARP-LAD Form
evaluation by the DAR- No. 42 (Application
LBP-Pre-Processing Unit to Purchase and
(PPU). Farmers
Undertaking)
CARP-LAD Form
No. 47 (Land
Distribution
Information
Schedule)

E.2 DAR-LBP- PPU Verify and evaluate the CARP-LAD Form


CF. If found sufficient and No. 48 (Checklist of
complete, prepare Required
checklist of required Documents with
documents in the Recommendation
processing of claim folder Signed Jointly by
and corresponding the DAR-LBP-PPU)
recommendation on the CF
matter, and forward the
same to DARPO for
appropriate action.
Otherwise, facilitate the
completion of the
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

data/documents.

E.3 DARPO Based on the CARP-LAD Form


recommendation of the No. 49
DAR-LBP-PPU, prepare (Memorandum
request to value the land Request to Value
and forward the same, Land)
together with the CF to
LBP-AOC.

F. LAND VALUATION AND COMPENSATION


(See CARP-LAD Annex J for the Process Flow)

F.1 Determination of Land Value

F.1.a LBP-AOC Acknowledge receipt of CF LBP


from the DARPO. Acknowledgement

F.1.b LBP-AOC Determine the land value. CF


If the land value exceeds LBP Transmittal
the approving limit of the Letter
LBP-Agrarian Operations
Center (AOC)/Regional
Head, forward the CF
using the LBP Transmittal
Letter, together with the
determined land value of
the subject landholding, to
LBP-Head Office (HO) for
further evaluation and
approval.

Furnish the DARPO a Copy of LBP


copy of its Transmittal Transmittal Letter
Letter to LBP-HO, for
reference.

F.1.c LBP-AOC/HO Upon completion of the land CARP-LAD Form


valuation of the landholding, No. 50
prepare and send (Memorandum of
Memorandum of Valuation Valuation)
(MOV) with Land Valuation Land Valuation
Worksheet (LVW) to DARPO. Worksheet

F.1.d DARPO Receive and review the MOV


with LVW from LBP and
undertake the following:
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

a. Prepare and send the CARP-LAD Form


Notice of Land Valuation No. 51 (Notice of
and Acquisition (NLVA) to Land Valuation and
LO together with copies of Acquisition)
the MOV, LVW and LOs CARP-LAD Form
Reply Form through No. 50
personal service with proof (Memorandum of
of receipt or by registered Valuation) with
mail with return card; Land Valuation
Worksheet
CARP-LAD Form
No. 52 (LOs Reply
to NLVA)

b. Send a copy of the NLVA CARP-LAD Form


to DARMO for posting for No. 51 (Notice of
seven (7) days at the Land Valuation and
barangay and Acquisition)
municipal/city halls where CARP-LAD Form
the property is located. No. 7 (Certification
Thereafter, the DARMO of Posting
shall obtain a Certification Compliance)
of Posting Compliance
from proper municipal or
barangay official; and

F.1.e DARPO Prepare and send to LBP the CARP-LAD Form


Order to Deposit LO No. 53 (Order to
Compensation. Deposit LO
Compensation)

F.1.f LBP-AOC/HO Upon receipt of the Order CARP-LAD Form


to Deposit, issue a No. 54
Certification of Deposit (Certification of
(COD), pre-numbered per Deposit)
region, to DARPO.

Notify the LO regarding LBP Notification to


the Certification of Deposit LO on COD
(COD) issued to DARPO, Issuance
including therein the LBP Checklist of pre-
Checklist of Pre-Payment payment
Requirements for Release requirements for
of Claims. release of claims

F.1.g DARPO Receive the Certification of CARP-LAD Form


Deposit (COD) from LBP- No. 54
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

AOC/HO. (Certification of
Deposit)

F.1.h LO Within thirty (30) days from CARP-LAD Form


receipt of the NLVA, send No. 52 (LOs Reply
reply on the same to DARPO to NLVA)
using CARP-LAD Form No.
52.

F.1.i DARPO Receive and forward LOs CARP-LAD Form


reply to LBP on whether the No. 52 (LOs Reply
land value is accepted or to NLVA)
rejected by the LO. CARP-LAD Form
No. 55 (Transmittal
In case the LO fails to reply of LOs Reply to
within thirty (30) days from NLVA)
receipt of the NLVA, notify the
LBP on the matter.

F.1.j LO Submit to LBP-AOC/HO the Required


documents required for documents for
payment of compensation payment of
claim compensation
claims

F.2 Compensation to Landowner (LO)

F.2.1 Landowner (LO) Accepts the Land Valuation

F.2.1.a DARPO Forward the Certification of CARP-LAD Form


Deposit to the ROD together No. 56 (Request to
with the ASP and Technical Issue TCT/OCT in
Description of the the Name of RP)
landholding, and request for CARP-LAD Form
the: (1) cancellation of LOs No. 54
title for the landholding (Certification of
covered by CARP; (2) Deposit)
issuance of Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT)/
Original Certificate of Title
(OCT) in the name of RP; and
(3) issuance of title to the
LOs retained area if still
applicable per Item V(B.1.e)
of this Order.
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

F.2.1.b ROD Issue TCT (for titled lands) or Owners Duplicate


OCT (for untitled lands) in the Copy of TCT/OCT
name of RP and forward the in the name of the
Owners Duplicate Certificate RP
of RP Title to DARPO. Owners Duplicate
Likewise, issue TCT for the Copy of TCT/OCT
LOs retained area and send in the name of the
the Owners Duplicate LO
Certificate (ODC) of title to
LO.

F.2.1.c DARPO Receive and record the CARP-LAD Form


Owners Duplicate Certificate No. 57 (Transmittal
of RP Title from the ROD and to LBP of Copy of
furnish a certified photocopy RP Title)
of the same to the LBP-
AOC/HO and the DARRO.

F.2.1.d LBP-AOC/HO Upon receipt of a certified


photocopy of ODC of RP Title
from DARPO and compliance
of all pre-payment
requirements by the LO,
undertake the following:

a. Accomplish the LBP LBP Payment


Payment Release Form; Release Form
and

b. Pay the concerned LO and


mortgagee-banks/
creditors, if encumbered.

F.2.2 Landowner (LO) Rejects Land Valuation or Fails to Respond

F.2.2.a LBP-AOC/HO Receive LOs reply CARP-LAD Form


rejecting the land No. 52 (LOs Reply
valuation or notice of LOs to NLVA)
failure to reply within thirty CARP-LAD Form
(30) days from receipt of No. 55 (Transmittal
the NLVA from the of LOs Reply to
DARPO. NLVA)

F.2.2.b DARPO Forward a copy of the CARP-LAD Form


Certification of Deposit to No. 54
the ROD together with the (Certification of
ASP, and Technical Deposit)
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

Description of the CARP-LAD Form


landholding, and request No. 56 (Request to
for the: (1) cancellation of Issue TCT/OCT in
LOs title for landholding the name of RP)
covered by CARP; (2)
issuance of TCT/OCT in
the name of RP; and (3)
issuance of title for the
LOs retained area.

Advise the Regional CARP-LAD Form


Agrarian Reform No. 58 (Advice to
Adjudicator (RARAD)/ PARAD/RARAD)
Provincial Agrarian Copy of CARP-
Reform Adjudicator LAD Form No. 52
(PARAD) to conduct (LOs Reply to
summary administrative NLVA) or proof of
proceedings in view of the service if no reply
LOs rejection of the value Copy of CARP-
offered for his/her land or LAD Form No. 51
LOs failure to reply to the (Notice of Land
NLVA within the thirty-day Valuation and
prescribed period upon Acquisition)
receipt of the same. A
copy of LOs Rejection
Letter and/or NLVA, as the
case may be, shall be
attached to CARP-LAD
Form No. 58 (Advice to
PARAD/RARAD).

F.2.2.c ROD Issue TCT/OCT in the name Owners Duplicate


of RP and forward the Copy of TCT/OCT
Owners Duplicate Certificate in the name of the
of RP Title to DARPO. RP
Likewise, issue TCT/OCT for Owners Duplicate
the LOs retained area and Copy of title in the
send the Owners Duplicate name of the LO
Certificate of title to LO.

F.2.2.d DARPO Receive and record the


Owners Duplicate Certificate
of RP Title from the ROD and
furnish a certified photocopy
of the same to the LBP-
AOC/HO and the DARRO.

F.2.2.e PARAD/RARAD Simultaneous with the


issuance of TCT/OCT in the
name of RP, conduct
summary administrative
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

proceedings, render a
decision and inform parties
concerned on the matter in
accordance with DARAB
Rules and Procedures, copy
furnished the DARPO and
DARRO.

F.2.2.f LO/LBP/DARP In case the LO or


O LBP/DAR rejects the
DARAB decision, the LO
or LBP/DAR files a land
valuation case with the
Special Agrarian Court
(SAC) within the
reglementary period of
fifteen (15) days.

Should the decision attain


finality, DARPO/LBP/LO
moves for issuance of Writ
of Execution in
accordance with the
DARAB Rules and
Procedures.

Should the LO opt to


accept either the original
or recomputed value by
the LBP, he shall so
manifest in writing and
pray for a resolution based
on the same.

Forward to LBP the


original copy of the
Certificate of Finality/Writ
of execution. Thereafter
the LBP follows
procedures in Item
V(F.2.1.d) of this Order.

G. PREPARATION AND PROCESSING OF


LAND DISTRIBUTION FOLDER (LDF)

(See CARP-LAD Annex K for the Process Flow)

G.1 DARPO Upon receipt of the LBPs CARP-LAD Form


Certification of Deposit (COD) No. 59 (PAROs
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

and Owners Duplicate Directive to the


Certificate of RP title from MARO to Take
ROD, the PARO shall direct Actual and Physical
the Municipal Agrarian Reform Possession of the
Officer (MARO) to take Landholding
possession of the land and Acquired under
proceed with the preparation CARP), copy
of the Land Distribution Folder furnished the
of the subject land, attaching landowner
all the required documentation Certified ODC of
relative to the transfer of the RP title
land to the Government of the Certified Copy of
Philippines (GOP), and the Deed of Transfer
LBPs COD. The LO shall be Certified Copy of
furnished a copy of the Certification of
PAROs memorandum to the Deposit from LBP
MARO (CARP-LAD Form No.
59).

G.2 DARMO Upon receipt of the PAROs


memorandum directing
him/her to take actual
possession of the landholding
and the related documents
forwarded by the DARPO,
record the same.

G.3 DARMO Based on the master list, CARP LAD Form


APFU, and ASP, send a letter No. 60 (Letter to
to each qualified ARB Qualified ARB
informing him/her of the land Allocating Area of
allocated as his/her area of Award)
award under CARP, or to the
ARB cooperative association
in the case of commercial
farms, plantations and other
lands for collective
distribution, informing it on
the same.

G.4 DARMO Prepare and forward the Land LDF containing the
Distribution Folder (LDF) to documents as
the DARPO. The LDF shall stipulated under the
contain the copies of the activity
following documents on file at CARP LAD Form
DARMO: No. 61 (LDF
Transmittal Memo)
a. Master list of ARB/s of the
subject landholding
certified by the BARC and
attested by LO or passed
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

upon by the PARO in so


far as the tenants, lessees
and regular farmworkers
are concerned;

b. Application to Purchase
and Farmers Undertaking
(APFU)

c. Duly received copy of the


letters to qualified ARBs
allocating area of award;

D. DENR-LMS Approved
Survey Plan (ASP);

e. Copy of the TCT/OCT in


the name of the Republic
of the Philippines; and

f. LDF Transmittal
Memorandum.

H. GENERATION, REGISTRATION AND ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATES OF


LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD (CLOAs)
(See CARP-LAD Annex L for the Process Flow)

H.1 DARPO Upon receipt from DARMO of LDF


the LDF pursuant to Items
V(G.4) of this Order, review all
documents contained in the
LDF to ensure that these are
complete and in order. In case
of incomplete documents,
require the DARMO to submit
the pertinent documents
within seven (7) days from
receipt of instructions from
DARPO.

H.2 DARPO In case ARBs opt for Judicial Forms


collective ownership and it is CLOA-Titles
not feasible/sound to divide
the landholding, generate a
collective CLOA (Original and
Owners Duplicate Certificate)
for the landholding in favor of
the ARBs cooperative or
association, wherein all
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

names of the ARBs, following


the lead name on the face of
the certificate of title, shall be
typewritten on the succeeding
pages of the title, with each
name numbered
consecutively, from 1
onwards, alphabetically
arranged and reflecting the
complete names (given,
middle & surnames) of the
ARBs. After the last
typewritten name of ARBs,
and immediately below a
demarcating line, the words
nothing follows shall be
typed.

In the case of individual


ownership, generate a CLOA
(original and owners
duplicate) in the name of
each ARB, based on existing
guidelines on the generation
of CLOA.

H.3 DARPO Ensure that all CLOAs shall


contain the following
annotation of lien in favor of
the LBP stipulating the
following:

ANNOTATION

The parcel of land described


in this CLOA is encumbered
in favor of:

LAND BANK OF THE


PHILIPPINES

to ensure full payment of its


value pursuant to R.A. No.
6657, as amended, by the
agrarian reform
beneficiaries/farmers
cooperative or farmers
association named herein

Date__________
______________________
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

Provincial Agrarian Reform


Officer.

The PARO shall affix his/her


initial on all copies of the
CLOA (original owners and
co-owners duplicate
certificates).

H.4 DARPO Prepare the corresponding CARP-LAD Annex


Judicial Forms Utilization C (Judicial Forms
Worksheet in accordance with Utilization
the systems and procedures Worksheet)
for the requisition, issuance,
utilization and accounting of
CLOA Judicial Forms.

H.5 DARPO Keep on file the LDF LDF


containing the supporting Generated CLOAs
documents and forward the CARP-LAD Annex
generated CLOA including C (Judicial Forms
Judicial Forms Utilization Utilization
Worksheet to DARRO. Worksheet)

H.6 DARRO Review and validate the Generated CLOAs


generated CLOAs. If in order,
the Regional Director shall
affix his/her initial on all
duplicate copy of the CLOAs
original owners or co-owners
copy. In case of
inconsistencies and
incomplete data or
information, notify the DARPO
for appropriate action.

H.7 DARRO Return erroneously generated


CLOAs to DARPO for
correction, together with
pertinent documents. Only
error-free CLOAs shall be
recommended for signature of
the Secretary pursuant to
existing guidelines on judicial
forms and signing and sealing
machines.

H.8 DARRO Forward signed and sealed Signed and sealed


CLOAs and the corresponding CLOAs
recording sheet with CARP-LAD Form
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

transmittal memorandum to No. 62 (Transmittal


DARPO for registration. Memorandum Re:
Registration of
CLOA)
CARP-LAD Annex
D (Signing and
Sealing Machine
Utilization
Recording and
Reporting Sheet)

H.9 DARPO Upon receipt from the DARRO


of the signed and sealed
CLOA, the following shall be
undertaken:

1. Record signed and sealed


CLOAs and enter the
same in the CLOA
Registry Book of the
Registry of Deeds (ROD)
maintained in the DARPO;
and

2. Forward the signed and Signed and Sealed


sealed CLOAs to the ROD CLOAs/ Titles
for registration.

H.10 ROD Subsequent to the registration


of CLOA, release the original
Owners Duplicate Copy
(ODC) of CLOA-Titles to LBP-
AOC.

H.11 LBP-AOC Receive the original ODC of


CLOA-Title and provide two
(2) certified true copies of
each CLOA closely simulating
the appearance, color and
paper of the same, to DARPO
and the ARBs or the ARBs
cooperative/association in the
case of collective CLOAs. The
ODC of CLOA-title shall be
released to the ARBs upon full
payment of their amortizations
on the land.
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

H.12 DARPO Upon receipt of the Original LBP


original LBP certified true certified true copies
copies of the ODC of of the Owners
CLOA-Titles from LBP- Duplicate Copy
AOC, record title number (ODC) of CLOA-
and date of registration in Titles
the CLOA Registry Book.

In the case of collective


CLOAs, reproduce and
certify the copy for each
member of the ARB
cooperative/ association.

Transmit to the DARMO a Original LBP


copy of the LBP certified certified true copies
true copies of the ODC of of the ODC of
CLOA-Titles (in case of CLOA-Titles
individual CLOAs) or copy Photocopy of the
of the LBP certified true certified true copies
copies of the ODC of of the ODC of
CLOA-Titles and the CLOA-Titles
certified photocopy of the
same (in case of collective
CLOAs) for distribution to
ARBs.

Retain a copy of the


original LBP certified true
copies of ODC of CLOA
titles, a copy for DARPOs
file and reference.

I. ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD


(CLOA-TITLE)

(See CARP-LAD Annex M for the Process Flow)

I.1 DARMO Subsequent to the receipt


from the DARPO of the
certified true copy of the ODC
of CLOA-Title and certified
photocopies of the same, in
case of collective CLOAs,
undertake the following:
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

1. Record ODC of CLOA- Certified true


Title; copies of ODC of
CLOA-Title

2. Distribute LBP certified Certified true


true copies of ODC of copies of ODC of
CLOA-title to the individual CLOA-Titles
ARB or the ARBs
cooperative/association,
as the case may be;

3. In the case of collective


CLOAs, furnish each of
the ARB cooperative/
association members a
certified photocopy of the
ODC of CLOA-Title;

4. Assist ARBs in securing


the corresponding Tax
Declaration from the
Assessors/Treasurers
Office at the time the
CLOA-Title is distributed;
and

5. Maintain a Record Book of Index Card of


all CLOA-titles issued ARBs
within the municipality and
received by the ARBs, and
prepare index cards for
each of the ARBs/ARB
cooperatives/
associations.

I.2 DARMO For purposes of monitoring CARP-LAD Form


and the data base, prepare No. 63 (Monthly
and submit to the DARPO a Report on CLOA
monthly report on CLOA/s Distributed)
distributed to ARBs using
CARP-LAD Form No. 65.

J. INSTALLATION OF ARB CLOA-TITLE HOLDERS


(See CARP-LAD Annex N for the Process Flow)
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

J.1 DARMO Upon receipt by the ARBs of


the certified true copy of ODC
CLOA, conduct a
briefing/orientation with the
concerned ARBs to:

1. explain the rights and


responsibilities of the
ARBs as the new
landowners, and ensure
that they understand that
they are empowered and it
is incumbent upon them,
even without the
assistance from the DAR,
to assert their rights at all
times to have peaceful
and productive possession
of the land; and

2. inform them that they may


take physical and actual
possession of the land
awarded to them under
CARP, and they shall start
paying Real Property
Taxes to the LGU
Municipal Assessors
Office and the land
amortization payments to
the LBP one (1) year from
the date of CLOA
registration or if the
occupancy took place
after the CLOA
registration, one (1) year
after the ARBs actual
occupancy of the land.

J.2 DARMO In case the ARB is unable to


take possession of the subject
land, or in the case of
contentious landholdings, the
following shall be undertaken
subsequent to the conduct of
briefing/orientation to
concerned ARBs under Item
J.1.1 of this Order:
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

1. Invite the concerned CARP-LAD Form


ARB/ARBs No. 64 (Invitation to
representative, Barangay the ARB
Agrarian Reform Council Installation
(BARC) Chair, or in the Planning
absence thereof, the Conference/
Barangay Council, Non- Meeting for ARB,
Governmental CLOA-Title
Organizations/Peoples Holders,
Organization (NGOs/ BARC/Brgy.
POs), and other support or Council,
interest groups to an NGOs/POs/Other
installation planning Support Groups )
conference/meeting; CARP-LAD Form
No. 65 (Invitation to
the ARB Installation
Planning
Conference/
Meeting for Co-
Owners/Collective
ARB CLOA-Title
Holders)

2. With the assistance of a


representative from the
DARPO, conduct an
installation planning
conference/meeting with
the abovementioned
stakeholders to:

Define and clarify the


responsibilities and
role of the parties
involved in the
installation process;

Determine the
schedule of installation
of the concerned
ARBs; and

Determine the
necessity of police
and/or military support
in the installation
process.

3. If deemed necessary, CARP-LAD Form


request the DARPO to No. 66 (Request for
coordinate with the DILG-
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

PNP and DND-AFP to Assistance of the


provide assistance in the DILG-PNP/DND-
physical installation of AFP in the
concerned ARBs. Installation
Proceedings)

J.3 DARPO Upon receipt of the request


from the DARMO, the
following shall be undertaken:

1. Prepare and send a letter CARP-LAD Form


duly signed by the PARO No. 67 (PAROs
to the DILG-PNP or the Request for DILG-
DND-AFP requesting for PNP/DND-AFP
assistance in the physical Assistance in the
installation of ARB/s in the Installation of the
subject landholding; ARB CLOA-Title
Holders)

2. Provide the DILG-PNP/


DND-AFP the necessary
information/background of
the installation process;

3. Furnish a copy of the Approved Request


approved request from from DILG-
DILG-PNP or DND-AFP PNP/DND-AFP
on the physical installation
of ARB/s and instruct the
DARMO to proceed with
the physical installation of
ARB/s.

J.4 DARMO Upon receipt of approved


request from the DILG-
PNP/DND-AFP and
instruction from the DARPO,
undertake the following:

1. Inform the concerned CARP-LAD Form


ARBs on the scheduled No. 68-A (Notice to
date of installation Qualified ARBs
proceedings on the {For Co-Owners/
awarded land as agreed Collective CLOA-
upon during the planning Title Holders})
conference/meeting; CARP-LAD Form
No. 68-B ( Notice
to Qualified ARBs
{For Individual ARB
CLOA-Title
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

Holders})

2. Together with the CARP-LAD Form


concerned police/military No. 69 (Report on
personnel, install the Physical
ARBs on the scheduled Installation of
date and prepare report ARBs)
on the matter for
submission to DARPO for
reference.

3. In case the landowner CARP-LAD Form


refuses to relinquish No. 70 (Report on
possession of the Landowners
landholding, report the Refusal to Give Up
same to DARPO for Possession of
evaluation and appropriate Landholding)
action.

J.5 DARPO Receive, record and evaluate


the report of DARMO. If
warranted, file a criminal case
against the concerned
landowner and inform the
DARMO on the matter.

J.6 DARMO Conduct monthly inspections


on installed ARB CLOA-title
holders for a period of at least
six (6) months or until the
situation stabilizes in the
subject landholding to
determine if the installed ARB
CLOA-title holder/s is/are still
in physical possession of the
land.

In case the installed ARB


CLOA-title holder/s is/are no
longer in physical possession
of the awarded land due to
harassment or ejection by the
landowner, the following shall
be undertaken:

1. Assist the concerned


ARB/s in reporting the
threat/harassment or
ejection attempts of the
landowner to the police/
military;
STEPS DAR OFFICE/ ACTIVITY FORMS/DOCUMENT
AGENCY/ S REQUIRED
PERSON
RESPONSIBLE

2. Prepare a comprehensive
documentation report; and

3. Submit the report to the CARP-LAD Form


DARPO for the filing of No. 71 (Report on
appropriate legal action Harassment/
against the concerned Ejection of Installed
parties and plan for re- ARB CLOA-Title
possession of the subject Holders)
landholding by the
displaced ARBs.

VI. TRANSITORY PROVISION

With respect to cases where the Master List of ARBs has been finalized on or before
July 1, 2009 pursuant to Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 2003, the acquisition
and distribution of landholdings shall continue to be processed under the provisions
of R.A. No. 6657 prior to its amendment by R.A. No. 9700.

However, with respect to land valuation, all Claim Folders received by LBP prior to
July 1, 2009 shall be valued in accordance with Section 17 of R.A. No. 6657 prior to
its amendment by R.A. No. 9700.

VII. REPEALING CLAUSE

All orders, circulars, issuances or portions thereof inconsistent herewith are hereby
revoked, cancelled or modified as the case may be.

VIII. EFFECTIVITY

This Order shall take effect ten (10) days after its publication in two (2) newspapers of
general circulation pursuant to Section 49 of R.A. No. 6657.

Quezon City, Metro Manila, October 15, 2009


NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN

Secretary

Exemptions and Exclusions

Sec. 10 of RA 6657, as amended byRA 7881(1995), specifically enumerates the exemptions and
exclusions from CARP, as follows:

a) Lands actually, directly or exclusively used for parks and wild-life, forest reserves, reforestation,
fish sanctuaries and breedinggrounds, watersheds and mangroves (Rep. Act No. 6657[1988], sec.
10[a], as amended byRep. Act No. 7881[1995]).

b) Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawnfarms and fishponds: Provided,
That said prawn farms and fishpondshave not been distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership
Award(CLOA) issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs) under CARP(Sec. 10 [b]).

c) Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to benecessary for national defense, school
sites and campuses, includingexperimental farm stations operated by public or private schools for
educational purposes, seeds and seedling research and pilot productioncenter, church sites and
convents appurtenant thereto, mosque sites andIslamic centers appurtenant thereto, communal
burial grounds andcemeteries, penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by theinmates,
government and private research and quarantine centers and alllands with eighteen percent (18%)
slope and over, except those alreadydeveloped (Sec. 10 [c]).

Lands devoted to raising of livestock, swine and poultry.The Luz Farms Case.

Before its amendment byRA 7881, Sec. 3(b) of RA 6657included in its definition of agricultural
activity the "raising of livestock, poultry or fish".Likewise, the original Sec. 11 of RA 6657on
commercial farming providedthat "lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine raising
shall besubject to compulsory acquisition within ten (10) years from the effectivity of the Act."
However, the Supreme Court in

Luz Farms vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform , supra

, held that Sec. 3 (b) and Sec. 11 of RA 6657(along with Sec. 13and 32) are unconstitutional in far as
they include the raising of livestock andswine in the coverage of CARP.

Facts:
Petitioner Luz Farms is a corporation engaged in livestock and poultry business. It seeks to nullify
Sec. 3 (b) and Sec. 11 of RA6657 in so far as they apply to livestock and poultry business.

Held:

Sec. 3 (b) and Sec. 11 of RA 6657 are unconstitutional in so far asthey include lands devoted to
raising livestock, swine and poultrywithin its coverage. The use of land is incidental to but not the
principal factor or consideration of productivity in this industry. TheSupreme Court held that:

The transcripts of deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning of the
word "agricultural," clearly show that itwas never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to
includelivestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the constitutionally-mandated agrarian
reform program of the government.

The Committee adopted the definition of "agricultural land" asdefined under Section 166 of RA
3844, as land devoted to anygrowth, including but not limited to crop lands, saltbeds, fishponds,idle
and abandoned land (Record, CONCOM, August 7, 1986, Vol.III, p. 11).

The Supreme Court noted that the intention of the Committee to limitthe application of the word
"agriculture" is further shown by the proposal of Commissioner Jamir to insert the word "arable"
todistinguish this kind of agricultural land from such lands ascommercial and industrial lands and
residential properties. The proposal, however, was not considered because the
Committeecontemplated that agricultural lands are limited to arable and suitableagricultural lands
and therefore, do not include commercial,industrial and residential lands (Record, CONCOM, 7
August 1986,Vol. III, p. 30).Moreover, in his answer to Commissioner Regalado's
interpellation,Commissioner Tadeo clarified that the term "farmworker" was usedinstead of
"agricultural worker" in order to exclude therein piggery, poultry and livestock workers (Record,
CONCOM, August 2, 1986,Vol. II, p. 621).

DAR AO 9 (1993)imposes two (2) conditions in order that these lands may be exempted: (a) that the
land or portion thereof is exclusively, directly, or

Alita v. CA

-petition seeking the reversal Court of Appeals decision: 1)Declaring Presidential Decree No.27
inapplicable to lands obtained thru the homestead law; 2) Declaring that the 4 registeredco-owners
will cultivate and operate the farmholding themselves as owners; & 3) Ejectingtenants, namely;
Gabino Alita, Jesus Julian, Sr., Jesus Julian, Jr., Pedro Ricalde, VicenteRicalde and Rolando
Salamar, as the owners would want to cultivate the farmholdingthemselves.-2 parcels of land at
Guilinan, Tungawan, Zamboanga del Sur acquired by respondentsReyes through homestead patent
under Commonwealth Act No. 141- Reyes wants to personally cultivate these lands, but Alita refuse
to vacate, relying on theprovisions of P.D. 27 and P.D. 316 and regulations of MAR/DAR-June 18,
1981: Respondents Reyes (Plaintiff) instituted a complaint against Minister of Agrarian Reform
Estrella, Regional Director of MAR Region IX P.D. Macarambon, and Alitaet.al for the declaration of
P.D. 27 and all other Decrees, Letters of Instructions and GeneralOrders inapplicable to homestead
lands. Defendants Alita filed their answer with special andaffirmative defenses.-July 19, 1982: Reyes
filed urgent motion to enjoin the defendants from declaring the landsin litigation under Operation
Land Transfer and from being issued land transfer certificates-November 5, 1982: Court of Agrarian
Relations 16th Regional District, Branch IV, PagadianCity (Regional Trial Court, 9th Judicial Region,
Branch XVIII) rendered its decision dismissingcomplaint and the motion to enjoinOn January 4,
1983, plaintiffs moved to reconsider the Order of dismissal, to whichdefendants filed their opposition
on January 10, 1983.RTC: issued decision prompting defendants Alita et al to move for
reconsideration but wasdeniedCA: the same was sustained

ISSUE:

whether or not lands obtained through homestead patent are covered by theAgrarian Reform under
P.D. 27.

--NO

We agree with the petitioners Alita et.al in saying that P.D. 27 decreeing the emancipation of tenants
from the bondage of the soil and transferring to them ownership of the land they tillis a sweeping
social legislation, a remedial measure promulgated pursuant to the social justice precepts of the
Constitution. However, such contention cannot be invoked to defeatthe purpose of the enactment of
the Public Land Act or Commonwealth Act No. 141 toprotect ones right to life itself by give a needy
citizen a land wherein they could build ahouse and plant for necessary subsistence.

Art XIII, Sec 6 of the Constitution likewise respects the superiority of the homesteaders' rights over
therights of the tenants guaranteed by the Agrarian Reform statute.Section 6. The State shall apply
the principles of agrarian reform or stewardshipin thedisposition or utilization of other natural
resources, including lands of public domain underlease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject
to prior rights, homestead rights of smallsettlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their
ancestral lands.

Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 or Republic Act No. 6657 likewise supports
theinapplicability of P.D. 27 to lands covered by homestead patents like those of the property
inquestion,

Section 6. Retention Limits. .

Department of Agrarian Reform, represented by Secretary Jose Mari B. Ponce (OIC)vs Delia T.
Sutton, Ella T. Sutton-Soliman and Harry T. Sutton

G.R. No.162070

Facts:

This is a petition for review filed by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) of the Decision
andResolution of the Court of Appeals, dated September 19, 2003 and February 4, 2004,respectively,
which declared DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 9, series of 1993, null and voidfor being
violative of the Constitution.
The case involves a land in Aroroy, Masbate, inherited by respondents which has been
devotedexclusively to cow and calf breeding. On October 26, 1987, pursuant to the then existing
agrarianreform program of the government, respondents made a voluntary offer to sell (VOS) their
landholdings to petitioner DAR to avail of certain incentives under the law.

On June 10, 1988, a new agrarian law, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, also known as
theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) of 1988, took effect. It included in its
coveragefarms used for raising livestock, poultry and swine.

On December 4, 1990, in an en banc

decision in the case of Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR, theCourt ruled that lands devoted to livestock
and poultry-raising are not included in the definition of agricultural land and declared as
unconstitutional certain provisions of the CARL insofar as theyincluded livestock farms in the
coverage of agrarian reform. In view of this, respondents filed withpetitioner DAR a formal request
to withdraw their VOS as their landholding was devotedexclusively to cattle-raising and thus
exempted from the coverage of the CARL.

On December 21, 1992, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer of Aroroy, Masbate,
inspectedrespondents' land and found that it was devoted solely to cattle-raising and breeding.
Herecommended to the DAR Secretary that it be exempted from the coverage of the CARL.

On April 27, 1993, respondents reiterated to petitioner DAR the withdrawal of their VOS
andrequested the return of the supporting papers they submitted in connection therewith. Petitioner
ignored such request.

On December 27, 1993, DAR issued A.O. No. 9, series of 1993, which provided that only portionsof
private agricultural lands used for the raising of livestock, poultry and swine as of June 15,1988 shall
be excluded from the coverage of the CARL. In determining the area of land to beexcluded, the A.O.
fixed the following retention limits,

viz.

: 1:1 animal-land ratio and a ratio of 1.7815 hectares for livestock infrastructure for every 21 heads of
cattle shall likewise be excludedfrom the operations of the CARL. On February 4, 1994, respondents
wrote the DAR Secretary and advised him to consider as finaland irrevocable the withdrawal of their
VOS as, under the Luz Farms doctrine, their entirelandholding is exempted from the CARL.

On September 14, 1995, then DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao issued an Order partiallygranting
the application of respondents for exemption from the coverage of CARL. Applying theretention
limits outlined in the DAR A.O. No. 9, petitioner exempted 1,209 hectares of respondents' land for
grazing purposes, and a maximum of 102.5635 hectares for infrastructure.Petitioner ordered the rest
of respondents' landholding to be segregated and placed under Compulsory Acquisition.

Respondents moved for reconsideration, contending that their entire landholding should
beexempted as it is devoted exclusively to cattle-raising. Said motion was denied. Respondentsfiled a
notice of appeal with the Office of the President assailing: (1) the reasonableness and

validity of DAR A.O. No. 9, s. 1993, which provided for a ratio between land and livestock
indetermining the land area qualified for exclusion from the CARL, and (2) the constitutionality of
DAR A.O. No. 9, s. 1993, in view of the Luz Farms case which declared cattle-raising landsexcluded
from the coverage of agrarian reform. The OP affirmed the impugned order. On appealto CA, the CA
ruled in favor of respondents and declared A.O. No. 9, Series of 1993 as void.

Issue:
Whether or not DAR Administrative Order No. 09, Series of 1993 which prescribes a maximum
retention for owners of lands devoted to livestock raising is constitutional?

Held:

The impugned A.O. is invalid as it contravenes the Constitution. The A.O. sought to
regulatelivestock farms by including them in the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a
maximumretention limit for their ownership. However, the deliberations of the 1987
ConstitutionalCommission show a clear intent to exclude,

inter alia,

all lands exclusively devoted to livestock,swine and poultry-raising. The Court clarified in the Luz
Farms case that livestock, swine andpoultry-raising are industrial activities and do not fall within the
definition of "agriculture" or "agricultural activity." The raising of livestock, swine and poultry is
different from crop or treefarming. It is an industrial, not an agricultural, activity. A great portion of
the investment in thisenterprise is in the form of industrial fixed assets, such as: animal housing
structures andfacilities, drainage, waterers and blowers, feedmill with grinders, mixers, conveyors,
exhausts andgenerators, extensive warehousing facilities for feeds and other supplies, anti-pollution
equipmentlike bio-gas and digester plants augmented by lagoons and concrete ponds, deepwells,
elevatedwater tanks, pumphouses, sprayers, and other technological appurtenance.

Petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which have been exempted by
theConstitution from the coverage of agrarian reform. It has exceeded its power in issuing
theassailed A.O.

Moreover, it is a fundamental rule of statutory construction that the reenactment of a statute


byCongress without substantial change is an implied legislative approval and adoption of
theprevious law. On the other hand, by making a new law, Congress seeks to supersede an earlier
one. In the case at bar, after the passage of the 1988 CARL, Congress enacted R.A. No. 7881which
amended certain provisions of the CARL. Specifically, the new law changed the definitionof the
terms "agricultural activity" and "commercial farming" by dropping from its coverage landsthat are
devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine-raising. With this significantmodification,
Congress clearly sought to align the provisions of our agrarian laws with the intent of the 1987
Constitutional Commission to exclude livestock farms from the coverage of agrarianreform. It is
doctrinal that rules of administrative bodies must be in harmony with the provisions of
theConstitution. They cannot amend or extend the Constitution. To be valid, they must conform
toand be consistent with the Constitution. In case of conflict between an administrative order andthe
provisions of the Constitution, the latter prevails. The assailed A.O. of petitioner DAR wasproperly
stricken down as unconstitutional as it enlarges the coverage of agrarian reform beyondthe scope
intended by the 1987 Constitution.

Agrarian Law

Agrarian Reform; exclusion and exemption from coverage. The deliberations of the 1987
Constitutional Commission show a clear intent to exclude, inter alia, all lands exclusively devoted to
livestock, swine and poultry-raising from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program. Petitioners admission that, since 2001, it leased another ranch for its own livestock is fatal
to its cause. The SC, in this case, accorded respect to the CAs observation that the assailed MARO
reports and the Investigating Teams Report do not actually contradict one another, finding that the
43 cows, while owned by petitioner, were actually pastured outside the subject property. Milestone
Farms, Inc. v. Office of the President, G.R. No. 182332, February 23, 2011.

Central Mindanao University v. Exec SecretaryMiscellaneous

Sean
SUMMARY: (PROC 310 UNCONSTITUTIONAL)The education of the youth and agrarian reform are
admittedly among the highest priorities inthe government socio-economic programs. In this case,
neither need give way to the other.

THUS, THE LANDS BY THEIR CHARACTER HAVE BECOME INALIENABLE FROM THE
MOMENTPRESIDENT GARCIA DED

ICATED THEM FOR CMU

S USE IN SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICALRESEARCH IN THE FIELD OF AGRICULTURE.


THEY HAVE CEASED TO BE ALIENABLE PUBLIC LANDS.

Besides, when Congress enacted the Indigeno

us Peoples Rights Act (IPRA) or Republic Act

8371 in 1997, it provided in Section 56 that "property rights within the ancestral domains
alreadyexisting and/or vested" upon its effectivity "shall be recognized and respected." In this
case,ownership over the subject lands had been vested in CMU as early as 1958.
Consequently,transferring the lands in 2003 to the indigenous peoples around the area is not in
accord withthe IPRA.NATURE: Concerns the constitutionality of a presidential proclamation that
takes property froma state university, over its objections, for distribution to indigenous peoples and
culturalcommunities.FACTS:-

Petitioner Central Mindanao University (CMU) is a chartered educational institutionowned and run
by the State.-

In 1958, the President issued Presidential Proclamation 476, reserving 3,401 hectares oflands of the
public domain in Musuan, Bukidnon, as school site for CMU.-

Forty-five years later or on January 7, 2003 President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo issuedPresidential


Proc

lamation 310 that takes 670 hectares from CMUs registered lands for

distribution to indigenous peoples and cultural communities in Barangay Musuan,Maramag,


Bukidnon.-

CMU filed a petition for prohibition against respondents Executive Secretary, et alseeking to stop the
implementation of Presidential Proclamation 310 and have itdeclared unconstitutional.-

The NCIP, et al moved to dismiss the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of theMalaybalay RTC
over the action SINCE jurisdiction lies with the Manila RTC. - DENIED-

NCIP

filed a MR

GRANTED

motion partial reconsideration and dismissed CMUs

action for lack of jurisdiction.-

THE RTC RULED THAT PRESIDENTIAL PROCLAMATION 310 WAS CONSTITUTIONAL, BEING
AVALID STATE ACT. THE RTC SAID THAT THE ULTIMATE OWNER OF THE LANDS IS THE
STATEAND THAT CMU MERELY HELD THE SAME IN ITS BEHALF.

CMU filed for MR

DENIED-

Appeal to the CA, the C

A dismissed CMUs appeal for lack of jurisdiction,

CMU filed for MR denied-

THUS - CMU to file the present petition for review.ISSUES:1. Whether or not the CA erred in not
finding that the RTC erred in dismissing its action for prohibition against NCIP, et al for lack of
jurisdiction and at the same time ruling thatPresidential Proclamation 310 is valid and
constitutional;

2. Whether or not the CA correctly dismissed CMUs appeal on the ground that it raised purely

questions of law that are proper for a petition for review filed directly with this Court; and3. Whether
or not Presidential Proclamation 310 is valid and constitutional.HELD: PETITION GRANTED

Proclamation 310 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL - null and void for beingcontrary to law and public
policy.RATIO:

The Courts Rulings

The key question lies in the character of the lands taken from CMU. In

CMU v.Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB)


,the DARAB, a nationalgovernment agency charged with taking both privately-owned and
government-owned agricultural lands for distribution to farmers-beneficiaries, ordered
thesegregation for this purpose of 400 hectares of CMU lands. The Court nullified theDARAB action
considering the inalienable character of such lands, being part of thelong term functions of an
autonomous agricultural educational institution.

DAR v. DECS

Petition for review on certiorari to set aside decision of CA which denied petitioners motionfor
reconsideration-Lot No.2509 and Lot No. 817-D consists of an aggregate area of 189.2462 hectares
locatedat Hacienda Fe, Escalante, Negros Occidental and Brgy. Gen. Luna, Sagay, NegrosOccidental,
respectively. On October 21, 1921, these lands were donated by Esteban Jalandoni to respondent
DECS. Titles were transferred in the name of respondent DECS.-DECS leased the lands to Anglo
Agricultural Corporation for 10 agricultural crop years,commencing from crop year 1984-1985 to
crop year 1993-1994. The contract of lease wassubsequently renewed for another 10 agricultural crop
years, commencing from crop year1995-1996 to crop year 2004-2005.-June 10, 1993: Eugenio Alpar
et.al, claim to be permanent and regular farm workers of thesubject lands, filed a petition for
Compulsory Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage withthe Municipal Agrarian Reform Office
(MARO) of Escalante.-After investigation, MARO Jacinto R. Piosa, sent a Notice of Coverage to
respondentDECS, stating that the lands are covered by CARP and inviting its representatives for
aconference with the farmer beneficiaries. Then, MARO Piosa submitted his report to OIC-PARO
Stephen M. Leonidas, who recommended to the DAR Regional Director the approval of the coverage
of the landholdings.-August 7, 1998: DAR Regional Director Andres approved the recommendation
and directedProvincial Agrarian Reform Office to facilitate acquisition and distribution of
landholdings toqualified beneficiaries.-DECS appealed the case to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform
which affirmed the Order of the Regional Director.-Aggrieved DECS filed a petition for

certiorari

with the Court of Appeals, which set aside thedecision of the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. Hence,
the instant petition for review.

ISSUES

:1. Whether or not the subject properties are exempt from the coverage of Republic Act No.6657/
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1998 (CARL)NO2. Whether or not the farmers are
qualified beneficiaries of CARP--YES The general policy under CARL is to cover as much lands
suitable for agriculture aspossible.

Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657

sets out the coverage of CARP. The program shall: cover, regardless of tenurial arrangement and
commodity produced, all

public

andprivate agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No.
229,including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture.

Following lands are covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program

:(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to orsuitable for agriculture. No
reclassification of forest or mineral lands toagricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval
of this Act untilCongress, taking into account, ecological, developmental and equityconsiderations,
shall have determined by law, the specific limits of the publicdomain;(b) All lands of the public
domain in excess of the specific limits asdetermined by Congress in the preceding paragraph;(c) All
other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable foragriculture; and(d) All private lands
devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of theagricultural products raised or that can be
raised thereon.Section 3(c):

agricultural land

- land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in thisAct and not classified as mineral, forest,
residential, commercial or industrial land.

agriculture or agricultural activity

- means the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of fruit trees, raising of livestock,
poultry or fish, including the harvesting of

..

CASE 2011-0024: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF


AGRARIAN REFORM, THROUGH THE HON. SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN VS.
SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRI-BUSINESS CORP., REPRESENTED BY SALVADOR N. LOPEZ, JR.,
PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER (G.R. NO. 178895, 10 JANUARY 2011, SERENO, J.)
SUBJECT: EXEMPTION OF GRAZING LAND UNDER THE CARL. LOPEZ LAND EXEMPT. LIMOT
LAND COVERED. (BRIEF TITLE: REPUBLIC VS. LOPEZ).

Filed under: LATEST SUPREME COURT CASES, Uncategorized Leave a comment

January 30, 2011

CASE NO.2011-0024: REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, REPRESENTED BY THE DEPARTMENT


OF AGRARIAN REFORM, THROUGH THE HON. SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN VS.
SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRI-BUSINESS CORP., REPRESENTED BY SALVADOR N. LOPEZ, JR.,
PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER (G.R. NO. 178895, 10 JANUARY 2011, SERENO, J.)
SUBJECT: EXEMPTION OF GRAZING LAND UNDER THE CARL. LOPEZ LAND EXEMPT. LIMOT
LAND COVERED. (BRIEF TITLE: REPUBLIC VS. LOPEZ).

x- -x

DECISION

SERENO, J.:

Before us are two Rule 45 Petitions[1][1] filed separately by the Department of Agrarian Reform
(DAR), through the Office of the Solicitor General, and by the Salvador N. Lopez Agri-Business Corp.
(SNLABC). Each Petition partially assails the Court of Appeals Decision dated 30 June 2006[2][2]
with respect to the application for exemption of four parcels of land located in Mati, Davao
Oriental and owned by SNLABC from Republic Act No. 6657, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).

There is little dispute as to the facts of the case, as succinctly discussed by the Court of Appeals
and adopted herein by the Court, to wit:

Subject of this petition are four (4) parcels of land with an aggregate area of 160.1161 hectares
registered in the name of Salvador N. Lopez Agri-Business Corporation. Said parcels of land are
hereinafter described as follows:

Title No. Area Location

TCT No. T-12635 (Lot 1454-A & 1296) 49.5706 has. Bo. Limot, Mati, Davao Oriental

TCT No. T-12637 (Lot 1298) 42.6822 has. Bo. Don Enrique Lopez, Mati, Dvo. Or.

TCT No. T-12639 (Lot 1293-B) 67.8633 has. Bo. Don Enrique Lopez, Mati, Dvo. Or.

On August 2, 1991, Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Socorro C. Salga issued a Notice of
Coverage to petitioner with regards (sic) to the aforementioned landholdings which were
subsequently placed under Compulsory Acquisition pursuant to R.A. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law).

On December 10, 1992, petitioner filed with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO), Davao
Oriental, an Application for Exemption of the lots covered by TCT No. T-12637 and T-12639 from
CARP coverage. It alleged that pursuant to the case of Luz Farms v. DAR Secretary said parcels of
land are exempted from coverage as the said parcels of land with a total area of 110.5455 hectares are
used for grazing and habitat of petitioners 105 heads of cattle, 5 carabaos, 11 horses, 9 heads of goats
and 18 heads of swine, prior to the effectivity of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).

On December 13, 1992 and March 1, 1993, the MARO conducted an onsite investigation on the two
parcels of land confirming the presence of the livestock as enumerated. The Investigation Report
dated March 9, 1993 stated:

That there are at least 2[5] to 30 heads of cows that farrow every year and if the trend of farrowing
persist (sic), then the cattle shall become overcrowded and will result to scarcity of grasses for the
cattle to graze;

That during the week cycle, the herds are being moved to the different adjacent lots owned by the
corporation. It even reached Lot 1454-A and Lot 1296. Thereafter, the herds are returned to their
respective night chute corrals which are constructed under Lot 1293-B and Lot 1298.
xxx

That the age of coconut trees planted in the area are already 40 to 50 years and have been affected by
the recent drought that hit the locality.

That the presence of livestocks (sic) have already existed in the area prior to the Supreme Court
decision on LUZ FARMS vs. Secretary of Agrarian Reform. We were surprised however, why the
management of the corporation did not apply for Commercial Farm Deferment (CFD) before, when
the two years reglamentary (sic) period which the landowner was given the chance to file their
application pursuant to R.A. 6657, implementing Administrative Order No. 16, Series of 1989;

However, with regards to what venture comes (sic) first, coconut or livestocks (sic), majority of the
farmworkers including the overseer affirmed that the coconut trees and livestocks (sic) were (sic)
simultaneously and all of these were inherited by his (applicant) parent. In addition, the financial
statement showed 80% of its annual income is derived from the livestocks (sic) and only 20% from
the coconut industry.

Cognitive thereto, we are favorably recommending for the exemption from the coverage of CARP
based on LUZ FARMS as enunciated by the Supreme Court the herein Lot No. 1293-B Psd-65835
under TCT No. T-12639 except Lot No. 1298, Cad. 286 of TCT No. T-12637 which is already covered
under the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) Scheme and had already been valued by the Land Valuation
Office, Land Bank of the Philippines.

On June 24, 1993, TCT No. T-12635 covering Lots 1454-A & 1296 was cancelled and a new one issued
in the name of the Republic of the Philippines under RP T-16356. On February 7, 1994, petitioner
through its President, Salvador N. Lopez, Jr., executed a letter-affidavit addressed to the respondent-
Secretary requesting for the exclusion from CARP coverage of Lots 1454-A and 1296 on the ground
that they needed the additional area for its livestock business. On March 28, 1995, petitioner filed
before the DAR Regional Director of Davao City an application for the exemption from CARP
coverage of Lots 1454-A and 1296 stating that it has been operating grazing lands even prior to June
15, 1988 and that the said two (2) lots form an integral part of its grazing land.

The DAR Regional Director, after inspecting the properties, issued an Order dated March 5, 1997
denying the application for exemption of Lots 1454-A and 1296 on the ground that it was not clearly
shown that the same were actually, directly and exclusively used for livestock raising since in its
application, petitioner itself admitted that it needs the lots for additional grazing area. The
application for exemption, however of the other two (2) parcels of land was approved.

On its partial motion for reconsideration, petitioner argued that Lots 1454-A & 1296 were taken
beyond the operation of the CARP pursuant to its reclassification to a Pollutive Industrial District
(Heavy Industry) per Resolution No. 39 of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mati, Davao Oriental, enacted
on April 7, 1992. The DAR Regional Director denied the Motion through an Order dated September
4, 1997, ratiocinating that the reclassification does not affect agricultural lands already issued a
Notice of Coverage as provided in Memorandum Circular No. 54-93: Prescribing the Guidelines
Governing Section 20 of R.A. 7160.

Undaunted, petitioner appealed the Regional Directors Orders to respondent DAR. On June 10,
1998, the latter issued its assailed Order affirming the Regional Directors ruling on Lots 1454-A &
1296 and further declared Lots 1298 and 1293-B as covered by the CARP. Respondent ruled in this
wise considering the documentary evidence presented by petitioner such as the Business Permit to
engage in livestock, the certification of ownership of large cattle and the Corporate Income Tax
Returns, which were issued during the effectivity of the Agrarian Reform Law thereby debunking
petitioners claim that it has been engaged in livestock farming since the 1960s. Respondent further
ruled that the incorporation by the Lopez family on February 12, 1988 or four (4) months before the
effectivity of R.A. 6657 was an attempt to evade the noble purposes of the said law.

On October 17, 2002, petitioners Motion for Reconsideration was denied by respondent prompting
the former to file the instant petition.[3][3]

In the assailed Decision dated 30 June 2006,[4][4] the Court of Appeals partially granted the
SNLABC Petition and excluded the two (2) parcels of land (Transfer Certificate of Title [TCT] Nos. T-
12637 and T-12639) located in Barrio Don Enrique Lopez (the Lopez lands) from coverage of the
CARL.

However, it upheld the Decisions of the Regional Director[5][5] and the DAR[6][6] Secretary
denying the application for exemption with respect to Lots 1454-A and 1296 (previously under TCT
No. T-12635) in Barrio Limot (the Limot lands). These lots were already covered by a new title
under the name of the Republic of the Philippines (RP T-16356).

The DAR and SNLABC separately sought a partial reconsideration of the assailed Decision of
the Court of Appeals, but their motions for reconsideration were subsequently denied in the Court of
Appeals Resolution dated 08 June 2007.[7][7]

The DAR and SNLABC elevated the matter to this Court by filing separate Rule 45 Petitions
(docketed as G.R. No. 178895[8][8] and 179071,[9][9] respectively), which were subsequently
ordered consolidated by the Court.

The main issue for resolution by the Court is whether the Lopez and Limot lands of SNLABC
can be considered grazing lands for its livestock business and are thus exempted from the coverage of
the CARL under the Courts ruling in Luz Farms v. DAR.[10][10] The DAR questions the disposition
of the Court of Appeals, insofar as the latter allowed the exemption of the Lopez lands, while
SNLABC assails the inclusion of the Limot lands within the coverage of the CARL.

The Court finds no reversible error in the Decision of the Court of Appeals and dismisses the
Petitions of DAR and SNLABC.
Preliminarily, in a petition for review on certiorari filed under Rule 45, the issues that can be raised
are, as a general rule, limited to questions of law.[11][11] However, as pointed out by both the DAR
and SNLABC, there are several recognized exceptions wherein the Court has found it appropriate to
re-examine the evidence presented.[12][12] In this case, the factual findings of the DAR Regional
Director, the DAR Secretary and the CA are contrary to one another with respect to the following
issue: whether the Lopez lands were actually, directly and exclusively used for SNLABCs livestock
business; and whether there was intent to evade coverage from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) based on the documentary evidence. On the other hand, SNLABC argues that these
authorities misapprehended and overlooked certain relevant and undisputed facts as regards the
inclusion of the Limot lands under the CARL. These circumstances fall within the recognized
exceptions and, thus, the Court is persuaded to review the facts and evidence on record in the
disposition of these present Petitions.

The Lopez lands of SNLABC are actually and directly being used for livestock and are thus exempted
from the coverage of the CARL.

Briefly stated, the DAR questions the object or autoptic evidence relied upon by the DAR Regional
Director in concluding that the Lopez lands were actually, directly and exclusively being used for
SNLABCs livestock business prior to the enactment of the CARL.

In Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform,[13][13]the Court declared


unconstitutional the CARL provisions[14][14]that included lands devoted to livestock under the
coverage of the CARP. The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986
on the meaning of the word agricultural showed that it was never the intention of the framers of
the Constitution to include the livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the constitutionally
mandated agrarian reform program of the government.[15][15] Thus, lands devoted to the raising of
livestock, poultry and swine have been classified as industrial, not agricultural, and thus exempt
from agrarian reform.[16][16]

Under the rules then prevailing, it was the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) who
was primarily responsible for investigating the legal status, type and areas of the land sought to be
excluded;[17][17] and for ascertaining whether the area subject of the application for exemption had
been devoted to livestock-raising as of 15 June 1988.[18][18] The MAROs authority to investigate
has subsequently been replicated in the current DAR guidelines regarding lands that are actually,
directly and exclusively used for livestock raising.[19][19] As the primary official in charge of
investigating the land sought to be exempted as livestock land, the MAROs findings on the use and
nature of the land, if supported by substantial evidence on record, are to be accorded greater weight,
if not finality.

Verily, factual findings of administrative officials and agencies that have acquired expertise in the
performance of their official duties and the exercise of their primary jurisdiction are generally
accorded not only respect but, at times, even finality if such findings are supported by substantial
evidence.[20][20] The Court generally accords great respect, if not finality, to factual findings of
administrative agencies because of their special knowledge and expertise over matters falling under
their jurisdiction.[21][21]

In the instant case, the MARO in its ocular inspection[22][22] found on the Lopez lands several
heads of cattle, carabaos, horses, goats and pigs, some of which were covered by several certificates
of ownership. There were likewise structures on the Lopez lands used for its livestock business,
structures consisting of two chutes where the livestock were kept during nighttime. The existence of
the cattle prior to the enactment of the CARL was positively affirmed by the farm workers and the
overseer who were interviewed by the MARO. Considering these factual findings and the fact that the
lands were in fact being used for SNLABCs livestock business even prior to 15 June 1988, the DAR
Regional Director ordered the exemption of the Lopez lands from CARP coverage. The Court gives
great probative value to the actual, on-site investigation made by the MARO as affirmed by the DAR
Regional Director. The Court finds that the Lopez lands were in fact actually, directly and exclusively
being used as industrial lands for livestock-raising.

Simply because the on-site investigation was belatedly conducted three or four years after the
effectivity of the CARL does not perforce make it unworthy of belief or unfit to be offered as
substantial evidence in this case. Contrary to DARs claims, the lack of information as regards the
initial breeders and the specific date when the cattle were first introduced in the MAROs Report
does not conclusively demonstrate that there was no livestock-raising on the Lopez lands prior to the
CARL. Although information as to these facts are significant, their non-appearance in the reports
does not leave the MARO without any other means to ascertain the duration of livestock-raising on
the Lopez lands, such as interviews with farm workers, the presence of livestock infrastructure, and
evidence of sales of cattle all of which should have formed part of the MAROs Investigation
Report.

Hence, the Court looks with favor on the expertise of the MARO in determining whether livestock-
raising on the Lopez lands has only been recently conducted or has been a going concern for several
years already. Absent any clear showing of grave abuse of discretion or bias, the findings of the
MARO as affirmed by the DAR Regional Director are to be accorded great probative value, owing
to the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duties.[23][23]

The DAR, however, insisted in its Petition[24][24] on giving greater weight to the
inconsistencies appearing in the documentary evidence presented, and noted by the DAR Secretary,
in order to defeat SNLABCs claim of exemption over the Lopez lands. The Court is not so persuaded.

In the Petition, the DAR argued that that the tax declarations covering the Lopez lands
characterized them as agricultural lands and, thus, detracted from the claim that they were used for
livestock purposes. The Court has since held that there is no law or jurisprudence that holds that the
land classification embodied in the tax declarations is conclusive and final nor would proscribe any
further inquiry; hence, tax declarations are clearly not the sole basis of the classification of a
land.[25][25] Applying the foregoing principles, the tax declarations of the Lopez lands as
agricultural lands are not conclusive or final, so as to prevent their exclusion from CARP coverage as
lands devoted to livestock-raising. Indeed, the MAROs on-site inspection and actual investigation
showing that the Lopez lands were being used for livestock-grazing are more convincing in the
determination of the nature of those lands.
Neither can the DAR in the instant case assail the timing of the incorporation of SNLABC and
the latters operation shortly before the enactment of the CARL. That persons employ tactics to
precipitously convert their lands from agricultural use to industrial livestock is not unheard of; they
even exploit the creation of a new corporate vehicle to operate the livestock business to substantiate
the deceitful conversion in the hopes of evading CARP coverage. Exemption from CARP, however, is
directly a function of the lands usage, and not of the identity of the entity operating it. Otherwise
stated, lands actually, directly and exclusively used for livestock are exempt from CARP coverage,
regardless of the change of owner.[26][26] In the instant case, whether SNLABC was incorporated
prior to the CARL is immaterial, since the Lopez lands were already being used for livestock-grazing
purposes prior to the enactment of the CARL, as found by the MARO. Although the managing entity
had been changed, the business interest of raising livestock on the Lopez lands still remained without
any indication that it was initiated after the effectivity of the CARL.

As stated by SNLABC, the Lopez lands were the legacy of Don Salvador Lopez, Sr. The
ownership of these lands was passed from Don Salvador Lopez, Sr., to Salvador N. Lopez, Jr., and
subsequently to the latters children before being registered under the name of SNLABC.
Significantly, SNLABC was incorporated by the same members of the Lopez family, which had
previously owned the lands and managed the livestock business.[27][27] In all these past years,
despite the change in ownership, the Lopez lands have been used for purposes of grazing and
pasturing cattle, horses, carabaos and goats. Simply put, SNLABC was chosen as the entity to take
over the reins of the livestock business of the Lopez family. Absent any other compelling evidence,
the inopportune timing of the incorporation of the SNLABC prior to the enactment of the CARL was
not by itself a categorical manifestation of an intent to avoid CARP coverage.

Furthermore, the presence of coconut trees, although an indicia that the lands may be
agricultural, must be placed within the context of how they figure in the actual, direct and exclusive
use of the subject lands. The DAR failed to demonstrate that the Lopez lands were actually and
primarily agricultural lands planted with coconut trees. This is in fact contradicted by the findings of
its own official, the MARO. Indeed, the DAR did not adduce any proof to show that the coconut trees
on the Lopez lands were used for agricultural business, as required by the Court in DAR v. Uy,[28]
[28] wherein we ruled thus:

It is not uncommon for an enormous landholding to be intermittently planted with trees, and this
would not necessarily detract it from the purpose of livestock farming and be immediately
considered as an agricultural land. It would be surprising if there were no trees on the land. Also,
petitioner did not adduce any proof to show that the coconut trees were planted by respondent and
used for agricultural business or were already existing when the land was purchased in 1979. In the
present case, the area planted with coconut trees bears an insignificant value to the area used for the
cattle and other livestock-raising, including the infrastructure needed for the business. There can be
no presumption, other than that the coconut area is indeed used for shade and to augment the
supply of fodder during the warm months; any other use would be only be incidental to livestock
farming. The substantial quantity of livestock heads could only mean that respondent is engaged in
farming for this purpose. The single conclusion gathered here is that the land is entirely devoted to
livestock farming and exempted from the CARP.

On the assumption that five thousand five hundred forty-eight (5,548) coconut trees were
existing on the Lopez land (TCT No. T-12637), the DAR did not refute the findings of the MARO that
these coconut trees were merely incidental. Given the number of livestock heads of SNLABC, it is not
surprising that the areas planted with coconut trees on the Lopez lands where forage grass grew were
being used as grazing areas for the livestock. It was never sufficiently adduced that SNLABC was
primarily engaged in agricultural business on the Lopez lands, specifically, coconut-harvesting.
Indeed, the substantial quantity of SNLABCs livestock amounting to a little over one hundred forty
(140) livestock heads, if measured against the combined 110.5455 hectares of land and applying the
DAR-formulated ratio, leads to no other conclusion than that the Lopez lands were exclusively
devoted to livestock farming.[29][29]

In any case, the inconsistencies appearing in the documentation presented (albeit sufficiently
explained) pale in comparison to the positive assertion made by the MARO in its on-site, actual
investigation that the Lopez lands were being used actually, directly and exclusively for its
livestock-raising business. The Court affirms the findings of the DAR Regional Director and the
Court of Appeals that the Lopez lands were actually, directly and exclusively being used for
SNLABCs livestock business and, thus, are exempt from CARP coverage.

The Limot lands of SNLABC are not actually and directly being used for livestock and should thus be
covered by the CARL.

In contrast, the Limot lands were found to be agricultural lands devoted to coconut trees and
rubber and are thus not subject to exemption from CARP coverage.

In the Report dated 06 April 1994, the team that conducted the inspection found that the entire
Limot lands were devoted to coconuts (41.5706 hectares) and rubber (8.000 hectares) and
recommended the denial of the application for exemption.[30][30] Verily, the Limot lands were
actually, directly and exclusively used for agricultural activities, a fact that necessarily makes them
subject to the CARP. These findings of the inspection team were given credence by the DAR Regional
Director who denied the application, and were even subsequently affirmed by the DAR Secretary and
the Court of Appeals.

SNLABC argues that the Court of Appeals misapprehended the factual circumstances and
overlooked certain relevant facts, which deserve a second look. SNLABCs arguments fail to convince
the Court to reverse the rulings of the Court of Appeals.

In the 07 February 1994 Letter-Affidavit addressed to the DAR Secretary, SNLABC requested
the exemption of the Limot lands on the ground that the corporation needed the additional area for
its livestock business. As pointed out by the DAR Regional Director, this Letter-Affidavit is a clear
indication that the Limot lands were not directly, actually and exclusively used for livestock raising.
SNLABC casually dismisses the clear import of their Letter-Affidavit as a poor choice of words.
Unfortunately, the semantics of the declarations of SNLABC in its application for exemption are
corroborated by the other attendant factual circumstances and indicate its treatment of the subject
properties as non-livestock.

Verily, the MARO itself, in the Investigation Report cited by no less than SNLABC, found that the
livestock were only moved to the Limot lands sporadically and were not permanently designated
there. The DAR Secretary even described SNLABCs use of the area as a seasonal extension of the
applicants grazing lands during the summer. Therefore, the Limot lands cannot be claimed to have
been actually, directly and exclusively used for SNLABCs livestock business, especially since these
were only intermittently and secondarily used as grazing areas. The said lands are more suitable
and are in fact actually, directly and exclusively being used for agricultural purposes.

SNLABCs treatment of the land for non-livestock purposes is highlighted by its undue delay in filing
the application for exemption of the Limot lands. SNLABC filed the application only on 07 February
1994, or three years after the Notice of Coverage was issued; two years after it filed the first
application for the Lopez lands; and a year after the titles to the Limot lands were transferred to the
Republic. The SNLABC slept on its rights and delayed asking for exemption of the Limot lands. The
lands were undoubtedly being used for agricultural purposes, not for its livestock business; thus,
these lands are subject to CARP coverage. Had SNLABC indeed utilized the Limot lands in
conjunction with the livestock business it was conducting on the adjacent Lopez lands, there was
nothing that would have prevented it from simultaneously applying for a total exemption of all the
lands necessary for its livestock.

The defense of SNLABC that it wanted to save first the Lopez lands where the corrals and chutes
were located, before acting to save the other properties does not help its cause. The piecemeal
application for exemption of SNLABC speaks of the value or importance of the Lopez lands,
compared with the Limot lands, with respect to its livestock business. If the Lopez and the Limot
lands were equally significant to its operations and were actually being used for its livestock
business, it would have been more reasonable for it to apply for exemption for the entire lands.
Indeed, the belated filing of the application for exemption was a mere afterthought on the part of
SNLABC, which wanted to increase the area of its landholdings to be exempted from CARP on the
ground that these were being used for its livestock business.

In any case, SNLABC admits that the title to the Limot lands has already been transferred to the
Republic and subsequently awarded to SNLABCs farm workers.[31][31] This fact only demonstrates
that the land is indeed being used for agricultural activities and not for livestock grazing.

The confluence of these factual circumstances leads to the logical conclusion that the Limot lands
were not being used for livestock grazing and, thus, do not qualify for exemption from CARP
coverage. SNLABCs belated filing of the application for exemption of the Limot lands was a ruse to
increase its retention of its landholdings and an attempt to save these from compulsory acquisition.

WHEREFORE, the Petitions of the Department of Agrarian Reform and the Salvador N. Lopez
Agri-Business Corp. are DISMISSED, and the rulings of the Court of Appeals and the DAR Regional
Director are hereby AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED.

PROVINCE OF CAMARINES SUR vs. CA and TITO B. DATO


July 14, 1995; KAPUNAN,

J.

FACTS:

In January 1, 1960 - private respondent Dato was appointed as Private Agent by the then Gov. of
Camarines Sur, Apolonio Maleniza.October 12, 1972 - Dato was promoted and appointed Assistant
Provincial Warden by then Gov. Felix Alfelor, Sr.Dato had no civil service eligibility for the position
he was appointed to, thus, he could not be legally extended a permanentappointment. He was
extended a temporary appointment, which was renewed annually. January 1, 1974 Gov. Alfelor
approved the change in Dato's employment status from temporary to permanent upon the
latter'srepresentation that he passed the civil service examination for supervising security guards.
Said change of status however, was notfavorably acted upon by the Civil Service Commission (CSC)
reasoning that Dato did not possess the necessary civil service eligibilityfor the office he was
appointed to. His appointment remained temporary and no other appointment was extended to
him.March 16, 1976 Dato was indefinitely suspended by Gov. Alfelor after criminal charges were
filed against him and a prison guard forallegedly conniving and/or consenting to evasion of sentence
of some detention prisoners who escaped from confinement. Two years after the request for change
of status was made, Mr. Lope B. Rama, head of the Camarines Sur Unit of the Civil
ServiceCommission, wrote the Gov. a letter informing him that the status of private respondent Dato
has been changed from temporary topermanent, the latter having passed the examination for
Supervising Security Guard. The change of status was to be maderetroactive to June 11, 1974, the
date of release of said examination.Sangguniang Panlalawigan, suppressed the appropriation for the
position of Assistant Provincial Warden and deleted privaterespondent's name from the petitioner's
plantilla.Dato was subsequently acquitted of the charges against him. Consequently, he requested the
Gov. for reinstatement and backwages.His request was not heeded. Dato filed an action before the
RTC.RTC Decision: Ordered the payment of backwages of Dato equivalent to five years. Province of
Camarines Sur appealed the decisionto the CA.CA: Affirmed RTCs decision. Hence the present
petition.

ISSUE:

W/N Dato was a permanent employee of petitioner Province of Camarines Sur at the time he was
suspended on March 16,1976.Petitioners contention: When Gov. Alfelor recommended to CSC the
change in the employment status of private respondent fromtemporary to permanent, which the CSC
approved as only

temporary

pending validation of the results of private respondent'sexamination for supervising security guard,
private respondent's appointment in effect remained temporary. Hence, his subsequentqualification
for civil service eligibility did not

ipso facto

convert his temporary status to that of permanent.

SC Held:

Agrees with Petitioners contentions. Dato, being merely a temporary employee, is not entitled to his
claim for backwagesfor the entire period of his suspension.

Ratio:

At the time Dato was appointed Assistant Provincial Warden on January 1, 1974, he had not yet
qualified in an appropriateexamination for the aforementioned position. Such lack of a civil service
eligibility made his appointment temporary
and without afixed and definite term and is dependent entirely upon the pleasure of the appointing
power. The fact that private respondent obtained civil service eligibility later on is of no moment as
his having passed the supervisingsecurity guard examination, did not

ipso facto

convert his temporary appointment into a permanent one.

What is required is a newappointment since a permanent appointment is not a continuation of the


temporary appointment these are two distinct acts of theappointing authority The letter
communicated by Mr. Lope Rama to the Gov. of Camarines Sur is a clear arrogation of power
properly belonging to theappointing authority. CSC has the power to

approve

or

disapprove

an appointment set before it. It does not have the power to makethe appointment itself or to direct
the appointing authority to change the employment status of an employee. CSC should have endedits
participation in the appointment of private respondent on January 1, 1974 when it confirmed the

temporary

status of the latterwho lacked the proper civil service eligibility. When it issued the foregoing
communication on March 19, 1976, it stepped on the toesof the appointing authority, thereby
encroaching on the discretion vested solely upon the latter.

Roxas and Company, Inc. vs. DAMBA-NSFW and DAR

FACTS:

Roxas & Co. is a domestic corporation and is the registered owner of three haciendas. On July 27,
1987, theCongress of the Philippines formally convened and took over legislative power from the
President. This Congresspassed Republic Act No. 6657, the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL) of 1988. The Act was signed bythe President on June 10, 1988 and took effect on June 15,
1988. Before the

laws effectivity, on May 6, 1988,

[Roxas & Co.] filed with respondent DAR a voluntary offer to sell [VOS] Hacienda Caylaway pursuant
to theprovisions of E.O. No. 229. Haciendas Palico and Banilad were later placed under compulsory

acquisition by

DAR in accordance with the CARL. On August 6, 1992 [Roxas & Co.], through its President, sent a
letter to

theSecretary of DAR

withdrawing its VOS

of Hacienda Caylaway.
The Sangguniang Bayan of Nasugbu,Batangas

allegedly authorized the reclassification of Hacienda Caylaway from agriculturalto non-agricultural

As a result, petitioner informed respondent DAR that it was applying for conversion of Hacienda
Caylaway from agricultural to other uses. The petitions nub on the interpretation of
PresidentialProclamation (PP) 1520 reads: DECLARING THE MUNICIPALITIES OF
MARAGONDON AND TERNATE INCAVITE PROVINCE AND THE MUNICIPALITY OF NASUGBU
IN BATANGAS AS A TOURISTZONE, ANDFOR OTHER PURPOSES Essentially, Roxas & Co. filed
its application for conversion of its three haciendas fromagricultural to non-agricultural on the
assumption that the issuance of PP 1520 which declared Nasugbu,Batangas as a tourism zone,
reclassified them to non-agricultural uses. Its pending application notwithstanding,the Department
of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) to thefarmer-
beneficiaries in the three

haciendas

including CLOA No. 6654 which was issued on October 15, 1993covering 513.983 hectares, the
subject of G.R. No. 167505. Roxas & Co. filed with the DAR an applicationfor exemption from the
coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) of 1988 on the basisof PP 1520
and of DAR Administrative Order (AO) No. 6, Series of 19943 which states that all lands already
classified as commercial, industrial, or residential before the effectivity of CARP no longer need
conversion clearance from the DAR.

ISSUES:

Whether PP 1520 reclassified in 1975 all lands in the Maragondon-Ternate-Nasugbu tourism zoneto
non-

agricultural useto exempt Roxas & Co.s three

haciendas in Nasugbu from CARP coverage;

RULING:PP 1520 DID

NOT

AUTOMATICALLY CONVERT THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS IN THE THREEMUNICIPALITIES


INCLUDINGNASUGBU TO NON-AGRICULTURAL LANDS.

Roxas & Co. contends that PP 1520 declared the three municipalities as each constituting a tourism
zone,reclassified all landstherein to tourism and, therefore, converted their use to non-agricultural
purposes.Theperambulatory clauses of PP 1520 identified only "certain areas in the sector
comprising the [three Municipalitiesthat] havepotential tourism value" and mandated the conduct of
"necessary studies" and the segregation of "specific geographic areas" toachieve its purpose. Which is
why the PP directed the Philippine Tourism Authority(PTA) to identify what those potential
tourismareas are. If all the lands in those tourism zones were to be wholly converted to non-
agricultural use, there would have been noneed for the PP to direct the PTA to identify whatthose
"specific geographic areas" are.In the above-cited case of Roxas & Co. v. CA,9 the Court made it clear
that the "power to determine whether Haciendas Palico,Banilad and Caylaway are non-agricultural,
hence, exemptfrom the coverage of the [Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law] lies withthe
[Department of Agrarian Reform], notwith this Court." The DAR, an administrative body of special
competence, denied, byOrder, the application for CARP exemption of Roxas & Co., it finding that PP
1520 did not automatically reclassify all the lands intheaffected municipalities from their original
uses. It appears that the PTA had not yet, at that time, identified the"specific geographic areas" for
tourism development and had no pending tourism development projects in theareas. Further, report
from the Center for Land Use Policy Planning and Implementation (CLUPPI) indicated thatthe areas
were planted with sugar cane and other crops.11Relatedly, the DAR, by Memorandum Circular No. 7,
Series of 2004,12came up with clarificatory guidelines and therein decreed thatB. Proclamations
declaringgeneral areas such as whole provinces, municipalities, barangays, islands or peninsulas
astourist zones thatmerely:(1) recognize certain still unidentified areas within the covered provinces,
municipalities, barangays,islands, or peninsulasto be with potential tourism value and charge the
Philippine Tourism Authority with the taskto identify/delineate specificgeographic areas within the
zone with potential tourism value and to coordinate said

areas development; or

(2) recognize the potential value of identified spots located within the general areadeclared as tourist
zone (i.e. x x x x)and direct the Philippine

Tourism Authority to coordinate said areas

development;could not be regarded as effecting an automatic reclassification of the entirety of the


land areadeclared as tourist zone. This is sobecause "reclassification of lands" denotes their
allocation into some specificuse and "providing for the manner of their utilizationand disposition
(Sec. 20, Local Government Code) or the "actof specifying how agricultural lands shall be utilized for
non-agricultural uses such as residential, industrial, or commercial, as embodied in the land use
plan." A proclamation that merelyrecognizes the potential tourism valueof certain areas within the
general area declared as tourist zone clearly does not allocate,reserve, or intend theentirety of the
land area of the zone for non-agricultural purposes. Neither does said proclamation
directthatotherwise CARPable lands within the zone shall already be used for purposes other
thanagricultural.Moreover, to view these kinds of proclamation as a reclassification for non-
agricultural purposes of entire provinces, municipalities,barangays, islands, or peninsulas would be
unreasonable as it amounts toan automatic and sweeping exemption from CARP in thename of
tourism development. The same wouldalso undermine the land use reclassification powers vested in
local governmentunits in conjunction with pertinentagencies of government.C. There being no
reclassification, it is clear that said proclamations/issuances, assuming[these] took effect before June
15, 1988,could not supply a basis for exemption of the entirety of the lands

embraced therein from CARP coverageD. The DARs reading into

these general proclamations of tourism zonesdeserves utmost consideration, more especially in


thepresent petitions which involve vast tracts of agriculturalland. To reiterate, PP 1520 merely
recognized the "potential tourism value" of certain areas within the generalarea declared as tourism
zones

___________________________________________________________

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT

Manila

SECOND DIVISION
G.R. No. L-105586 December 15, 1993

REMIGIO ISIDRO, petitioner,

vs.

THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS (SEVENTH DIVISION) AND NATIVIDAD GUTIERREZ,


respondents.

Joventino A. Cornista for petitioner.

Yolanda Quisumbing-Javellana & Associates for private respondent.

PADILLA, J.:

This is a petition for review on certiorari of the decision * of the respondent Court of Appeals dated
27 February 1992 in CA-G.R. SP No. 26671 ordering petitioner to vacate the land in question and
surrender possession thereof to the private respondent; and its 21 May 1992 resolution denying
petitioner's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit.

The facts which gave rise to this petition are as follows:

Private respondent Natividad Gutierrez is the owner of a parcel of land with an area of 4.5 hectares
located in Barrio Sta. Cruz, Gapan, Nueva Ecija. In 1985, Aniceta Garcia, sister of private respondent
and also the overseer of the latter, allowed petitioner Remigio Isidro to occupy the swampy portion
of the abovementioned land, consisting of one (1) hectare, in order to augment his (petitioner's)
income to meet his family's needs. The occupancy of a portion of said land was subject top the
condition that petitioner would vacate the land upon demand. Petitioner occupied the land without
paying any rental and converted the same into a fishpond.

In 1990, private respondent through the overseer demanded from petitioner the return of the land,
but the latter refused to vacate and return possession of said land, claiming that he had spent effort
and invested capital in converting the same into a fishpond.

A complaint for unlawful detainer was filed by private respondent against petitioner before the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Gapan, Nueva Ecija which was docketed as Civil Case No. 4120.
Petitioner set up the following defenses: (a) that the complaint was triggered by his refusal to
increase his lease rental; (b) the subject land is a fishpond and therefore is agricultural land; and (c)
that lack of formal demand to vacate exposes the complaint to dismissal for insufficiency of cause of
action. 1

Based on an ocular inspection of the subject land, the trial court found that the land in question is
a fishpond 2 and, thus, in a decision dated 30 May 1991, the said trial court dismissed the complaint,
ruling that the land is agricultural and therefore the dispute over it is agrarian which is under the
original and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of agrarian relations as provided in Sec. 12(a) of
Republic Act No. 946 (now embodied in the Revised Rules of Procedure of the Department of
Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board). 3

An appeal was filed by private respondent before the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Gapan, Nueva
Ecija, docketed as Civil Case No. 889. In due course, the RTC rendered a decision on 5 November
1991 concurring with the findings of the MTC and affirming in toto the trial court's decision.

The RTC decision held that:

Even conceding for the sake of argument that the defendant-appellee was allowed by the plaintiff-
appellant, through her sister Aniceta Garcia (her administratrix over the land in question) to occupy
and use the landholding in question on condition that the defendant would vacate the same upon
demand of the owner or plaintiff herein, without paying any rental either in cash or produce, under
these facts there was a tenurial arrangement, within the meaning of Sec. 3(d) of RA 6657, thereby
placing the dispute involved in this case within the jurisdiction of the DARAB. Perhaps, it would be
different if the defendant was merely a trespasser, without any right whatsoever, when he entered
and occupied the subject landholding. The defendant, as a matter of fact, was a legal possessor of the
land in question and therefore to determine his rights and obligations over the said property, the
DARAB is the proper forum for such issue. 4

Not satisfied with the decision of the RTC, private respondent appealed to the respondent Court of
Appeals and the appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 26671. On 27 February 1992, as earlier
stated, the respondent Court of Appeals reversed and set aside the decision of the RTC, ordering
petitioner to vacate the parcel of land in question and surrender possession thereof to private
respondent, and to pay private respondent the sum of P5,000.00 as and for attorney's fees and
expenses of litigation. 5

The respondent Court of Appeals ruled that:

The agrarian dispute over which the DAR may have jurisdiction by virtue of its quasi-judicial
power is that which involves tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or
otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture. Tenurial arrangement is concerned with the act or
manner of putting into proper order the rights of holding a piece of agricultural land between the
landowner and the farmer or farmworker.

In the case at bar, there can be no dispute that between the parties herein there is no tenurial
arrangement, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over the land in dispute. Other
than his bare allegation in the Answer with Counterclaim, and his affidavit, private respondent has
not shown prima facie that he is a tenant of the petitioner. The affidavits of his witnesses Antonio
Samin and Daniel Villareal attest to the fact that they acted as mediators in the dispute between the
parties herein sometime in October 1990, but no settlement was arrived at, and that the subject land
is a fishpond. To the same effect is the affidavit of Feliciano Garcia. Absent any prima facie proof that
private respondent has a tenancy relationship with petitioner, the established fact is that private
respondent is possessing the property in dispute by mere tolerance, and when such possession
ceased as such upon demand to vacate by the petitioner, private respondent became a squatter in
said land. We hold that the Municipal Trial Court of Gapan, Nueva Ecija has jurisdiction over the
unlawful detainer case. 6

Petitioner moved for reconsideration of the foregoing decision, but, also as earlier stated, it was
denied in a resolution dated 21 May 1992 7 for lack of merit.

Hence, this petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court.

Petitioner raises the following issue:

WHETHER OR NOT THE MUNICIPAL COURT HAS THE JURISDICTION IN THIS CASE AND
WHETHER THE PUBLIC RESPONDENT COULD LEGALLY EJECT THE PETITIONER
CONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING:

1. THAT THE SUBJECT IS A FISHPOND AND UNDER THE LAW AND JURISPRUDENCE
FISHPONDS ARE CLASSIFIED AS AGRICULTURAL LANDS;

2. THAT BEING AN AGRICULTURAL LAND THE SAME IS GOVERNED BY OUR TENANCY


LAWS WHERE RULE 70 OF THE RULES OF COURT CANNOT BE SIMPLY APPLIED; AND

3. THAT UNDER THE RULES OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM


ADJUDICATION BOARD, THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER A PERSON WORKING ON A
FISHPOND IS A TENANT OR NOT IS CLEARLY WITHIN THE EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION OF
THE DARAB. 8

The petition is devoid of merit. We hold for the private respondent.

It is basic whether or not a court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of an action is determined
from the allegations of the complaint. As held in Multinational Village Homeowners' Association,
Inc., vs. Court of Appeals, et al.: 9

Jurisdiction over the subject-matter is determined upon the allegations made in the complaint,
irrespective of whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover upon the claim asserted therein a matter
resolved only after and as a result of the trial. Neither can the jurisdiction of the court be made to
depend upon the defenses made by the defendant in his answer or motion to dismiss. If such were
the rule, the question of jurisdiction would depend almost entirely upon the defendant.

In her complaint before the court a quo, private respondent stated that she is the owner of a parcel
of land situated in Barrio Sta. Cruz, Gapan, Nueva Ecija, which petitioner is illegally occupying; that
petitioner has taken advantage of the tolerance of her (private respondent's) sister in allowing him to
occupy the land on the condition that he (petitioner) would vacate the land upon demand. Because of
petitioner's refusal to vacate the land, private respondent's remedy, as owner of said land, was to file
an action for unlawful detainer with the Municipal Trial Court.

In his answer to the complainant, petitioner alleged that the land involved in the dispute is an
agricultural land and hence, the case must be filed with the Court of Agrarian Relations (not the
MTC). Moreover, petitioner contended that it was his refusal to increase his lease rental (implying
tenancy) that prompted the private respondent to sue him in court. 10

It is well settled jurisprudence that a court does not lose its jurisdiction over an unlawful detainer
case by the simple expedient of a party raising as a defense therein the alleged existence of a tenancy
relationship between the parties. 11 The court continues to have the authority to hear the evidence
for the purpose precisely of determining whether or not it has jurisdiction. And upon such hearing, if
tenancy is shown to be the real issue, the court should dismiss the case for lack of jurisdiction. 12

The MTC dismissed the unlawful detainer complaint primarily on the ground that the subject land
is agricultural and therefore the question at issue is agrarian. In this connection, it is well to recall
that Section 1, Rule II of the Revised Rules of Procedure, 13 provides that the Agrarian Reform
Adjudication Board shall have primary jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and
adjudicate all agrarian disputes, cases, controversies, and matters or incidents involving the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program under Republic Act No. 6657,
Executive Order Nos. 229, 228 and 129-A, Republic Act No. 3844 as amended by Republic Act No.
6389, Presidential Decree No. 27 and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and
regulations.

An agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether


leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes
concerning farmworkers associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing,
maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms and conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It
includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under Republic Act No. 6657
and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farmworkers, tenants
and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of
farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor or lessee. 14

It is irrefutable in the case at bar that the subject land which used to be an idle, swampy land was
converted by the petitioner into a fishpond. And it is settled that a fishpond is an agricultural land.
An agricultural land refers to the land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in Republic Act No.
6657 15 and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. 16 Republic
Act No. 6657 defines agricultural activity as the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops, growing of
fruit trees, raising of livestock, poultry or fish, including the harvesting of such farm products, and
other farm activities, and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming
operations done by persons whether natural or judicial. 17

But a case involving an agricultural land does not automatically make such case an agrarian
dispute upon which the DARAB has jurisdiction. The mere fact that the land is agricultural does not
ipso facto make the possessor an agricultural lessee of tenant. The law provides for conditions or
requisites before he can qualify as one and the land being agricultural is only one of

them. 18 The law states that an agrarian dispute must be a controversy relating to a tenurial
arrangement over lands devoted to agriculture. And as previously mentioned, such arrangement may
be leasehold, tenancy or stewardship.

Tenancy is not a purely factual relationship dependent on what the alleged tenant does upon the
land. It is also a legal relationship. The intent of the parties, the understanding when the farmer is
installed, and their written agreements, provided these are complied with and are not contrary to
law, are even more important. 19

The essential requisites of a tenancy relationship are: (1) the parties are the landowner and the
tenant; (2) the subject matter is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural
production; (5) there is personal cultivation by the tenant; and (6) there is a sharing of harvests
between the parties. All these requisites must concur in order to create a tenancy relationship
between the parties. The absence of one does not make an occupant of a parcel of land, or a cultivator
thereof, or a planter thereon, a de jure tenant. Unless a person establishes his status as a de jure
tenant, he is not entitled to security of tenure nor is he covered by the Land Reform Program of the
government under existing tenancy laws (Caballes v. DAR, et al., G.R. No. 78214, December 5, 1988).
20

Furthermore, an agricultural lessee as defined in Sec. 116(2) of Republic Act No. 3844, is a person
who, by himself and with the aid available from within his immediate farm household, cultivates the
land belonging to, or possessed by, another with the latter's consent for purposes of production, for a
price certain in money or in produce or both. An agricultural lessor, on the other hand, is a natural or
judicial person who, either as owner, civil law lessee, usufructuary, or legal possessor lets or grants to
another the cultivation and use of his land for a price certain. 21

Based on the statutory definitions of a tenant or a lessee, it is clear that there is no tenancy or
agricultural/leasehold relationship existing between the petitioner and the private respondent. There
was no contract or agreement entered into by the petitioner with the private respondent nor with the
overseer of the private respondent, for petitioner to cultivate the land for a price certain or to share
his harvests. Petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim that he was paying rent for the use of the
land.

Whether or not private respondent knew of the conversion by petitioner of the idle, swampy land
into a fishpond is immaterial in this case. The fact remains that the existence of all the requisites of a
tenancy relationship was not proven by the petitioner. And in the absence of a tenancy relationship,
the complaint for unlawful detainer is properly within the jurisdiction of the Municipal Trial Court,
as provided in Sec. 33 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 129.
Having established that the occupancy and possession by petitioner of the land in question is by
mere tolerance, private respondent had the legal right to demand upon petitioner to vacate the land.
And as correctly ruled by the respondent appellate court:

. . . . His (petitioner's) lawful possession became illegal when the petitioner (now private
respondent) through her sister made a demand on him to vacate and he refused to comply with such
demand. Such is the ruling in Pangilinan vs. Aguilar, 43 SCRA 136, 144, wherein it was held:

While in possession by tolerance is lawful, such possession becomes illegal upon demand to vacate
is made by the owner and the possessor by tolerance refuses to comply with such demand (Prieto vs.
Reyes, 14 SCRA 432; Yu vs. De Lara, 6 SCRA 786, 788; Amis vs. Aragon, L-4684, April 28, 1957). A
person who occupies the land of another at the latter's tolerance or permission, without any contract
between them, is necessarily bound by an implied promise that he will vacate upon demand, failing
which a summary action for ejectment is the proper remedy against him (Yu vs. De Lara, supra)." 22

The present case should be distinguished from the recent case of Bernas vs. The Honorable Court
of Appeals. 23 In the Bernas case, the land occupant (Bernas) had a production-sharing agreement
with the legal possessor (Benigno Bito-on) while the records in this case fail to show that herein
petitioner (Isidro) was sharing the harvest or paying rent for his use of the land. Moreover, the
agreement between the overseer (Garcia) and herein petitioner was for petitioner to occupy and use
the land by mere tolerance of the owner. Petitioner Isidro failed to refute that Garcia allowed him to
use the land subject to the condition that petitioner would vacate it upon demand. In the Bernas
case, the petitioner (Bernas) was able to establish the existence of an agricultural tenancy or
leasehold relationship between him and the legal possessor. The evidence in this case, on the other
hand, fails to prove that petitioner Isidro, was an agricultural tenant or lessee.

WHEREFORE, the petition is DENIED. The questioned decision and resolution of the Court of
Appeals are hereby AFFIRMED. Costs against the petitioner.

SO ORDERED.

fHacienda Luisita Inc. (HLI) v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC), et al., G.R.
No. 171101, November 22, 2011

RESOLUTION
VELASCO, JR., J.:

I. THE FACTS

On July 5, 2011, the Supreme Court en banc voted unanimously (11-0) to


DISMISS/DENY the petition filed by HLI and AFFIRM with MODIFICATIONS the resolutions
of the PARC revoking HLIs Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) and placing the subject lands in
Hacienda Luisita under compulsory coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform
Program (CARP) of the government.
The Court however did not order outright land distribution. Voting 6-5, the Court noted
that there are operative facts that occurred in the interim and which the Court cannot validly
ignore. Thus, the Court declared that the revocation of the SDP must, by application of the
operative fact principle, give way to the right of the original 6,296 qualified farmworkers-
beneficiaries (FWBs) to choose whether they want to remain as HLI stockholders or [choose
actual land distribution]. It thus ordered the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR)
to immediately schedule meetings with the said 6,296 FWBs and explain to them the
effects, consequences and legal or practical implications of their choice, after which the
FWBs will be asked to manifest, in secret voting, their choices in the ballot, signing their
signatures or placing their thumbmarks, as the case may be, over their printed names.

The parties thereafter filed their respective motions for reconsideration of the Court
decision.

II. THE ISSUES

(1) Is the operative fact doctrine available in this case?


(2) Is Sec. 31 of RA 6657 unconstitutional?
(3) Cant the Court order that DARs compulsory acquisition of Hacienda Lusita cover the full
6,443 hectares allegedly covered by RA 6657 and previously held by Tarlac Development
Corporation (Tadeco), and not just the 4,915.75 hectares covered by HLIs SDP?
(4) Is the date of the taking (for purposes of determining the just compensation payable to
HLI) November 21, 1989, when PARC approved HLIs SDP?
(5) Has the 10-year period prohibition on the transfer of awarded lands under RA 6657 lapsed
on May 10, 1999 (since Hacienda Luisita were placed under CARP coverage through the
SDOA scheme on May 11, 1989), and thus the qualified FWBs should now be allowed to
sell their land interests in Hacienda Luisita to third parties, whether they have fully paid for
the lands or not?
(6) THE CRUCIAL ISSUE: Should the ruling in the July 5, 2011 Decision that the qualified
FWBs be given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI be reconsidered?

III. THE RULING

[The Court PARTIALLY GRANTED the motions for reconsideration of respondents


PARC, et al. with respect to the option granted to the original farmworkers-beneficiaries
(FWBs) of Hacienda Luisita to remain with petitioner HLI, which option the Court
thereby RECALLED and SET ASIDE. It reconsidered its earlier decision that the qualified
FWBs should be given an option to remain as stockholders of HLI, and UNANIMOUSLY
directed immediate land distribution to the qualified FWBs.]

1. YES, the operative fact doctrine is applicable in this case.

[The Court maintained its stance that the operative fact doctrine is applicable in this
case since, contrary to the suggestion of the minority, the doctrine is not limited only to
invalid or unconstitutional laws but also applies to decisions made by the President or the
administrative agencies that have the force and effect of laws. Prior to the nullification or
recall of said decisions, they may have produced acts and consequences that must be
respected. It is on this score that the operative fact doctrine should be applied to acts and
consequences that resulted from the implementation of the PARC Resolution approving the
SDP of HLI. The majority stressed that the application of the operative fact doctrine by the
Court in its July 5, 2011 decision was in fact favorable to the FWBs because not only were
they allowed to retain the benefits and homelots they received under the stock distribution
scheme, they were also given the option to choose for themselves whether they want to
remain as stockholders of HLI or not.]

2. NO, Sec. 31 of RA 6657 NOT unconstitutional.


[The Court maintained that the Court is NOT compelled to rule on the constitutionality
of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, reiterating that it was not raised at the earliest opportunity and
that the resolution thereof is not the lis mota of the case. Moreover, the issue has been
rendered moot and academic since SDO is no longer one of the modes of acquisition
under RA 9700. The majority clarified that in its July 5, 2011 decision, it made no ruling in
favor of the constitutionality of Sec. 31 of RA 6657, but found nonetheless that there was no
apparent grave violation of the Constitution that may justify the resolution of the issue of
constitutionality.]

3. NO, the Court CANNOT order that DARs compulsory acquisition of Hacienda Lusita
cover the full 6,443 hectares and not just the 4,915.75 hectares covered by HLIs SDP.

[Since what is put in issue before the Court is the propriety of the revocation of the
SDP, which only involves 4,915.75 has. of agricultural land and not 6,443 has., then the
Court is constrained to rule only as regards the 4,915.75 has. of agricultural land.
Nonetheless, this should not prevent the DAR, under its mandate under the agrarian reform
law, from subsequently subjecting to agrarian reform other agricultural lands originally held
by Tadeco that were allegedly not transferred to HLI but were supposedly covered by RA
6657.

However since the area to be awarded to each FWB in the July 5, 2011 Decision
appears too restrictive considering that there are roads, irrigation canals, and other
portions of the land that are considered commonly-owned by farmworkers, and these may
necessarily result in the decrease of the area size that may be awarded per FWB the
Court reconsiders its Decision and resolves to give the DAR leeway in adjusting the area
that may be awarded per FWB in case the number of actual qualified FWBs decreases. In
order to ensure the proper distribution of the agricultural lands of Hacienda Luisita per
qualified FWB, and considering that matters involving strictly the administrative
implementation and enforcement of agrarian reform laws are within the jurisdiction of the
DAR, it is the latter which shall determine the area with which each qualified FWB will be
awarded.

On the other hand, the majority likewise reiterated its holding that the 500-hectare
portion of Hacienda Luisita that have been validly converted to industrial use and have been
acquired by intervenors Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation (RCBC) and Luisita
Industrial Park Corporation (LIPCO), as well as the separate 80.51-hectare SCTEX lot
acquired by the government, should be excluded from the coverage of the assailed PARC
resolution. The Court however ordered that the unused balance of the proceeds of the sale
of the 500-hectare converted land and of the 80.51-hectare land used for the SCTEX be
distributed to the FWBs.]

4. YES, the date of taking is November 21, 1989, when PARC approved HLIs SDP.

[For the purpose of determining just compensation, the date of taking is November
21, 1989 (the date when PARC approved HLIs SDP) since this is the time that the FWBs
were considered to own and possess the agricultural lands in Hacienda Luisita. To be
precise, these lands became subject of the agrarian reform coverage through the stock
distribution scheme only upon the approval of the SDP, that is, on November 21, 1989.
Such approval is akin to a notice of coverage ordinarily issued under compulsory
acquisition. On the contention of the minority (Justice Sereno) that the date of the notice of
coverage [after PARCs revocation of the SDP], that is, January 2, 2006, is determinative of
the just compensation that HLI is entitled to receive, the Court majority noted that none of
the cases cited to justify this position involved the stock distribution scheme. Thus, said
cases do not squarely apply to the instant case. The foregoing notwithstanding, it bears
stressing that the DAR's land valuation is only preliminary and is not, by any means, final
and conclusive upon the landowner. The landowner can file an original action with the RTC
acting as a special agrarian court to determine just compensation. The court has the right to
review with finality the determination in the exercise of what is admittedly a judicial function.]

5. NO, the 10-year period prohibition on the transfer of awarded lands under RA 6657
has NOT lapsed on May 10, 1999; thus, the qualified FWBs should NOT yet be
allowed to sell their land interests in Hacienda Luisita to third parties.

[Under RA 6657 and DAO 1, the awarded lands may only be transferred or conveyed
after 10 years from the issuance and registration of the emancipation patent (EP) or
certificate of land ownership award (CLOA). Considering that the EPs or CLOAs have not
yet been issued to the qualified FWBs in the instant case, the 10-year prohibitive period has
not even started. Significantly, the reckoning point is the issuance of the EP or CLOA,
and not the placing of the agricultural lands under CARP coverage. Moreover, should the
FWBs be immediately allowed the option to sell or convey their interest in the subject lands,
then all efforts at agrarian reform would be rendered nugatory, since, at the end of the day,
these lands will just be transferred to persons not entitled to land distribution under CARP.]

6. YES, the ruling in the July 5, 2011 Decision that the qualified FWBs be given an option
to remain as stockholders of HLI should be reconsidered.

[The Court reconsidered its earlier decision that the qualified FWBs should be given
an option to remain as stockholders of HLI, inasmuch as these qualified FWBs will never
gain control [over the subject lands] given the present proportion of shareholdings in HLI.
The Court noted that the share of the FWBs in the HLI capital stock is [just] 33.296%. Thus,
even if all the holders of this 33.296% unanimously vote to remain as HLI stockholders,
which is unlikely, control will never be in the hands of the FWBs. Control means the
majority of [sic] 50% plus at least one share of the common shares and other voting
shares. Applying the formula to the HLI stockholdings, the number of shares that will
constitute the majority is 295,112,101 shares (590,554,220 total HLI capital shares divided
by 2 plus one [1] HLI share). The 118,391,976.85 shares subject to the SDP approved by
PARC substantially fall short of the 295,112,101 shares needed by the FWBs to acquire
control over HLI.]