AGRARIAN REFORM

RA 3844

- Abolished shared tenancy. Now leasehold tenancy.

- Why is it that leasehold relationship was preferred?
a. Tenurial Security under Agrarian Land Reform relationship can exist even if
there is death of the lessee or lessor, sale , transfer or conveyance of agricultural
land.
- The transferee of the agriland, the vendee is bound by the leasehold relationship
- Should it be annotated? No. Not necessary. The law provides for that.
- Leasehold relationship will remain. To protect the lessee from possible ejectment or
disposition of property.
- Refers to 2 parties
- It is referred as agricultural lessor and agricultural lessee
- Lease somebody must pay rental
- Can the lessor eject the tenant?
Yes, the lessor has the grounds provided by 3844 to eject the tenant. Unless the
ground for ejectment is not enumerated in 3844, the lessee cannot be ejected.

Grounds to dispossess a lessee: TOP-FNS

a. Failure to comply with terms and conditions of agreement

b. Planting of crops or the use of land for other purpose than that agreed upon
c. Failure to adopt proven farm practices to conserve land
d. Fault or negligence resulting in substantial damage
e. Non-payment of rental when due
f. Employed a sublessee
- Normally the grounds are last two grounds, under 3844, there is an express provision
that the lessee will allow a sublessee.
- If they are agricultural workers under RA 3844, they are under Bill Of Rights, they are
entitled to minimum wage law, among others.
- Agricultural lessee vs Civil lessee
To distinguish lessee under Civil Code and under Agrarian Law
1. Grounds to eject - AL 3844 while CL Civil Code
2. Where will you file the ejectment case agri lessee DAR while civil lessee in
regular courts
- Lessee has substantial rights, you dont have to allege , you have to support.
- Allegation only is not sufficient

Extinguishment of relation vs dispossession

 a. Extinguishment no court approval, voluntary act (abandonment of land without
knowedge of lessor or voluntary surrender by lessee) or an act of God
b. Dispossession with court order, premise of lessee

Can relationship be terminated by death? No. continue bet. Lessor and members of lessees
immediate farm household to be chosen by lessor within 1 month from death. 1. Surviving
spouse; 2. Eldest, 1 month after death, the lessor will choose

Lease rental

Shall not be more than the equivalent of 25% of the average normal harvest during
the 3 agricultural years immediately preceding the date of leasehold after deducting
amount used for the seeds and costs of harvesting, threshing, loading, hauling and
processing.

PD 27 & RA 6657

DIFFERENCE:
PD 27 rice & corn land
RA 6657 all other agricultural land (including lands of public domain).

Sigre v. CA : PD 27 is suppletory and operates separately from RA 6657.

Can lands acquired under PD 27 be transferred by DAR to another qualified beneficiary?

Estolas v. Mabalot : Land may only be transferred either by succession or to government.

Land Bank v. Heirs of Cruz:

-The determination of just compensation should be based on RA 6657 for lands covered
under PD 27. PD 27 applies only suppletorily.

CHAPTER 1
Is industrialization a component of Agrarian Reform?Yes.
Sec.2 (RA 6657)
sound rural development and industrialization
to promote industrialization
Industrial inputs necessary to agriculture (fertilizers, insecticides, hybrid seeds,
irrigation systems, tractors)

Can private corporation acquire ownership of alienable lands of public domain?

Chavez v. PEA: No, only through lease not exceeding 25 yrs. Renewable not more than 25yrs. And
not to exceed 1,000 hectares

(CONST., Art. XII, Sec.3)

Sec. 3 (b) 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 such farm products, and other farm activities and practices
performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by person whether natural or
juridical.
Luz Farms v. Sec. Sec.3 (b) unconstitutional
(raising of livestock, poultry and swine per SC)
- use of land is incidental and not the principal factor
RA 7881 (effective May 1995)
- amended Sec.3(b) and removed the raising of livestock, poultry or fish
raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or tree farming.
Industrial, not agricultural activity.
Great portion of the investment in this enterprise is in the form of industrial fixed assets, such
as: animal housing structures and facilities, drainage, waterers and blowers, feedmill with
grinders, mixers, conveyors, exhausts and generators, extensive warehousing facilities for
feeds and other supplies, anti-pollution equipment like bio-gas and digester plants augmented
by lagoons and concrete ponds, deepwells, elevated water tanks, pumphouses, sprayers, and
other technological appurtenances

DAR Admin. Order No. 01, S. 2004 (RULES & REGULATIONS GOVERNING THE
EXCLUSION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS USED FOR CATTLE RAISING FROM THE
COVERAGE OF CARP)
Objective: To prevent circumvention of CARP and to protect the rights of ARBs due to
unauthorized change/conversion or fraudulent declaration of areas used for cattle purposes.
Coverage: All applications for exclusion from CARP of private agricultural lands actually,
exclusively and directly used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988.
Types of animal: cattle (of bovine family), bull, calf, cow.
Policies:
(1) Those ADE used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 shall be excluded (exclusion to be
granted only upon proof and continuously utilized up to time of application);
(2) Any change in use shall be subject to policies on land conversion
(3) Only the grazing/pasture area and for infrastructure necessary for cattle raising shall be
excluded; all other areas shall be covered.
(4) Encourage growth of cattle industry
(5) If filing of exclusion is in response to notice of CARP coverage, DAR shall deny due
course if application is filed 60 days after date of receipt of notice.
(6) Only exclusion applications fully supported by documents shall be accepted

DAR v. Sutton: Masbate land -cattle-breeding capital of Phil

(VOS - due to Luz Farms - withdraw VOS)
- Constitutionality of AO No. 9, S. 1993 (prescribing a maximum retention limit for owners of
lands devoted to livestock raising);
- SC nullified AO; RA 7881 changed definition of agricultural activity by dropping from
its coverage lands that are devoted to commercial livestock, poultry and swine-raising.
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
agrarian reform.

Admin. Order No. 07, S. 2008

Policy guidelines:
Lands ADE used for livestock purposes as of 15 June 1988 and continuously used shall be
excluded; conversely, those not ADE are subject to CARP if one or more of the following
conditions apply: (1) there is agricultural activity in the area (i.e., cultivation of soil, planting of
crops, growing of trees including harvesting); (2) land is suitable for agriculture and occupied
and tilled by farmers.
In line with principle of regularity in the performance of official functions, all processes by
DAR per AO No. 9 are valid.
Sec. 3 (c) Agricultural land land devoted to agricultural activity & not classified as mineral,
forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.
Natalia Realty v. DAR 1979

Presidential Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land located in the Municipalities of
Antipolo, San Mateo and Montalban as townsite areas to absorb the population overspill in the
metropolis which were designated as the Lungsod Silangan Townsite. The NATALIA properties are
situated within the areas proclaimed as townsite reservation. NATALIA properties later became the
Antipolo Hills Subdivision. Notice of Coverage on the undeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills
Subdivision which consisted of roughly 90.3307 hectares. NATALIA immediately registered its
objection to the Notice of Coverage

SC:
They ceased to be agricultural lands upon approval of the reservation. Lands previously converted
by government agencies, other than DAR, to non-agricultural uses prior to the effectivity of the CARL
were outside the coverage of that law. Ruling not confined solely to agricultural lands located within
townsite reservations, but applied also to real estate converted to non-agricultural uses prior to the
effectivity of the CARL.

DAR AO No. 4 (Rules on exemption) - all lands already classified as commercial, industrial or
residential before June 15,1988 no longer need conversion clearance
Requirements: Sworn application, copy of title, certification from HLURB (zoning or
classification, citing zoning ordinance), among others. Public notice. Disturbance
compensation.

Roxas & Co.

Notice of coverage was wrongfully sent
SC: . DAR's failure to observe due process in the acquisition of petitioners' landholdings does
not ipso facto give the Supreme Court the power to adjudicate over petitioner's application for
conversion of its haciendas from agricultural to non-agricultural. The power to determine
whether Hacienda Palico, Banilad and Caylaway are non-agricultural which exempts from the
coverage of the CARL lies with the DAR, not with the Supreme Court. Case was remanded to
DAR for proper acquisition proceedings and determination of petitioner's application for
conversion

NHA v. Allarde
SC: As early as April 26, 1971, the Tala Estate (including the disputed lots) was reserved
under Presidential Proclamation No. 843, for the housing program of the National Housing
Authority, the same has been categorized as not being devoted to the agricultural activity
contemplated by Section 3 (c) of R.A. No. 6657, and is, therefore, outside the coverage of the
CARL. Verily, the assailed Orders of the respondent Court declaring the lots under
controversy as "agricultural land" and restraining the petitioner from involving the same in its
housing project thereon, are evidently bereft of any sustainable basis

Advincula-Velasquez v. CA
SC: Since the property was already reclassified as residential by the Metro Manila
Commission and the HSRC before the effectivity of Rep. Act No. 6657, there was no need for
the private respondent to secure any post facto approval thereof from the DAR

Alangilan v. Office of President

SC: It is beyond cavil that the Alangilan landholding was classified as agricultural, reserved
for residential in 1982, and was reclassified as residential-1 in 1994. However, contrary to
petitioner's assertion, the term reserved for residential does not change the nature of the land
from agricultural to non-agricultural. As aptly explained by the DAR Secretary, the term
reserved for residential simply reflects the intended land use. It does not denote that the
property has already been reclassified as residential, because the phrase reserved for
residential is not a land classification category. Indubitably, at the time of the effectivity of the
CARL in 1988, the subject landholding was still agricultural. This was bolstered by the fact
that the Sangguniang Panlalawigan had to pass an Ordinance in 1994, reclassifying the
 landholding as residential-1. If, indeed, the landholding had already been earmarked for
residential use in 1982, as petitioner claims, then there would have been no necessity for the
passage of the 1994 Ordinance.

AGRARIAN DISPUTE
any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements (leasehold, tenancy, stewardship) over
lands devoted to agriculture
any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under CARL and other terms and
conditions of transfer of ownership.
tenancy relationship

ESSENTIAL REQUISITIES: PSC-PPS

1) Parties (landowner & tenants)

2) Subject matter is agricultural land
3) Consent of parties
4) Purpose is agricultural production
5) Personal cultivation by tenant
6) Sharing of harvest between parties

All requisites must concur, absence of one does not make one a tenant.

Isidro v. CA
- Private resp is owner of land. Sister of priv resp allowed Isidro to occupy swampy portion
subject to condition to vacate upon demand. Failure to vacate, unlawful detainer was filed
against Isidro. RTC dismissed bec land is agricultural and so agrarian.
SC:
Jurisdiction over subject matter determined from allegations of complaint. Court does not lose
jurisdiction by defense of tenancy relationship and only after hearing that, if tenancy is shown,
the court should dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Case involving agri land does not
automatically make such case agrarian. Six requisites were not present. There was no
contract to cultivate & petitioner failed to substantiate claim that he was paying rent for use of
land.

SUPLICO v. CA
Suplico is a lessee of rice land. Private respondent was allowed by Suplico to till the land
while Suplico will provide the farm implements and thereafter Suplico was to receive cavans
from the palay by way of rental. Years later, Suplico threatened to eject priv. resp. from the
property, so private respondent filed an action for damages against Suplico in CAR. Resp.
Owner intervened in case and alleged the absence of contractual relationship. Trial court
declared private respondent as agricultural lessee and confirmed by CA.
SC:
- SC found no reasons to disturb findings
1. Private respondent was in actual possession of land with family in a farmhouse just like
what a farm tenant normally would.
2. Private resp. and wife were personally plowing, planting, weeding and harvesting.
3. Management was left entirely to private respondent
4. Private respondent shared the harvest with Suplico.

MONSANTO v. ZERNA: tenancy relationship may be established verbally or writing

Sps. Zerna were charged with qualified theft for the taking of coconuts owned by petitioner.
They were acquitted but required Zerna to return P1,100 to Monsanto on the ground that
Monsanto did not consent to harvest of coconut. Who is entitled to P1,100 proceeds of copra
sale. This falls under DARAB
There is Agrarian dispute:
1. Subject of dispute was taking of coconuts
 2. Private respondents were overseers at the time of taking by virtue of Agreement .

tenancy relationship may be established verbally or writing, expressly or impliedly

- here there was agreement which contradicts petitioners contention that private respondents
are mere overseers. Being overseers does not foreclose their being tenants. Petitioner
allowed respondent to plant coconut, etc. Harvests: receipts of remittance by respondent.
Petitioner is claiming the amount of P1,100 as balance from proceeds of copra sale. Private
respondents contend that this P1,100 is their compensation pursuant to tenurial
arrangements. Since this amount is intertwined with the resolution of agra dispute, CA
correctly ruled that DARAB has jurisdiction. RTC has only jurisdiction over criminal and it
acted beyond when it ruled that agri tenancy between parties. This belongs to DARAB.

BEJASA v. CA
FACTS:
Candelaria owned two parcels of land, which she leased to Malabanan. Malabanan hired the Bejasas
to plant on the land and clear it, with all the expenses shouldered by Malabanan. Bejasas continued
to stay on the land and did not give any consideration for its use, be it in the form of rent or a shared
harvest
ISSUE: Whether or not there is a tenancy relationship in favor of the Bejasas
SC:
Court found that there was no tenancy relationship between the parties. There was no proof that
Malabanan and the Bejasas shared the harvests. Candelaria never gave her consent to the Bejasas
stay on the land . There was no proof that the Dinglasans gave authority to the Bejasas to be the
tenant of the land in question. Not all the elements of tenancy were met in this case. There was no
proof of sharing in harvest. While Bejasa testified, SC said only Bejasas word was presented to prove
this. Besides testimony was suspicious because of inconsistency Bejasa testified that he agreed to
deliver 1/5 of harvest as owners share, yet at one time, he also mentioned that 25% was for
Malabanan and 50% for owner. Moreover, landowners never gave consent, citing Chico vs. CA , 284
534 self serving statement are inadequate, proof must be adhered. Even assuming that
landowner agreed to lease it for P20,000per year, such agreement did not prove tenancy .
Consideration should be harvest sharing.

VALENCIA v. CA
FACTS:
- Valencia is the owner of land, she leased the property for five (5)years to Fr. Andres Flores
under a civil law lease concept; lease with prohibition against subleasing or encumbering the
land without Valencias written consent. During the period of his lease, private respondents
were instituted to cultivate without consent of Valencia. After lease, Valencia demanded
vacate but refused; Private respondents were later awarded with CLTs after they filed
application with DAR; CLTs were upheld by Exec Sec and CA.

ALMUETE v. ANDRES (Issue on Ownership)

Facts:
Almuete was in exclusive possession of subject land. Unknown to Almuete, Andres was
awarded homestead patent due to investigation report that Almuete was unknown and waived
his rights; Andres also represented that Almuete sold the property to Masiglat for radiophone
set and that Masiglat sold to him for a carabao and P600. Almuete filed an action for recovery
of possession and reconveyance before trial court. Issue is who between 2 awardees of lot
has better right to property.
SC:
This is controversy relating to ownership of farmland so, beyond the ambit of agrarian dispute.
No juridical tie of landowner and tenant was alleged between petitioners and respondent. RTC
was competent to try the case.
PASONG BAYABAS v. CA : no evidence
Development of land: converted from agricultural to residential as approved by DAR.
Petitioners, claimed they are actual tillers of land, they filed a complaint for damages alleging
surreptitious conversion; priv resp denied cultivation & waiver of rights was executed by
some.

SC : no tenancy
no allegation in complaint that petitioners members are tenants; waiver of rights constitutes
abandonment. No substantial evidence that private respondent is landlord. Possession/entry
is w/o knowledge of owner. Cultivation / possession not proven. As to the remaining twenty
and more other complainants, it is unfortunate that they have not shown that their cultivation,
possession and enjoyment of the lands they claim to till have been by authority of a valid
contract of agricultural tenancy. On the contrary, as admitted in their complaint a number of
them have simply occupied the premises in suit without any specific area of tillage being
primarily mere farm helpers of their relatives

ESCARIZ v. REVILLEZA : tenancy is not presumed

Involving fruit on land owned by private respondent. Petitioner is claiming tenancy. DARAB
considered petitioner a tenant; CA reversed
SC: Tenancy is not presumed. There was no evidence to prove consent of parties and sharing of
harvest. SC agreed with CA that there is no evidence on record to prove the existence of the following
elements: (a) the consent of the parties and (b) the sharing of harvests.

HEIRS OF JUGALBOT V. CA
FACTS:
Jugalbot was issued EP; EP was challenged by Heirs of priv resp before DARAB and seek
cancellation of title and recovery possession; on appeal, DARAB upheld but CA reversed.

SC: Absence of tenancy relationship. The taking of property violated due process (CA was
correct in pointing out that Virginia A. Roa was denied due process because the DAR failed to send
notice of the impending land reform coverage to the proper party); no ocular inspection or any on-site
fact-finding investigation and report to verify the truth of the allegations of Nicolas Jugalbot that he
was a tenant of the property. By analogy, Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals applies to the case at
bar since there was likewise a violation of due process. No concrete evidence of cultivation; No proof
was presented except for their self-serving statements. Independent evidence, aside from self-serving
statements, is needed. Plus CA findings- Jugalbot was soldier of US Army and migrated to US and
returned only in 1998, wife and daughter were residents of California. Land involved is residential and
not agricultural because of zoning ordinance. Coverage Section 4: All alienable and disposable public
lands. All private lands devoted to or suitable to agriculture Schedule of implementation Sec. 5 The
distribution xxx shall be implemented immediately and completed within ten years from effectivity
hereof. Sec. 63: The initial amount needed to implement this Act for the period of ten years upon
approval hereof shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund created under Sections 20 and 21 of
Executive Order No. 299. xxx.. RA 8542: amended Sec. 63 as follows: The amount needed to
implement this Act until 2008 shall be funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund. RA 9700, Sec. 21:
The amount needed to further implement the CARP as provided in this Act, until June 30,
2014, upon expiration of funding under Republic Act No. 8532 and other pertinent laws, shall be
funded from the Agrarian Reform Fund and other funding sources in the amount of at least One
hundred fifty billion pesos (P150,000,000,000.00)

HOMESTEAD GRANTEES (Sec.6)

HOMESTEAD PATENT
A mode of acquiring alienable and disposable lands of public domain for agricultural purposes
conditioned upon actual cultivation and residence.
filed at CENRO where land being applied is located.
 who are qualified - citizens of Philippines over 18 years old & not an owner of
more than 12 hectares of land (Art XII, Sec. 3, 1987 Constitution)
designed to distribute disposable agricultural lots of the State to land-destitute citizens for
their home and cultivation. Pursuant to such benevolent intention the State prohibits the sale
or encumbrance of the homestead (CA 141, Section 116) within five years after the grant of
the patent. After that five-year period the law impliedly permits alienation of the homestead,
but in line with the primordial purpose to favor with the homesteader and his family the statute
provides that such alienation or conveyance (Section 117) shall be subject to the right of
repurchase by the homesteader, his widow or heirs.

CARL recognizes rights of homesteaders(Sec.6,)

expressly recognized in Sec. 6, Art XIII, Constitution

ALITA v. CA: (1989)

private respondents predecessors-in-interest have acquired 2 parcels of land in
Zamboanga del Sur thru homestead patent
petitioners/ tenants refuse to vacate relying on PD27
SC:
PD decreed the emancipation of tenants from bondage of soil and transferring to them
ownership of land they till.
However, PD27 cannot be involved to defeat the very purpose of CA 141 (Public Land Act)
Phil. Constitution respects the superiority of homesteaders rights and CARL also.
Sec. 6:
Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or their direct compulsory heirs who still own
the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as
they continue to cultivate said homestead.

PARIS v. ALFECHE (2001)

Paris is owner of 10 hectares in Bukidnon and another property of 13 hectares. She admitted
that land is fully tenanted by private respondents Alfeche,et al.
Paris claimed that she is entitled to retention and that as original homestead grantee, she is
entitled to retain the lands to the exclusion of tenants.

SC :
Petitioners contention is w/o legal basis. PD applies to all tenanted private agriculture lands
primarily devoted to rice and corn. Nowhere does it appear that lots obtained by homestead
patents are exempted from its operation. Under RA 6657, rights of homestead grantee are
provided but with condition: only for as long as they continue to cultivate them. That parcels
of land are covered by homestead will not automatically exempt them from operation of land
reform. It is the fact of continued cultivation by original grantees or direct compulsory heirs
that shall exempt their lands. Petitioner can retain however 5 hectares which require no
qualifying condition (Sec.6)

RETENTION RIGHTS
NCC: conjugal total is 5; capital/paraphernal not more than 5 each but not exceed 10
FC (Aug.3,1988) per DAR Adm. Order No. 2, s. 2003:
capital/paraphernal - not to exceed 5 provided with judicial separation
absolute (presumed) not to exceed 5

LANDOWNERs RETENTION RIGHTS

Is this right defeated by the issuance of CLTs/EPs or CLOAs?

DAEZ v. CA
Issuance of EPs/CLOAs to beneficiaries does not absolutely bar landowner from retaining the
area. In fact, EP or CLOA may be cancelled if land covered in later found to be part of landowners
retained area. In this case, CLTs of private respondent were leased w/o according Daez her right of
choice. So DAR was ordered to fully accord Daez her rights under Sec.6 of RA 6657.
Retention by landowner: 5 hectares
 Retention by each child of landowner: 3 hectares provided:
1. at least 15 years of age; and
2. actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm

DAR Adm. Order # 2, S.2003

Who may apply for retention
Period to exercise right of retention
Where to file
Instance where owner is considered to have waived his right of retention
Operating produces : MARO PARO REG. DIRECTOR- Sec. (Appeal)

That landholdings of landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and below shall not be covered
for acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries. (RA 9700, Sec. 3)

SEC. 6-A. Exception to Retention Limits. - Provincial, city and municipal government ,units
acquiring private agricultural lands by expropriation or other modes of acquisition 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 comprehensive land use plan, shall not be subject to the five (5)-
hectare retention limit under this Section xxx. (RA 9700, Sec. 4)

Sec. 10. Exemptions and Exclusions from coverage of CARL

(a) Lands ADE used for parks, wildlife, forest reserves, reforestation, fish sanctuaries and breeding
grounds, watersheds and mangroves (exempt);
(b) private lands ADE used for prawn farms and fishponds (exempt)
(c) lands ADE used and found to be necessary for national defense, school sites and campuses
including experimental farm stations, seeds and seedlings research, church sites and convents,
mosque sites, communal burial grounds and cemeteries, penal colonies and farms and all lands with
18% slope and over (exempt)

CENTRAL MINDANAO v. DARAB

The subject lands are exempted because they are actually, directly & exclusively used and
found necessary for school site and campus, including experimental farm stations for
educational purposes and for establishing seed and seeding research
The construction of DARAB in Section 10 restricting the land area of CMU to its present
needs overlooked the significant factor it growth of a university in years to come. By the
nature of CMU, which is a school established to promote agriculture & industry, the need for
vast tract of agriculture land for future programs of expansion is obvious.
While portion of CMU land was leased by Phil. Packing Corp.(now Del Monte), the agreement
was prior to CARL & was directly connected to the purpose & objectives of CMU as
educational institution
As to determination of when and what lands are found to be necessary for use of CMU,
school is in best position to resolve & answer the question. DARAB & CA have no right to
substitute unless it is manifest that CMU has no real need for land.

Atlas Fertilizer v. Sec.

Atlas engaged in the aquaculture industry utilizing fishponds and prawn farms; challenged RA
6657 which coverage lands devoted to the aquaculture industry, particularly fishponds and
prawn farms.
SC:
R.A. No. 7881 expressly state that fishponds and prawn farms are excluded from the
coverage of CARL. In view of the foregoing, the question concerning the constitutionality of the
assailed provisions has become moot and academic with the passage of R.A. No. 7881

Sanchez v. Marin
Issue:
 Whether the subject fishpond is exempted/excluded from the coverage of the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program of the government by virtue of the amendments introduced
by R.A. No. 7881 to R.A. No. 6657

SC:
Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7881 amended Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657 by
expressly exempting/excluding private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms
and fishponds from the coverage of the CARL.

REPUBLIC v. CA
Tax declaration classified subject land as agricultural. DAR issued notice of coverage & owner applied
for exemption. Application was denied and on appeal the Court of Appeals created a commission to
conduct ocular inspection and survey the land. Later, based on the report submitted by the
commission, the Court of Appeals reversed the Order of the DAR and exempted the lands from
CARL. Republic contends that tax declaration classified it as agriculture & which cannot be altered by
mere ocular inspection.
SC: There is no law/jurisprudence that land classification in tax declaration is conclusive; tax
declaration is clearly not sole basis of classification of land. SC gave credence to commissions
report. Based on their report, it was found that the land use map submitted by private respondent was
an appropriate document consistent with the existing land use. It was confirmed that the lands are not
wholly agricultural as they consist of mountainous area with an average of 28% slope. The CARL has
further provided that all lands with 18% slope and over except those already developed shall be
exempt from the coverage of CARL.
.

(Sec. 11) : COMMERCIAL FARMS

Commercial farms private agricultural lands devoted to saltbeds, fruit farms, orchards, vegetable
and cut-flower farms and cacao, coffee and rubber plantations. They are subject to compulsory
acquisition and distribution after 10 years from effectivity.

LUZ FARMS
Sec. II which includes private agricultural land devoted to commercial livestock, poultry &
swine raising in definition of commercial farms is invalid.
Adm. Order #01 (2004): rules & regulations governing exclusion of agricultural land used for cattle
raising from CARP. Citing Luz Farms case private agricultural land or portions thereof actually,
exclusively &directly used for cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 shall be excluded. Exclusion shall be
granted only upon proof of AED prior to 15 June 1988 & continuously utilized for such purpose up to
application. Any act to change or convert ; w/ intent to avoid CARP,shall be invalid. Only the grazing
area & portions of property required for infrastructure necessary for cattle raising shall be considered
for exclusion

DAR A.O #9, S of 1998 allows commercial farms certain options, subject to approval of DAR &
workers: (aside from voluntary & compulsory coverage)

CLOAs are issued - joint venture

in name of cooperative - grower ship agreement
of workers - lease back
- direct payment

DAR v. SUTTON :
Land devoted to cow & calf breeding. Lands under VOS before CARP. After CARP & Luz
Farms case, Sutton filed withdrawal of VOS. DAR issued A.O #9 (1993) which provide that only
portions of land used for raising of livestock, poultry & swine shall be excluded. DAR partially
exempted portion but ordered acquisition the rest.
SC: AO is invalid as it contravene Constitution since livestock , swine/poultry raising do not fall under
agriculture & agricultural activity
Adm. Order #7 (2008)
(Guidelines per Sutton Case (livestock raising)
Lands ADE used for livestock like cattle raising as of 15 June 1988 & continuously devoted
shall be excluded.
Those not ADE are subject to CARP provided that the agricultural activity in land is suitable
for agriculture presently tilled by farmers

IMPROVEMENT OF TENURIAL & LABOR RELATION

WHAT ARE THE WAYS IN DISTRIBUTING LANDS TO QUALIFIED FARMERS?

1. Compulsory acquisition (Sec.16)
2. Voluntary offer to sell/voluntary land transfer (Sec.20)
3. Non-land transfer schemer stock distribution option(SDO); production & profit
sharing (PPS)- Sec. 13/32; leasehold operation(Sec.12)

Sec.12 of 6657 mandates DAR to determine & fix the lease rentals within the retained areas and
areas not yet acquired.

Sec. 6 of 6657 recognizes the right of farmer to elect whether farmer-beneficiary OR leaseholds in
retained area.

Sec.67 of 6657 directs RD to register patents, title & documents required for implementation of CARP
Pursuant to DARs mandate to protect the rights & improve tenurial & economic status of
farmers in tenanted lands, DAR issued AO 02-06(REVISED RULES & PROCEDURES
GOVERNING LEASEHOLD IMPLEMENTATION IN TENANTED AGRICULTURAL LANDS):
-Leasehold is based on tenancy relationship (repeat 6 requisites)
-Leasehold relation shall not be extinguished by expiration at term nor by sale. In case of
alienation, purchaser/transferee shall be subjugated to rights/obligation of lessor.
-DARAB has jurisdiction to cancel leasehold contract .
-The consideration of lease shall not be more than 25% of average normal harvest during 3
agri years
-AO 02-06 states, among others, the rights & obligations of lessor/lessee.

CHAPTER IV REGISTRATION
Sec. 14 & 15 require the registration of landowners & beneficiaries w/ DAR. Purpose is to
establish databank & identify actual famer-beneficiaries.

Fortich vs. Corona : intervenors claimed that they are farmworkers & so intervened in case.
SC: There is no ruling yet from DAR whether intervenors are beneficiaries, so they have no standing
yet to intervene in the case.
DAR safeguards the list of ARB & provide IDs as proof of being bonafide beneficiaries
DARAB has jurisdiction to disqualify an ARB.

LAND ACQUISITION

Landlessness is acknowledged as the core problem in the rural areas and the root cause of
peasant unrest.
In order to hasten the implementation of the program, the Department of Agrarian Reform has
made compulsory acquisition the priority mode of land acquisition. To the same end, the law
provides for the steps in acquiring private lands through administrative instead of judicial
proceedings. This procedure is allowed provided the requirements of due process as to notice
and hearing are complied with.
Compulsory acquisition may be defined as the mandatory acquisition of agricultural lands
including facilities and improvements necessary for agricultural production, as may be
appropriate, for distribution to qualified beneficiaries upon payment of just compensation.
 The Notice of Coverage (NOC) commences the compulsory acquisition of private agricultural
lands coverable under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Along the
various phases of the CARP proceedings, the process stalls because of Land Owner (LO)
resistance, most of whom invoke the ground of lack of notice or non-observance of due
process in attacking the proceedings.

CHAPTER V LAND ACQUISITION

Sec. 16 outlines the procedure for acquisition of private land

Take note of Sec.16(d) & (e):
(1) practice of having no deed of transfer or conveyance
(2) titles are cancelled w/o owners copy surrendered (in Torren's System, if there is refusal in
involuntary dealings remedy is file petition in court
(3) RD titles are cancelled while owners copy is subsisting

Sec. 66 (Exemptions from taxes &fees of land transfer)

Sec. 67 (Free Registration of patents, titles & documents required for implementation of CARP)
Sec. (e) : Once DAR request and LBP makes deposit of initial valuation, DAR can request RD to
cancel title & transfer it to Republic of Phil. So even if landowners protests valuation, distribution of
land will proceed. CLOAs are issued upon land acquisition: so cancellation of title of landowner can
simultaneously go w/ issuance of CLOA.

In Association of small land owners, SC did not say automatically. SC said that title and
ownership remain w/ LO until full payment of past conversation.

CONFED vs. DAR

Compulsory Acquisition
Notice of Acquisition
First step: identification of the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries.
Law is silent
Administrative Order No. 12, Series of 1989
Valid implementation , two notices
DAR A.O. No.12, Series of 1989, amended in 1990 by DAR A.O. No.9, Series of 1990 and in
1993 by DAR A.O No.1, Series of 1993

Roxas case : CLOA was not properly issued, DAR should be given chance to validate proceedings.
Fortich case: CLOA was illegal & should be cancelled for being in violation of law.

Assoc. of Small Landowners:

Upheld validity of Sec. 16 RA 6657 (manner of acquisition of private agricultural lands and
ascertainment of just compensation). Section 16(e) of the CARP Law provides that: Upon receipt by
the landowner of the corresponding payment, or in case of rejection or no response from the
landowner, upon the deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the compensation in
cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act, the DAR shall take immediate possession of the
land and shall request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) in
the name of the Republic of the Philippines. The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution
of the land to the qualified beneficiaries
Sec. 16, RA 6657
The title of the section states: Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands.
Section 6, RA 9700
The title was amended: "SEC. 16. Procedure for Acquisition and Distribution of Private
Lands."
Confed v. DAR
Under Section 16 of the CARL, the first step in compulsory acquisition is the
identification of the land, the landowners and the beneficiaries. However, the law is
silent on how the identification process must be made.
Identification process in Sec. 16 is silent so DAR filled gap (AO #12, s. 989)
Notice of Coverage:
Notifies landowner that his property shall be placed under CARP and that he is entitled to
exercise his retention right;
Notifies him that a public hearing shall be conducted where he and representatives of the
concerned sectors of society may attend to discuss the results of the field investigation, the
land valuation and other pertinent matters.
Also informs the landowner that a field investigation of his landholding shall be conducted
where he and the other representatives may be present.

Notice of Acquisition:
The Notice shall include, among others, the area subject of compulsory acquisition, and the
amount of just compensation offered by DAR.
Should the landowner accept the DAR's offered value, the Bureau of Land Acquisition and
Distribution (BLAD) shall prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the Order of
Acquisition. However, in case of rejection or non-reply, the DAR Adjudication Board (DARAB)
shall conduct a summary administrative hearing to determine just compensation.

Immediately upon receipt of the DARAB's decision on just compensation, the BLAD shall
prepare and submit to the Secretary for approval the required Order of Acquisition.
Upon the landowner's receipt of payment, in case of acceptance, or upon deposit of payment
in the designated bank, in case of rejection or non-response, the Secretary shall immediately
direct the pertinent Register of Deeds to issue the corresponding Transfer Certificate of Title
(TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. Once the property is transferred, the
DAR, through the PARO, shall take possession of the land for redistribution to qualified
beneficiaries.
RA 6657: Revolutionary kind of expropriation
affects all private agricultural lands whenever found and of whatever kind as long in excess of
max retention limits;
intended for the benefit not only of a particular community or of a small segment of the
population but of the entire Filipino nation, from all levels of our society, from the
impoverished farmer to the land-glutted owner;
does not cover only the whole territory of this country but goes beyond in time to the
foreseeable future;
Constitution has ordained this revolution in the farms, calling for "a just distribution" among
the farmers of lands that have heretofore been the prison of their dreams and deliverance
Despite the revolutionary or non-traditional character of RA 6657, however, the chief
limitations on the exercise of the power of eminent domain, namely: (1) public use; and (2)
payment of just compensation, are embodied therein as well as in the Constitution.
With respect to "public use, in Association of Small Landowners declared that the
requirement of public use had already been settled by the Constitution itself as it "calls for
agrarian reform, which is the reason why private agricultural lands are to be taken from their
owners, subject to the prescribed maximum retention limits.
On just compensation, judicial determination is expressly prescribed in Section 57 of RA
6657 as it vests on the Special Agrarian Courts original and exclusive jurisdiction over all
petitions for the determination of just compensation to landowners. It bears stressing that the
determination of just compensation during the compulsory acquisition proceedings of Section
16 of RA 6657 is preliminary only, court can review.

Section 16 (f) clearly provides:

(f)Any party who disagrees with the decision may bring the matter to the court of proper
jurisdiction for final determination of just compensation

Application of Rule 67 of the Rules of Court?

Rules of Court, including Rule 67 thereof, is not completely disregarded in the implementation
of RA 6657 since the Special Agrarian Courts, in resolving petitions for the determination of
just compensation, are enjoined to apply the pertinent provisions of the Rules of Court.
 Section 58 of RA 6657, like Rule 67 of the Rules of Court, provides for the appointment of
commissioners by the Special Agrarian Courts.
Sec. 58: may; motu proprio or instance of party
Rule 67: shall

Land Bank v. CA
Private respondent challenged the admin order issued by DAR permitting the opening of
trust account by LBP, in lieu of depositing in cash or in LBP bonds.
SC:
Sec. 16 (e) is explicit that deposit be in cash or in LBP bonds;
Nowhere does it appear nor can it be inferred that the deposit can be made in any other form
like a trust account;
There was no basis for issuance of order.

Santos v. LBP :
Facts:
RTC required payment of compensation for petitioner's land taken under the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program, to be made in cash and bonds. According to petitioner, said order illegally
amended the judgment rendered which directs payment of compensation to be made "in the manner
provided in RA 6657.
SC:
Trial court decision directing payment of just compensation in the manner provided by RA
6657 is not illegally amended but is merely clarified by an order issued during execution proc that
such amount shall be paid in cash and bonds.

CHAPTER VI COMPENSATION
Just Compensation:
full & fair equivalent of property taken from owner by expropriation (Assoc. of Small
Landowners). The word "just" is used to intensify the meaning of the word "compensation" to
convey the idea that the equivalent to be rendered for the property to be taken shall be real,
substantial, full, ample.

FACTORS (Section 17): 1. cost of acquisition ; 2. current value of like properties;3. actual use &
income & nature; 4. sworn valuation by owner; 5. tax declaration; 6. assessment made by
Government assessors.

Sec. 7, RA 9700:
"SEC. 17. Determination of Just Compensation. In determining just compensation, the
cost of acquisition of the land, the value of the standing crop, the current value of like properties, its
nature, actual use and income, the sworn valuation by the owner, the tax declarations, the
assessment made by government assessors, and seventy percent (70%) of the zonal valuation of
the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR), translated into a basic formula by the DAR shall be
considered, subject to the final decision of the proper court. The social and economic benefits
contributed by the farmers and the farmworkers and by the Government to the property as well as the
nonpayment of taxes or loans secured from any government financing institution on the said land
shall be considered as additional factors to determine its valuation."

LBP v. Dumlao
Facts:
Respondents are owners of agri lands covered under PD 27; Determination of just
compensation remained pending with DAR, so they filed complaint with RTC for
determination.
SC:
if just compensation was not settled prior to the passage of RA No. 6657, it should be
computed in accordance with said law, although property was acquired under PD No. 27;
the determination made by the trial court, which relied solely on the formula prescribed by PD
No. 27 and EO No. 228, is grossly erroneous. The amount of P6,912.50 per hectare, which is
 based on the DAR valuation of the properties "at the time of their taking in the 1970s", does
not come close to a full and fair equivalent of the property taken from respondents;
CA's act of setting just compensation in the amount of P109,000.00 would have been a valid
exercise of this judicial function, had it followed the mandatory formula prescribed by RA No.
6657. However, the appellate court merely chose the lower of two (2) values specified by the
commissioner as basis for determining just compensation, namely: (a) P109,000.00 per
hectare as the market value of first class unirrigated rice land in the Municipality of Villaverde;
and (b) P60.00 per square meter as the zonal value of the land in other barangays in
Villaverde. This is likewise erroneous because it does not adhere to the formula provided by
RA No. 6657.
It cannot be overemphasized that the just compensation to be given to the owner cannot be
assumed and must be determined with certainty.
Section 17 was converted into a formula by the DAR through AO No. 6, Series of 1992, as
amended by AO No. 11, Series of 1994:
Basic formula (Voluntary Offer to Sell) or [Compulsory Acquisition] regardless of the date of
offer or coverage of the claim:
LV = (CNI x 0.6) + (CS x 0.3) + (MV x 0.1)
Where:
LV = Land Value
CNI = Capitalized Net Income
CS = Comparable Sales
MV = Market Value per Tax Declaration
The above formula shall be used if all the three factors are present, relevant and applicable.
Note:
1. PD 27: uses average crop harvest as a consideration;
RA 6657: factors for consideration in determining just compensation.
2. RA 6657 for lands covered by PD 27 and just compensation has not been determined at the time of
passage of RA 6657 applies because PD 27 and EO 228 have only suppletory effect.

Take into account the nature of land (i.e., irrigated), market value, assessed value at the time of
the taking, location (i.e., along highway) and the volume and value of its produce, like:
(a) prevailing market value of in the area and adjacent areas;
(b) presence and availability of an irrigation system to augment and increase
agricultural production;
(c) available comparable sales in the area;
(d) average harvests per hectare.

The date of taking of the subject land for purposes of computing just compensation should be
reckoned from the issuance dates of the emancipation patents.
Why? EP constitutes the conclusive authority for the issuance of a Transfer Certificate of Title
in the name of the grantee. It is from the issuance of an emancipation patent that the grantee
can acquire the vested right of ownership in the landholding, subject to the payment of just
compensation to the landowner.
However, their issuance dates are not shown. As such, the trial court should determine the
date of issuance of these emancipation patents in order to ascertain the date of taking and
proceed to compute the just compensation due to respondents.
Petitioners argument that respondents should not be paid yet pending determination by DAR
is specious.
To wait for the DAR valuation despite its unreasonable neglect and delay in processing is to
violate the elementary rule that payment of just compensation must be within a reasonable
period from the taking of property;
Citing Cosculluela v. CA, just compensation means not only the correct determination of the
amount to be paid to the owner of the land but also the payment of the land within a
reasonable time from its taking. Without prompt payment, compensation cannot be
considered "just" for the property owner is made to suffer the consequence of being
immediately deprived of his land while being made to wait for a decade or more before
actually receiving the amount necessary to cope with his loss

Sps. Lee v. LBP

 If valuation is based not on the factors, it is not valid .
(Note that in this case, there was admission that valuation was not based on factors under
CARL: a representative of the company admitted that it did not consider the CARP valuation to be
applicable).
Case remanded.

LBP v. Heirs of Cruz

If valuation is not based on any evidence, it is w/o basis, so determination be remanded.
In this case, decision of PARAD and SAC points to no evidence, so case was remanded.
Is prior recourse to DARAB necessary before case for determination of JC may be filed?
No:
(a) because DAR may continue to alienate the lots during the pendency of protest;
(b) Sec. 57 of RA 6657 states that SAC has orig and exclusive jurisdiction.
Content and Manner (Section 18)
Sec. 18 speaks of cash or shares of stock, tax credits or LBP bonds.
Is this not violation of usual way of payment in cash?
No, because revolutionary kind.
Parties involved (Section 18)

Land Bank v. CA:

The parties are DAR, landowner and LBP. The law does not mention the participation of
farmer-beneficiary.
So consent of farmer-beneficiary is not required in establishing proper compensation.
Voluntary offer (Section 19)
Section 19 provides for additional 5% cash payment if LO voluntarily offers land for sale.
Voluntary land transfer (Secs. 20 and 21)

How is VLT made?

Sec. 20 LO may enter into voluntary arrangement for direct transfer to qualified beneficiaries but
subject to guidelines (i.e., all notices for VLT be submitted to DAR within 1 st year of implementation of
CARP, terms and conditions shall not be less favorable to transferee).

Sec. 21 direct payment may be made in cash or kind by ARB under terms mutually agreed and
which shall be binding upon registration and approval by DAR.
Sec. 44 (2) provides that PARCOM shall recommend to PARC the adoption of direct
payment scheme. So, AO #2, s. 1995 was issued:
Beneficiaries are determined by DAR;
Area to be transferred to ARB should not be less than the area which the govt would
otherwise acquire;
CLOAs should bear proper annotations.

QUALIFIED BENEFICIARIES
(1) The lands covered by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to landless residents of
the same barangay, or in the absence thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the
following order of priority:
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;
(b) regular farmworkers;
(c) seasonal farmworkers;
(d) other farmworkers;
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries; and
(g) others directly working on the land;

(2) The children of landowners who are qualified shall be given preference in the distribution of the
land of their parents.

(3) Actual tenant-tillers in the landholding shall not be ejected or removed therefrom.
(4) Beneficiaries under Presidential Decree No.27 who have culpably sold, disposed of, or abandoned
their lands are disqualified to become beneficiaries under the Program.

(5) A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude, and ability to cultivate and
make the land as productive as possible.
(6) If, due to the landowners retention rights or to the number of tenants, lessees, or workers on the
land, there is not enough land to accommodate any or some of them, they may be granted ownership
of other lands available for distribution under the Act, at the option of the beneficiaries.

(8) No qualified beneficiary may own more than three (3) hectares of agricultural land. (Sec. 23)

AWARD TO BENEFICIARIES
Ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award,
which shall contain the restrictions and conditions provided for in the Act, and shall be
recorded in the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title. (Sec.
24)
Issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificate
When certificate issued. Section 24 of R.A. No. 6657 provides that the rights and
responsibilities of the beneficiary shall commence from the time the DAR makes an award of
the land to him, which award shall be completed within 180 days from the time the DAR takes
actual possession of the land. Ownership of the lands by the beneficiary shall be evidenced
by an Emancipation Patent (EP) or a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA), which
shall contain the restrictions, and conditions provided by law and which shall be recorded in
the Register of Deeds concerned and annotated on the Certificate of Title.

In several instances, however, the EP or CLOA cannot be immediately issued pending the fulfillment
of certain legal and administrative requirements. Examples of these are:
(a) The Supreme Court ruling in the case of Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc.
v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform (G.R. No. 76742, 14,July 1989.) that title to all expropriated
properties shall be transferred to the State only upon full payment of compensation to their respective
landowners;

(b) The conduct of subdivision surveys to define the specific parcel of land being awarded through the
EP or CLOA.
Cont. of Issuance of CARP Beneficiary Certificate (1)
Thus, pending the fulfillment of the said requirements, the identified beneficiaries may already
be in possession of the land but still have no EP or CLOA therefor. For this reason, the DAR
shall first issue a CARP Beneficiary Certificate (CBC) to provide the would-be beneficiaries,
an intermediate document to evidence that they have been identified and have qualified as
agrarian reform beneficiaries under the CARP. Moreover, aside from attesting to the inchoate
right of the identified beneficiary to be awarded the land or portion thereof, the CBC issued
shall entitle the recipient to receive support services under the CARP.

PAYMENT BY BENEFICIARIES
(1)Lands awarded pursuant to the Act shall be paid for by the beneficiaries to the LBP in thirty (30)
annual amortization at 6% interest per annum subject to the following rules:
(a) The payments for the first three (3) years after the award may be at reduced amounts as
established by the PARC.
(b) The first five (5) annual payments may not be more than 5% of the value of the annual
gross production as established by the DAR.
(c) Should the scheduled annual payments after the fifth year exceed 10% of the annual gross
production and the failure to produce accordingly is not due to the beneficiarys fault, the LBP may
reduce the interest rate or reduce the principal obligation to make the repayment affordable.

(2) The LBP shall have a lien (i.e., prior right) by way of mortgage on the land awarded to the
beneficiary; and this mortgage may be foreclosed by the LBP for non-payment of an aggregate of
three(3) annual amortization. The LBP shall advice the DAR of such proceedings and the latter shall
subsequently award the forfeited landholding to other qualified beneficiaries. A beneficiary whose land
has been foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently disqualified from becoming a beneficiary under
the Act. (Sec. 26.)

TRANSFERABILITY OF AWARDED LANDS

(1) Lands acquired by beneficiaries under the 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 for a
period of ten (10) years. However, the children of the spouse of the transferor shall have a right to
repurchase the land from the government or LBP within a period of two (2) years. Due notice of the
availability of the land shall be given by the LBP to the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC)
of the barangay where the land is situated. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating
Committee (PARCCOM) shall, in turn, be given the due notice thereof by the BARC.

(2) If the land has not yet been fully paid by the beneficiary, the rights to the land may be transferred
or conveyed, with prior approval of the DAR, to any heir of the beneficiary or to any other beneficiary
who, as a condition for such transfer or conveyance, shall cultivate the land himself.

NON-LAND TRANSFER SCHEMES

(1) Leasehold Operations (LO)- lands within the land owners retained areas or lands not yet due
for distribution are placed under leasehold to ensure farmers security over the land they till
and pre-empt their displacement while waiting for the eventual distribution of the land;
(2) Production Profit Sharing (PPS)- This scheme is an interim measure while the lands owned or
operated by agricultural entities await coverage under the CARP. There entities are
companies mostly involved in the commercial production of rubber, banana, and pineapple;
(3) Stock Distribution Option (SDO). - Under this arrangement, the farmers are entitled to
dividends and other financial benefits and are also assured of at least a representatives at the
Board of Directors, management or executive committee to protect the rights and interest of
shareholders; and
(4) Commercial Farm Deferment (SFD). This scheme provides corporate landowners of newly-
established commercial plantations enough time to recover their investment before such
agricultural lands are covered by CARP. The deferment period was up to 1998. Pending final
land transfer, however, these corporations shall implement a production and profit-sharing
scheme in their farms.
The monitoring of non-land transfer activities by the field offices of the DAR has not been given much
priority, as there has been greater pressure for them to deliver their land acquisition and distribution
(LAD) targets.