Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
Castillo vs. CA
205 SCRA 529 (1992)
Facts:
Alberto Ignacio filed a complaint for injunction against Castillo alleging that he is the agricultural tenant of
the latter. He claims that Castillo allowed him to construct a rest house in the property and that, thereafter,
Castillo started cutting fruit-bearing trees on the land and filled with adobe stones the area intended for
vegetables. On the other hand, Castillo denied that Ignacio was his tenant but that the latter was only a
"magsisiga" of the landholding and that he did not ask permission from Ignacio when he constructed his rest
house. The trial court found no tenancy relationship between the parties but this was reversed by the Court of
Appeals.
Held:
The element of personal cultivation is absent in this case. The alleged tenant "is a businessman by
occupation and this is his principal source of income. He manufactures hollow blocks. He also has a piggery
and poultry farm as well as a hardware store on the land adjoining the subject land. To add to that, the
respondent farms the riceland of one Dr. Luis Santos. It is thusevident that the working hours of the
respondent as a businessman and his other activities do not permit him to undertake the work and obligations
of a real tenant. This is further supported by the undisputed fact that the respondent cannot even personally
perform the work of a smudger because on 22 October 1986, the respondent hired some 20 people who are
not members of hisfamily to cut and burn the grass in the premises of the subject land." (at 535-536) .
An owner tilling his own agricultural land is not a tenant within the contemplation of the law (Baranda vs.
Baguio, 189 SCRA 194 (1990).
In Oarde vs. CA, et al., 280 SCRA 235 (1997), certifications of tenancy/non-tenancy issued by DAR are not
conclusive.
"The certifications issued by administrative agencies or officers that a certain person is a tenant are merely
provisional and not conclusive on courts, as ruled by this Court in Cuao vs. Court of Appeals, citing
Puertollano vs. IAC. Secondly, it is well-settled that the "findings of or certifications issued by the Secretary
of Agrarian Reform, or hisauthorized representative, in a given locality concerning the presence or absence
of a tenancy relationship between the contending parties is merely preliminary or provisional and is not
binding upon the courts." (at 246)
Landholder-lessor
A landholder-lessor is defined as "any person, natural or juridical, either as owner, lessee, usufructuary or legal
possessor of agricultural land, who lets, leases or rents to another said property for purposesof agricultural
production and for a price certain or ascertainable either in an amount of money or produce." (Rep. Act No. 1199
[1954], sec. 42). Thus, consent need not be necessarily given personally by the registered owner as long as the
person giving the consent is the lawful landholder as defined by law.
Facts:
Primero owns a tenanted riceland in Cavite. Because of his desire to let the property to one Porfir io Potente,
he notified his tenant advising the latter to vacate the land. The tenant refused. Primero filed a case with
CAR which subsequently dismissed the same. On appeal, Primer o assailed the constitutionality of Sec. 9 and
50 of RA 1199 claiming that said provisions are limitations on freedom of contract, a denial of equal
protection of law, and an impairment of, or limitation on, property rights.
Held:
The provisions of law assailed as unconstitutional do not impair the right of the landowner to dispose or
alienate his property nor prohibit him to make such transfer or alienation; they only provide that in case of
transfer or in case of lease, as in the instant case, the tenancy relationship between the landowner and his
tenant should be preserved in order to insure the well-being of the tenant or protect him from being unjustly
dispossessed by the transferee or purchaser of the land; in other words, the purpose of the law in question is
to maintain the tenants in the peaceful possession and cultivation of the land or afford themprotection
against unjustified dismissal from their landholdings. Republic Act 1199 is unquestionably a remedial
legislation promulgated pursuant to the social justice precepts of the Constitution and in the exercise of the
police power of the state to promote the commonwealth. It is a statute relating to public subjects within the
domain of the general legislative powers of the State and involving the public rights and public welfare of
the entire community affected by it. Republic Act 1199, like the previous tenancy laws enacted by our
lawmaking body, was passed by congress in compliance with the constitutional mandates that "the
promotion of social justice to insure the well-being and economic security of all the people should be the
concern of the State" (Art II, sec. 5) and that "the state shall regulate the relations between landlord and
tenant in agriculture" (Art. XIV, sec. 6). (at 680).
In Pineda vs. de Guzman, 21 SCRA 1450 (1967), the Supreme Court also held:
Section 49 of the Agricultural Tenancy Act, Republic Act 1199, as amended, enunciatesthe principle of
security of tenure of the tenants, such that it prescribes that the relationship of landholder and tenant can only
be terminated for causes provided by law. The principle is epitomized by the axiom on land tenure that once
a tenant, always a tenant. Attacks on the constitutionality of this guarantee have centered on the contention
that it is a limitation on freedom of contract, a denial of the equal protection of the law, and an impairment of
or a limitation on property rights. The assault is without reason. The law simply provides that the tenancy
relationship between the landholder and his tenant should be preserved in order to insure the well-being of
the tenant and protect him from being unjustly dispossessed of the land. Its termination can take place only
for causes and reasons provided in the law. It was established pursuant to the social justice precept of the
State to promote the common weal. (Primero vs. Court of Industrial Relations, G.R. No. L-10594, May 29,
1957) (at 1456).
Rights and Responsibilities of the Parties
Rights and responsibilities of lessee
The lessee shall have the following rights:
a) To have possession and peaceful enjoyment of the land;
b) To manage and work on the land in a manner and method of cultivation and harvest which
conform to the proven farm practices;
c) To mechanize all or any phase of his farm work;
d) To deal with millers and processors and attend to the issuance of quedans and warehouse receipts
of the produce due him/her;
e) To continue in the exclusive possession and enjoyment of any homelot the lessee may have
occupied upon the effectivity of RA 3844;
f) To be indemnified for the costs and expenses incurred in the cultivation and for other expenses
incidental to the improvement of the crop in case the lessee surrenders, abandons or is ejected from the
landholding;
g) To have the right of pre-emption and redemption; and
h) To be paid disturbance compensation in case the conversion of the farmholding has been approved
(Rep. Act No. 3844 [1963], sec. 23, 24, 25, 11, 12, 36)
On the other hand, the lessee shall have the following responsibilities under Sec. 26 of RA 3844:
a) Cultivate and take care of the farm, growing crops, and other improvements on the land and
perform all the work therein in accordance with proven farm practices;
b) Inform the lessor within a reasonable time of any trespass committed by third persons on the farm,
without prejudice to his/her direct action against the trespasser;
c) Take reasonable care of the work animals and farm implements delivered to him/her by the lessor
and see to it that they are not used for purposes other than those intended, or used by another without the
knowledge and consent of the lessor;
d) Keep the farm and growing crops attended to during the work season; and
e) To pay the lease rental to the lessor when it falls due.
One of the rights of a lessee is to be entitled to a homelot. But only the tenant-lessee has this right and that members
of the immediate family of the tenants are not entitled to a homelot.
Facts:
The Governor of Camarines Sur filed two (2) separate cases for expropriation against Ernesto and Efren San
Joaquin pursuant to Sangguniang Panlalawigan Resolution No. 129 authorizing the Governor to purchase or
expropriate properties owned by the San Joaquins for the establishment of a pilot farm for non-food and non-
traditional agricultural crops and a housing project for provincial government employees. The San Joaquins
moved to dismiss the complaints on the ground of inadequacy of the price offered. The motion was denied
and a writ of possession was issued in favor of the province. On appeal with the CA, the San Joaquins asked
the appellate court to, among others, nullify the resolution issued by the Sanggunian. The CA asked the
Office of the Solicitor General to comment to the petition. The Solicitor General stated that the approval of
the Office of the President is not needed but the province must first secure the approval of the DARof the
plan to expropriate the lands of petitioners. The CA set aside the order of the trial court allowing the
province to take possession and ordered the suspension of the expropriation proceedings until after the
submission of the DAR approval to convert the property.
Issue:
Is DAR approval still necessary before an LGU can expropriate agricultural lands for conversion to non-
agricultural use?
Held:
It is true that local government units have no inherent power of eminent domain and can exercise it only
when expressly authorized by the legislature (City of Cincinnati v. Vester, 281 US 439, 74 L.ed. 950, 50 S
Ct. 360). It is also true that in delegating the power to expropriate, the legislature may retain certain control
or impose certain restraints on the exercise thereof by the local governments (Joslin Mfg. Co. v. Providence,
262 US 668 67 L. ed. 1167, 43 S Ct. 684) . While such delegated power may be a limited authority, it is
complete within its limits. Moreover, the limitations on the exercise of the delegated power must be clearly
expressed, either in the law conferring the power or in other legislation.
Resolution No. 129 [1988] was promulgated pursuant to Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337, the Local Government
Code, which provides: . . .
Section 9 of B.P. Blg. 337 does not intimate in the least that local government units must first secure the
approval of the Department of Land Reform for the conversion of lands from agricultural to non-agricultural
use, before they can institute the necessary expropriation proceedings. Likewise, there is no provision in the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law which expressly subjects the expropriation of agricultural lands by
local government units to the control of the Department of Agrarian Reform. The closest provision of law
that the Court of Appeal could cite to justify the intervention of the Department of Agrarian Reform in
expropriation matters is Section 65 of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, which reads: . . .
The opening, adverbial phrase of the provision sends signals that it applies to lands previously placed under
the agrarian reform program as it speaks of "the lapse of five (5) years from its award."
The rules on conversion of agricultural lands found in Section 4 (k) and 5(l) of Executive Order No. 129-A,
Series of 1987, cannot be the source of the authority of the Department of Agrarian Reform to determine the
suitability of a parcel of agricultural land for the purpose to which it would be devoted by the expropriating
authority. While those rules vest on the Department of Agrarian Reform the exclusive authority to approve
or disapprove conversions of agricultural lands for residential, commercial or industrial uses, such authority
is limited to the applications for reclassifications submitted by the land owners or tenant beneficiaries..
Statutesconferring the power of eminent domain to political subdivisions cannot be broadened or constricted
by implication (Schulman v. People, 10 N.Y. 2d. 249, 176 N.E. 2d. 817, 219 NYS 2d. 41).
To sustain the Court of Appeals would mean that the local government units can no longer expropriate
agricultural lands needed for the construction of roads, bridges, schools, hospitals, etc., without first applying
for conversion of the use of the lands with the Department of Agrarian Reform, because all of these projects
would naturally involve a change in the land use. In effect, it would then be the Department of Agrarian
Reform to scrutinize whether the expropriation is for a public purpose or public use. (at 179-181;
underscoring supplied).
Authority to Approve/Disapprove Conversion
Under Sec. 4 and 5 of EO 129-A (1987) , the DAR is mandated to "approve or disapprove the conversion,
restructuring or readjustment of agricultural lands into non-agricultural uses." It authorizes DAR to "have exclusive
authority to approve or disapprove conversion of agricultural land for residential, commercial, industrial, and other
land uses as may be provided for by law." Also, Sec. 4 of OP MC 54 ( 1993), provides that "action on application for
land use conversion on individual landholdings shall remain as the responsibility of the DAR, . . . , pursuant to RA
No. 6657 and EO 129-A."
Moreover, RA 6657 provides:
Section 65. Conversion of Lands. After the lapse of five (5) years from its award, when the land ceases
to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, if the locality has become urbanized and the
land will have greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes, the DAR upon
application of the beneficiary or the landowner, with due notice to the affected parties, and subject to
existing laws, may authorized the reclassification or conversion of the land and its disposition; Provided,
That the beneficiary shall have fully paid his obligations.
In the case of Roxas v. CA, G.R. No. 127876, 16 December 1999, the authority of the DAR to approve or
disapprove conversion was reiterated by the Court:
Respondent DAR's failure to observe due process in the acquisition of petitioner's landholdings does not ipso
facto give this Court the power to adjudicate over petitioner's application for conversion of its haciendas
from agricultural to non-agricultural. The agency charged with the mandate of approving or disapproving
applications for conversion is the DAR." (at 45-46; underscoring supplied). The Court further stated that,
"( t)he DAR's mandate over applications for conversion was first laid down in Section 4 (j) and Section 5 (l)
of Executive Order No. 129-A, Series of 1987 and reiterated in the CARLand Memorandum Circular No. 54,
Series of 1993 of the Office of the President. (at 46).
DAR's authority to allow conversion is not limited only to lands awarded under CARP. As stated in DOJ Opinion
No. 44 (1990):
Being vested with exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian
reform, it is believed to be the agrarian reform law's intention that any conversion of a private agricultural
land to non-agricultural uses should be cleared before hand by the DAR. True, the DAR's express power
over land use conversion is limited to cases in which agricultural lands already awarded have, after five
years, ceased to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes, or the locality has become
urbanized and the land will have a greater economic value for residential, commercial or industrial purposes.
But to suggest that these are the only instances when the DAR can require conversion clearances would open
a loophole in R.A. No. 6657, which every landowner may use to evade compliance with the agrarian reform
program. Hence, it should logically follow from the said department's express duty and function to execute
and enforce the said statute that any commercial or industrial property should first be cleared by the DAR.
xxx xxx xxx
Based on the foregoing premises, we reiterate the view that with respect to conversions of agricultural lands
covered by RA No. 6657 to non-agricultural uses, the authority of DAR to approve such conversion may be
exercised from the date of the law's effectivity on June 15, 1988. This conclusion is based on a liberal
interpretation of R.A. No. 6657 in the light of DAR's mandate and the extensive coverage of the agrarian
reform program. (Underscoring supplied.)
DAR Officials Author ized to Issue Conver sion Or der s
Under Sec. 22 (a) of DAR AO 1 (1999), the following DAR officials shall appr ove or disappr ove
applications for land use conver sion:
a) The Regional Dir ector for ar eas of not mor e than five (5) hectar es;
b) The duly author ized Under secr etar y for ar eas above five (5) hectar es but not mor e than fift y
(50) hectar es;
c) The Secr etar y for ar easof mor e than fift y (50) hectar es, except for those highly r estr icted
fr om conver sion which shall be subj ect to his appr oval r egar dless of the ar ea.
For purposes of determining the appropriate approving authority, the total area for conversion shall refer to the
aggregate area of all applications regardless of the number of applications and the nature of the proposed project
where (a) the properties are owned by the same person or entity or the owners of which are represented by the same
person or entity; and ( b) the properties are located in the same barangay or adjacent barangays within the same
municipality/ies or city/ies. In case the subject land is adjacent to an area previously issued with conversion order,
the foregoing test shall be applied to determine the appropriate approving authority (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999],
sec. 22 [b] and [c]).
Scope of Land Use Conver sion
Under DAR AO 1 (1999) , the following agr icultur al lands ar e subj ect to DAR' s conver sion author ity:
a) Those to be conver ted to r esidential, commer cial, industr ial, institutional and other non-
agr icultur al pur poses;
b) Those to be devoted to another type of agr icultur al activity such as livestock, poultr y, and
fishpond the effect of which is to exempt the land fr om CARP cover age;
c) Those to be conver ted to non-agr icultur al use other than that pr eviously author ized; and
d) Those r eclassified to r esidential, commer cial, industr ial, or other non-agr icultur al uses on or
after the effect ivity of RA 6657 on J une 15, 1988 pur suant to the Local Gover nment Code.
Sec. 3 (b) of DAR AO 1 (1999) states that the change in use of land fr om one agr icultur al activity to
another use which would exempt the land fr om CARP cover age under Sec. 10 of RA 6657 and DOJ Opinion
No. 44 [1990] r equir es conver sion clear ance. Hence, landowner s of agr icultur al lands devoted to coconuts
must fir st secur e a conver sion clear ance fr om DAR if they want to conver t the same to poultr y far m or
fishpond.
Also, DAR AO 1 (1990) r equir es landowner s to secur e another conver sion clear ance if the change that will
be under taken is not what has been author ized in a pr evious conver sion or der . In shor t, if DAR issues a
conver sion or der author izing the landowner to change the use of the pr oper ty fr om agr icultur al use, e.g.
coconut plantation to a memor ial par k, the owner cannot develop the pr oper ty into a r esidential subdivision
without getting another conver sion clear ance specifically allowing the r esidential use of the land.
Agr icultur al lands outside DAR' s conver sion author ity
The following lands do not r equir e DAR conver sion clear ance or ar e not subj ect to conver sion:
a) Agr icultur al lands r eclassified to non-agr icultur al uses pr ior to 15 J une 1988 (DAR Adm. O.
No. 1 [1999], sec. 3 (d) and DOJ Opinion No. 44, [1990]). (These lands ar e subj ect to DAR exemption
clear ance);
b) Agr icultur al lands consider ed non-negotiable for conver sion ( DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999] , sec.
4);
c) Lands within the Str ategic Agr icultur e and Fisher ies Development Zones (SAFDZs) which
ar e subj ect to the five ( 5) year mor ator ium per iod beginning 10 Febr uar y 1998 up to 9 Febr uar y 2003
(Rep. Act No. 8435 [1997], sec. 9; DA Adm. O. No. 6 [ 1998], r ule 9). (Except as to 5% ther eof).
Ar eashighly r estr icted fr om conver sion
Under Sec. 2 (b) and 5 of DAR AO 1 (1999) , ar eas highly r estr icted fr om conver sion r efer to the following:
a) Ir r igable lands not cover ed by ir r igation pr ojects with fir m funding commitment;
b) Agr o-industr ial cr oplands, or lands pr esent ly planted to industr ial cr ops that suppor t the
economic viability of existing agr icultur al infr astr uctur e and agr o-based enter pr ises;
c) Highlands or ar eas located in elevations of 500 meter s or above and have the potent ial for
gr owing semi-temper ate and usually high-value cr ops;
d) Lands issued with notice of land valuation and acquisition, or subj ect of a per fected
agr eement between the landowner and the beneficiaries under the voluntar y land tr ansf er /dir ect
payment scheme;
e) Envir onmentally cr itical ar eas as deter mined by the DENR in accor dance with law.
The conver sion of these ar eas, if at all, shall under go a mor e str ingent pr ocess and the applicant must
clear ly show that conver sion is far mor e beneficial to the community and the public at lar ge. Applications
involving ar eas highly r estr icted fr om conver sion ar e deliber ated upon by the PARC Land Use Technical
Committee and subj ect to the Secr etar y' sappr oval r egar dless of the ar ea. The applicant is also r equir ed to
submit the following additional r equir ement s: (a) a pr oject feasibility study; and (b) envir onmental
compliance cer tificate, if within envir onmentally cr itical ar ea.
Lands non-negotiable for conver sion
Under Sec. 4 of DAR AO 1 (1999), ar eas non-negotiable for conver sion ar e not eligible for conver sion.
Applications for conver sion involving these ar eas shall not be given due cour se, r egar dlessof whether all or
some por tions ther eof ar e within ar eas highly r estr icted fr om conver sion or within pr ior ity development
ar eas for conver sion. These lands include the following:
a) Agr icultur al lands within pr otected ar eas designated as such under the National I nt egr ated
Pr otected Ar eas System including water shed and r echar ged acquifer s, as deter mined by the DENR;
b) All ir r igated lands, as delineated by the DA and/or NIA, wher e water is available to suppor t
r ice and other cr op pr oduct ion;
c) All ir r igated lands wher e water is not available for r ice and other cr op pr oduct ion but ar e
within ar eas pr ogr ammed for ir r igation facility r ehabilitation by the DA and/or NI A; and
d) All agr icultur al lands with ir r igation facilities oper ated by pr ivate or ganizations.
Conver sion mor ator ium under RA 8435
Under RA 8435, the following lands within the SAFDZs ar e not eligible for conver sion for a per iod of five
(5) year s star ting on 10 Febr uar y 1998 unt il 9 Febr uar y 2003:
a) All ir r igated lands;
b) Ir r igable lands alr eady cover ed by ir r igation pr ojects with fir m funding commitments; and
c) Lands with existing or having the potent ial for gr owing high-value cr ops.
The 5-year conver sion mor ator ium is not absolute. Five per cent ( 5% ) of said lands within SAFDZs may be
conver ted upon compliance with existing laws, r ules and r egulations. DAR and DA, upon the
r ecommendation of the Regional and National SAFDZ Committees, shall jointly deter mine the maximum 5%
equivalent to the total ar ea of land eligible for conver sion. (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 7 (b), (c ); DA
Adm. O. No. 6, [1998], r ule 9.5.2).
Upon expir ation of the mor ator ium, conver sion may be allowed, if at all, on a case to case basis, subj ect to
existing laws, r ules and r egulations on land use conver sion (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 7 [d]).
Lands within SAFDZs
SAFDZs refer to Strategic Agriculture and Fisheries Development Zones. They are areas within the Network of
Protected Areas for Agricultural and Agro-industrial Development (NPAAAD) identified for production, agro-
processing and marketing activities to help develop and modernize, with the support of the government, the
agriculture and fisheries sectors in an environmentally and socio-culturally sound manner (Rep. Act No. 8435
[1997], sec. 4). Lands within SAFDZs shall be identified by the DA on the basis of the criteria prescribed in RA
8435.
Priority development areas for conversion
Under Sec. 6 of DAR AO 1 (1999), the following are priority development areas for conversion:
a) Specific sites in regional agri-industrial centers/regional industrial centers identified by the
Department of Trade and Industry and the DA;
b) Tourism development areas identified by the Department of Tourism as indicated in the current
Medium Term Philippine Development Plan;
c) Sites identified and proposed to be developed by LGUs into socialized housing projects which are
presently used for agricultural purposes;
d) Sites intended for socialized housing projects under EO 184, series of 1994;
e) Agricultural areas intended for ECOZONE projects pursuant to RA 7916.
Conversion of agricultural lands within priority development areas requires DARclearance. However, the period
within which to process and evaluate applications involving lands within these areas is shorter. Processing of
applications is conducted within 13 days from submission of complete set of documentary requirements. Also, an
environmental compliance certificate is not a pre-condition to the approval of the conversion application; instead, it
forms part of the conditions of the order of conversion where applicable.
SHOPC
Under present guidelines, socialized housing projects are considered priority development areas. (DAR Memo.
Circular No. 9 [1999], sec. 1 [1.6].)
Under DAR AO 2 (2000), Mass Housing Desks shall be created at the CLUPPI which shall be responsible for the
receipt, processing and disposition of all applications for conversion for socialized and low-cost housing projects.
Applicants for conversion involving socialized and low-cost housing projects are exempt from the posting of cash
bond, submission of Certification of Eligibility for Conversion from DA and Environmental Compliance Certificate
from DENR. (DAR Adm. O. No. 2 [2000], sec. 3)
Likewise, applications for conversion involving socialized and low-cost housing projects shall be processed for a
period of thirteen (13) working days upon receipt of the completed application pursuant to Sec. 1 of EO 258 (2000).
(DAR Adm. O. No. 2 [2000], sec. 4)
Criteria for Conversion
Under Sec. 8 of DAR AO 1 (1999), the following criteria shall guide the resolution of applications for conversion:
1) Conversion may be allowed if the land subject of application is not among those considered non-
negotiable for conversion;
2) Conversion may be allowed under the following cases, in accordance with Section 65 of RA 6657:
a) when the land has ceased to be economically feasible and sound for agricultural purposes; or
b) the locality has become urbanized and the land will have greater economic value for residential,
commercial, industrial or other non-agricultural purposes.
3) Conversion of lands within SAFDZs shall take into consideration the following factors:
a) The conversion is consistent with the natural expansion of the municipality or locality, as
contained in the approved physical framework and land use plan;
b) The area to be converted is not the only remaining food production area of the community;
c) The conversion shall not hamper the availability of irrigation to nearby farmlands;
d) Areas with low productivity will be accorded priority for conversion; and
e) Sufficient disturbance compensation shall be given to the farmers whose livelihoods are
negatively affected by the conversion.
4) Conversion may be allowed when the environmental impact assessment or initial environmental
examination, as may be appropriate, shall have determined that it shall not adversely affect air and water
quality and the ecological stability of the area.
Under the previous guidelines, conversion may be allowed if the land has been reclassified by the LGUs to non-
agricultural uses, but said criterion has been deleted under the present guidelines. That the land has been reclassified
to non-agricultural use as per zoning certification remains one of the factors to consider in resolving whether to
approve or disapprove an application for conversion. It is not an indispensable condition, however, for the approval
of the application. Thus, conversion may be allowed even if the property has not yet been reclassified to non-
agricultural use if the conditions under RA 6657 or RA 8435 warrant the same.
It is evident that the thrust of DARconversion guidelines is to give the department sole and exclusive prerogative
to decide on conversion applications. Certifications issued by other agencies are given persuasive effect but the final
determination belongs to the DAR.
Bonds and Disturbance Compensation
Under the present guidelines, applicants are required to post two (2) kinds of bonds: cash bond and performance
bond. They are also required to pay disturbance compensation in appropriate cases.
Cash Bond
Cash bond is posted by the applicant upon filing of the application equivalent to two point five percent (2.5%) of
the total zonal value of the land. It is refundable upon issuance of the order of conversion or convertible into
performance bond at the option of the applicant (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 15).
The cash bond is forfeited in favor of the government in the event actual conversion activities are undertaken by
the applicant prior to approval of the application for conversion (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 15).
Perf ormance Bond
Performance bond is posted in favor of DAR to guarantee the payment of the amount of security as penalty in the
event it is established that the applicant/developer is in default of their obligations under the order of conversion. It
shall be effective for the duration of the project approved under the conversion order. The performance bond shall
be in the form of either of the following:
a) Cash, manager's check, cashier's check, irrevocable letter of credit, bank draft equivalent to 2.5%
of the total zonal value of the land; or
b) Bank guarantee equivalent to 5% of the total zonal value of the land; or
c) Surety equivalent to 15% of the total zonal value of the land (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 15
[c).
The performance bond shall be forfeited in favor of the government in case of violation of the conditions of the
conversion order such as non-payment of disturbance compensation, failure to develop or complete the project
within the period prescribed, etc. (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 15, last par.)
Disturbance Compensation
Under RA 3844, disturbance compensation is given only to de jure tenants. However, under the present
conversion guidelines, tenants, farmworkers, or bona fide occupants who will be affected by the conversion of the
property to non-agricultural uses are all entitled to disturbance compensation (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 15
[a]).
Disturbance compensation, in cash or in kind or both, shall be paid by the landowner or developer, as may be
appropriate, in such amounts or under such terms as may be mutually agreed upon between the affected tenants,
farmworkers or occupants and the landowner or developer but it should not be less than five (5) times the average of
the gross harvests on their landholding during the last five ( 5) preceding calendar years. Any agreement for the
payment between them shall be subject to DAR's approval and compliance monitoring (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999] ,
sec. 15 (a)).
Payment of disturbance compensation or compliance with the terms and conditions of the approved agreement
must be made within sixty (60) days from the date of approval of the application for conversion (DAR Adm. O. No.
1 [1999], sec. 15 [b]).
In case of disagreement between the parties, the issue on disturbance compensation may be brought by either of
them before the DAR Adjudication Board for resolution (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 15 [c]).
Pr otests and Oppositions
Sec. 21 of DAR AO 1 (1999) states that the DAR admits pr otest or opposition against any application for
conver sion which is r esolved by the appr oving author ity simultaneously with the application. It may be filed
by any per son who will be displaced or dir ectly affected by the pr oposed land use conver sion such as
occupants, tenant s, far mwor ker s, identif ied beneficiaries, bona fide r esidents of adjoining pr oper ties or
communities against the application with the DAR Regional Off ice or Centr al Office, as appr opr iate (DAR
Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 18 and 19) .
The pr otest must be in wr iting and filed within fift een (15) days fr om the date of posting of the Notice of
Application. However, if the oppositor is an identified beneficiary under the agr ar ian r efor m pr ogr am of the
land applied for and who failed to file a wr itten pr otest within the said per iod due to fr aud, accident, mistake
or excusable neglect, he shall have the r ight to inter vene at any time dur ing the pendency of the application.
Pr otests or oppositions may be filed on the following gr ounds:
a) The ar ea applied for is non-negotiable for conver sion;
b) The adver se effect s or the displacement to be caused by the pr oposed conver sion far
outweigh the social and economic benefits to the affected communities;
c) Misr epr esentation or concealment of mater ial facts;
d) Illegal/pr ematur e conver sion;
e) Existence of pr oof that conver sion was r esor ted to as a means to evade CARP cover age and
to dispossess the tenant far mer s of the land tilled by them. (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 20)
Effect s of Appr oval of Conver sion Application
An or der of conver sion is gener ally subj ect to the following conditions:
a) Payment of distur bance compensation within 60 days fr om issuance of the or der ;
b) Posting of a notice of conver sion in a conspicuous place;
c) Development of the land within a specific per iod;
d) Withdr awal or cancellation of the or der for misr epr esent ation of facts integr al to its
issuance or for violation of the r ules and r egulations on land use conver sion.
Sec. 23 of DAR AO 1 (1999) also pr ovides for the following effect s:
Fir st, the conver sion of an agr icultur al land to non-agr icultur al uses is limited to the specific use of the
land author ized in the or der . In case the landowner decides to use the land for pur poses other than that
author ized, a new application must be filed which must go thr ough the pr ocess of conver sion again.
Other wise, he may be char ged for unaut hor ized conver sion (DAR Adm. O. No. 1 [1999], sec. 40 (d) and 2 [ y]).
Second, all conver sion or der s ar e subj ect to the schedule indicated in the detailed site development plan
and wor k and financial plan submitted by the applicant. The r ules, however, r equir e that the per iod of
development should not extend beyond five (5) year s fr om the issuance of the or der except as author ized by
the Secr etar y or the appr oving official on mer itor ious gr ounds.
Thir d, the conditions of the or der ar e binding not only upon the applicant but also upon successor s-in-
inter est of the pr oper ty.
Four th, duly author ized r epr esentat ives of DAR should be allowed fr ee and unhamper ed access to the
pr oper ty subj ect of the conver sion or der for compliance monitor ing pur poses.
Fifth, the use author ized in the or der of conver sion shall be annotated on the title of the subj ect pr oper ty.
Sixth, the or der is without pr ejudice to ancestr al domain claims of indigenous peoples pur suant to RA
8371.
Effect on tenant s, far mwor ker s or occupants of pr oper ty
Upon payment of distur bance compensation or compliance with the ter ms and conditions of the agr eement
for distur bance compensation, the tenant s, far mwor ker s or occupants ar e expected to give up all their r ights
over the land such as possession, tenancy, etc., in favor of the landowner or developer .
I n Gonzales v. CA, 174 SCRA 398, it was held that an agr icultur al leasehold cannot be established on land
which has been conver ted to r esidential use.
Gr ounds for Revocation/Withdr awal/Cancellation of Conver sion Or der
Under Sec. 35 of DAR AO 1 (1999) , a petition for cancellation/r evocation/withdr awal of the or der of
conver sion may be filed at the instance of DAR or any aggr ieved par ty on the following gr ounds:
a) Misr epr esentation or concealment of facts or cir cumstances mater ial to the gr ant of
conver sion;
b) Non-compliance with the conditions of the or der of conver sion;
c) Lack of jur isdiction of the appr oving author ity;
d) Non-compliance with the agr eement on distur bance compensation;
e) Conver sion to use other than that author ized in the conver sion or der ; and/or
f) Any other violation of r elevant r ules and r egulations of DAR.
The per iod within which to file the petition var ies depending on the gr ound r aised by the petitioner :
a) The petition must be filed befor e the appr oving author ity within 90 days fr om discover y of
facts which would war rant such cancellation but not mor e than one year fr om issuance of the or der if
the basis is misr epr esent ation or concealment, or non-compliance with the agr eement on distur bance
compensation;
b) The petition must be filed with 90 days fr om discover y of such facts but not beyond the
per iod for development stipulated in the or der if the basis is non-compliance with the conditions of the
or der , conver sion to use other than that author ized, or any other violation of r elevant r ules and
r egulations of DAR;
c) Wher e the gr ound is lack of jur isdiction, the petition shall be filed with the Secr etar y at any
time.
I n the event the conver sion or der is cancelled or withdr awn, the land subj ect ther eof shall r ever t to the
status of agr icultur al lands and shall be subj ect to CARP cover age as cir cumstances may war rant. (Sec. 37,
AO 1 ( 1999)).
CHAPTER 8
Prohibited Acts and Omissions
Preliminary Considerations
RA 6657, RA 8435 and RA 3844 are the primary sources of prohibited acts and omissionsunder the agrarian
reform program which are criminal in nature and punishable with fine and imprisonment, or both. As a rule, the
prosecution of these acts does not preclude the DAR from pursuing administrative cases against the offenders for the
same acts or on the basis of the same facts.
Other acts and omissionsin violation of agrarian laws are also administratively sanctioned. As the principal
agency tasked with the implementation of CARP, the DAR is vested with the power to establish and promulgate
operational policies, rules and regulations for agrarian reform implementation (see Exec. Order No. 129- A (1987),
sec. 4 [c]). Moreover, Sec. 50 of RA 6657 vests DAR with the primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate
agrarian reform matters and exclusive original jurisdiction over all matters involving the implementation of agrarian
reform.
Prohibited Acts and Omissions by Landowners under RA 6657
Sec. 73 of RA 6657 enumerates acts and omissions which are criminally punishable. Other provisions of RA
6657 proscribing certain acts and omissions not included in Sec. 73 are subject to administrative regulation or
sanctions.
1. Ownership and Possession of Land Beyond Allowable Limits
Sec. 73 (a) of RA 6657 prohibits "The ownership or possession, for the purpose of circumventing the provisions
of this Act, of agricultural lands in excess of the total retention limits or award ceilings by any person, natural or
juridical, except those under collective ownership by farmer-beneficiaries."
Elements:
a) Offender is any person, natural or juridical;
b) Person owns or possess agricultural lands in excess of retention limit or award ceilings, except in
the case of collective ownership by farmer beneficiaries; and
c) The purpose of ownership or possession is to circumvent the provisions of RA 6657;
2) Prohibited Sale, Transfer, Conveyance or Change in the Nature of the Land
Sec. 73(e) of RA 6657 also prohibits "The sale, transfer, conveyance or change of the nature of lands outside
urban centers and city limits either in whole or in part after the effectivity of this Act. The date of the registration of
the deed of conveyance in the Register of Deeds with respect to titled lands and the date of the issuance of the tax
declaration to the transferee of the property with respect to unregistered lands, as the case may be, shall be
conclusive for the purpose of thisAct." CIHTac
Elements:
a) The offender is any person;
b) The person either effects the
i. sale, transfer or conveyance of the land; or
ii. change the nature of the land.
c) The land must be outside of urban centers and city limits;
d) The transaction or the change of the nature of the land may be of the whole or a portion of the land;
and
e) The transaction or the change of the nature of the land was effected after 15 June 1988.
DAR AO 1 (1989) provides for administrative sanctions for the sale, transfer, conveyance of lands outside urban
centers. The elements of the administrative offense is similar to that defined under Sec. 73 (e). Sec. 6 of RA 6657
also provides that the sale, disposition, lease, management contract or transfer of possession of private lands
executed by the original owner in violation of RA 6657 shall be null and void. The sale or disposition, however, is
not totally void. Part I (B) of DAR AO (1989) provides that the sale or disposition of agricultural land is valid to the
extent that the total landholding of the transferee as a result of the said acquisition does not exceed the landholding
ceiling.
3. Illegal/Premature/Unauthorized Conversions
Illegal Conversion
Sec. 73 (c) of RA 6657 penalizes "The conversion by any landowner of his agricultural land
into any non-agricultural use with intent to avoid the application of this Act to his landholdings and to
dispossess his tenant farmers of the land tilled by them."
Elements:
a) The land is agricultural land;
b) The offender is the landowner;
c) There are acts committed converting the use of the land into non-agricultural use; and
d) The intent is to:
i. avoid the application of RA 6657; and
ii. to dispossess tenant farmers tilling the land.
DAR AO 1 (1999) provides a more expansive definition of illegal conversion. Sec. 2 (g) of
DAR AO 1 (1999) defines illegal conversion as "the conversion by any landowner of his agricultural
land into any non-agricultural use with intent to avoid the application of RA 6657 to his landholding and
to dispossess his tenant farmers of the land tilled by them; or the change of the nature of lands outside
urban centers and city limits either in whole or in part after the effectivity of RA 6657, as provided in
Sec. 73 (c) and (e) respectively, of the said Act." Thus, under the administrative rule, there are two (2)
ways of committing illegal conversion.
Elementsof the First Type:
a) Offender is the land owner;
b) He/she converts his/her agricultural land into any non-agricultural use without authority or DAR
clearance;
c) The intention of the conversion is to
i. avoid the application of RA 6657; and
ii. to dispossess the farmers of the land tilled by them;
Elementsof the Second Type:
a) Offender is the landowner or any other person;
b) He/she changes the nature of the agricultural land, in whole or in part;
c) Land is located outside urban centers and city limits; and
d) Act was committed after 15 June 1988.
Premature Conversion
Sec. 11 of RA 8435 penalizes ". . . the undertaking of any development activity, the results of which modify or
alter the physical characteristics of the agricultural lands to render them suitable for non-agricultural purposes
without an approved order of conversion from the DAR."
Elements:
a) The land is agricultural land;
b) The offender may be any person;
c) Actual development activity is undertaken on the land;
d) The development activity modifies or alters the physical characteristics of the land;
e) The land development renders the land suitable for non-agricultural purposes; and
f) There is no approved order of conversion from the DAR.
Unauthorized conversion
Unlike illegal and premature conversions, unauthorized conversion is not a criminal act but is merely
administratively sanctioned.
Sec. 2 (w) of DAR AO 1 (1999) defines unauthorized conversion as "the act of changing the current use of the
land from agricultural (e.g. riceland) to another agricultural use (e.g. livestock) without an order of conversion from
DAR, or changing the use of the land other than that allowed under the order of conversion issued by DAR." There
are, thus, two (2) ways to commit unauthorized conversion.
Elementsof the First Type:
a) Offender is any person, i.e., landowner, developer or any other person;
b) The person changes the current use of an agricultural land into another agricultural purpose; and
c) The change of use was done without an order of conversion from DAR.
Elementsof the Second Type:
a) Offender is any person, i.e., landowner, developer, or any other person;
b) The subject land is granted an order of conversion for its commitment to non-agricultural purposes;
and
c) The person commits the land to a purpose other than that allowed under the order of conversion.
In addition to the foregoing, Sec. 35 of DAR AO 1 (1999) also provides for administrative sanctions against
certain acts in connection with the grant of conversion application by landowners or their duly authorized
representatives. These include the following:
a) Misrepresentation or concealment of material facts in conversion application;
b) Non-compliance with the conditions set forth in the conversion order; and
c) Non-compliance with the agreement on disturbance compensation.
Prohibited Acts and Omissions by Beneficiaries under RA 6657
1. Sale, Transfer , Conveyance of Rights Acquired as a Beneficiary
Sec. 73 (f) of RA 6657 prohibits "The sale, transfer or conveyance by a beneficiary of the right to use or any
other usufructuary right over the land he acquired by virtue of being a beneficiary, in order to circumvent the
provisions of this Act."
Elements:
a) The offender is an agrarian reform beneficiary;
b) Offender sells, transfers or conveys the right to use or any other usufructuary right over his land;
c) The subject land was acquired by him/her by virtue of being a beneficiary; and
d) The act is motivated by the design to circumvent the provisions of R.A. 6657.
Relatedly, Part I (4) of DAR MC 19 (1996) provides that the "[s]ale, transfer, lease and other forms of
conveyance by beneficiary of the rights to use or any other usufructuary right over the land acquired by virtue of
being a beneficiary, in circumvention of the provisions of Sec. 73 of RA 6657, PD 27 and other agrarian law" is a
prohibited act. However, if the lands has been acquired under PD 27/EO 228, ownership may be transferred upon
full payment of amortization by the beneficiary.
Elements:
a) The offender is an agrarian reform beneficiary;
b) He/she sells, transfers or conveys the right to use or any other usufructuary right over his land
without legal basis;
c) The subject land was acquired by him/her by virtue of being a beneficiary under RA 6657 or PD
27/EO 228; Provided that lands acquired under PD 27/EO 228 can be transferr ed upon full payment
of amortizations. In the case of lands awarded under CARP, the land can be transferred ten (10) years
after the registration of the CLOA; and
d) The act is motivated by the design to circumvent the provisions of RA 6657, PD 27 and other
agrarian laws.
2. Misuse or Diversion of Financial Aid and Support Services
Sec. 37 of RA 6657 provides that the "misuse or diversion of the financial and support services provided the
beneficiary shall result in sanction against the beneficiary guilty thereof, including the forfeiture of the land
transferred to him or lesser sanctions as may be provided by the PARC without prejudice to criminal prosecution."
This is reflected in Item A, No. 1 of DARMC 19 (1996).
Elements:
a) The beneficiary was granted financial aid and other support services;
b) The beneficiary either:
i. misuses the financial aid and support services; or
ii. diverts such aid or services for other purposes.
3. Misuse of the Land
Par. 4, Sec. 22 of RA 6657 provides that any beneficiary guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any
support extended to him shall forfeit his right to continue as such beneficiary. Misuse of the land is administratively
sanctioned under DARMC 19 (1996).
Part III , Item ( A) of DAR AO 2 ( 1994) defines misuse of the land as "any act causing substantial and
unreasonable damage on the land, and causing the deterioration and depletion of the soil fertility and improvements
thereon. It also includes the act of knowingly planting, growing, raising of any plant which is the source of a
dangerous drug, as defined under PD 1683 (1980)." Under the definition, there are two ways of committing this
offense.
Elementsof the First Type:
a) Offender is a grantee of land awarded through CLOA or EP;
b) Offender commits acts which cause substantial and unreasonable damage to the land; and
c) Such act causes the deterioration and depletion of the soil fertility and improvements thereon.
Elementsof the Second Type:
a) Offender is a grantee of land awarded through a CLOA or EP; and
b) He knowingly plants, grows or raises any plant which is the source of dangerous drug as defined
in PD 1683.
4. Continuous Neglect or Abandonment of Awarded Lands
Sec. 22 of RA 6657 provides that any beneficiary who is guilty of negligence of the land extended to him shall
forfeit his right to continue as such beneficiary. Part I, A (5) of DARMC 19 (1996) provides that "continuous
neglect or abandonment of the awarded lands over a period of two (2) years as determined by the Secretary or his
authorized representative" is subject to administrative sanctions.
Part III , Item ( B) of DAR AO 2 (1994) defines neglect or abandonment as the "willful failure of the ARB,
together with his farm household, to cultivate, till, or develop his land to produce any crop, or to use the land for any
specific economic purpose continuously for a period of two calendar years."
Elements:
a) The offender is an agrarian reform beneficiary;
b) The beneficiary willfully fails or refuses to cultivate, till or develop to produce any crop the land
awarded him; and
c) Such failure or refusal continue for a period of two (2) calendar years.
5. Material Misrepresentation of Qualifications
The material misrepresentation of qualifications provided under Sec. 22 of RA 6657 and other agrarian reform
laws is administratively sanctioned under Item A (3), Part I of DARMC 19 (1996).
Elements:
a) The offender is a beneficiary;
b) Offender intentionally made false statements respecting a matter of fact in his application for
qualification as an ARB under RA 6657 or any other agrarian laws; and
c) The misrepresented fact was material to the determination of his qualification to become a
beneficiary.
6. Default and Failure in the Payment of Amortization to Landowner
Part I, itemA(1) of DAR MC 19 (1996) provides that "default in the obligation of the ARBs to pay the aggregate
of three (3) consecutive amortizations to the landowner in the case of awarded lands under voluntary land
transfer/direct payment scheme, except in cases of fortuitous events and force majeure" is administratively
sanctioned. The administrative rule is based on Sec. 26, RA 6657 which states that a beneficiary whose land has
been foreclosed shall thereafter be permanently disqualified from becoming a beneficiary.
Elements:
a) Offender is an ARB;
b) The beneficiary acquired the land by virtue of Voluntary Land Transfer or Direct Payment
Scheme;
c) The beneficiary fails to pay the landowner amortization for three (3) consecutive months; and
d) Failure is due to reasons other than force majeure or fortuitous events.
7. Failure to Pay Amortizations to LBP
Similarly, the failure to pay amortizations to LBP is penalized under DAR MC 19 (1996) which states that
"[ f]ailure of the ARBs to pay at least three ( 3) annual amortizations to the LBP in the case of awarded lands under
the Compulsory Acquisition (CA) or Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS), except in the case of fortuitous events and
force majeure."
Elements:
a) The beneficiary is an awardee of a land acquired through the Compulsory Acquisition or
Voluntary Offer to Sell;
b) The beneficiary fails to pay the LBP at least three (3) annual amortization; and
c) Failure is due to reasons other than force majeure or fortuitous events.
8. Waiver of Rights to Awarded Lands
Part I, itemA, no. 9 of MC 19 (1996) treats the waiver of rights to awarded lands by a beneficiary as an
administrative offense.
Elements:
a) Offender is a beneficiary; and
b) The beneficiary has expressly or impliedly waived his rights over the land.
9. FB's Surrender of Awarded Lands to Landowner or Other Non ARBs.
The surrender by a beneficiary of his awarded lands to landowner or other non-ARBs is penalized under part I,
item A (10) of MC 19 (1996).
Elements:
a) Offender is a beneficiary;
b) Offender surrenders land awarded him to the landowner or other non-beneficiaries; and
c) Such surrender is without legal authority or clearance from DAR.
Prohibited Acts and Omissions by Other Persons under RA 6657
1. Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer
Sec. 73 (b) of RA 6657 provides that "The forcible entry or illegal detainer by persons who are not qualified
beneficiaries under this Act to avail themselves of the rights and benefits of the Agrarian Reform Program" is a
prohibited act that is criminally punishable.
Elements:
a) Offender is any person who is not qualified to become an agrarian reform beneficiaries;
b) He/she deprives the owner, or legal representatives or any assigns of the said owner, the right of
possession thereof either through the following acts:
i. by entering the land of another by force, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth; or
ii. unlawfully refusing to vacate the land after the right to hold possession thereof has expired;
c) The intention of the acts is to avail themselves of the rights and benefits of the Agrarian Reform
Program.
2. Obstruction and Prevention of CARP Implementation
Sec. 73 (d) of RA 6657 penalized the "[w]illful prevention or obstruction by any association or entity of the
implementation of the CARP."
Elements:
a) Offender may be a landowner, beneficiary or any other person, natural or juridical; and
b) The person commits acts to prevent or obstructs the implementation of the CARP.
Prohibited Acts by Agricultural Lessees and Lessor under RA 3844
RA 3844 enumerates the criminal acts and omissions by agricultural lessees and lessors.
By Agricultural Lessor
1. Unlawful Recording of Sale in the Registry of Property Subject to Right of Redemption
Sec. 13 of RA 3844 states that "[n]o deed of sale of agricultural land under cultivation by an agricultural lessee or
lessees shall be recorded in the Registry of Property unless accompanied by an affidavit of the vendor that he has
given the written notice required in Section eleven of thisChapter or that the land is not worked by an agricultural
lessee." Failure to comply with this provision is criminally punishable under Sec. 167(1) of RA 3844.
Elements:
a) The offender is the landowner or agricultural lessor, or in case of juridical persons, the manager or
person who has charge of the management or management of the property or in his default, the person acting
in his stead;
b) He effects the recording of the sale of the land subject of an agricultural lease; and
c) Such recording was effected without the necessary Affidavit by vendor that he has given prior
written notice of the sale to the agricultural lessor as required by Sec. 7 of RA 3844.
2. Unlawful Disposition of Lessee
Sec. 31(1) of RA 3844 provides that it shall be unlawful for the agricultural lessor to "dispossess the agricultural
lessee of his landholding except upon authorization by the Court under Section thirty-six. Should the agricultural
lessee be dispossessed of his landholding without authorization from the Court, the agricultural lessor shall be liable
for damages suffered by the agricultural lessee in addition to the fine or imprisonment prescribed in this Code for
unauthorized dispossession." Sec. 167(1) of RA 3844 penalizes the commission by an agricultural lessor of the act
defined under Sec. 31 of RA 3844.
Elements:
a) Offender is an agricultural lessor;
b) Offender dispossess the agricultural lessee of his landholding; and
c) Dispossession is without authorization from the Court.
3. Inducement to Execute or Enter into a Share Tenancy Contract
Sec. 167(2) of RA 3844 provides that "Any person, natural or juridical, who induces another, as tenant, to
execute or enter into a share tenancy contract with himself or with another in violation of this Code shall be
punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with the Revised
Penal Code: Provided, That the execution of a share tenancy contract shall be considered prima facie evidence of
such inducement as to the owner, civil law lessee, usufructuary or legal possessor. In case of juridical persons, the
manager or the person who has charge of the management or administration of the property or, in his default, the
person acting in his stead, shall be liable under this Section."
Elements:
a) Offender is any person, natural or juridical. In case of juridical persons, the manager or the person
who has charge of the management or administration of the property, or in his default, the person acting in
his stead shall be liable; and
b) Offender induces another person, as tenant, to execute or enter into a share tenancy contract with
himself or another in violation of RA 3844.
4. Making Untruthful Statements in Affidavit Required under Sec. 13, RA 3844
Sec. 167(2) of RA 3844 provides "Any person who executes an affidavit as required by Section thirteen of
Chapter I, knowing the contents thereof to be false, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand pesos or
imprisonment of not more than one year, or both, in the discretion of the court."
Sec. 13 of RA 3844 requires that prior to the registration of the sale or transfer of land in the Registry of Property,
the landowner must execute an affidavit that written notice of the sale or transfer was made to the agricultural lessor
as required under Sec. 7 of RA 3844.
Elements:
a) Offender is the landowner, agricultural lessor or any person; and
b) He/she knowingly makes untruthful statements on a material matter in an affidavit required for the
registration of a sale of land subject to right of pre-emption as required under Sec. 13 of RA 3844.
5. Acts Violating Farmworker's Rights to Self-Organization and to Engage in Other Concerted Activities
Sec. 167 (4) of RA 3844 penalizes "Any person who willfully violates the provisions of Sections forty and forty-
one of this Code shall be punished by a fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor more than one thousand pesos or
by imprisonment of not less than one month nor more than one year, or both such fine and imprisonment, in the
discretion of the court. If any violation of Sections forty and forty-one of this Code is committed by a corporation,
partnership or association, the manager or, in his default, the person acting as such when the violation took place
shall be criminally responsible."
Sec. 40 of RA 3844 recognizes the farmworkers' right to self-organization, and provides that "the farm workers
shall have the right to self-organization and to form, join or assist farm workers' organizations of their own choosing
for the purpose of collective bargaining through representatives of their own choosing: Provided, That this right
shall be exercised in a manner as will not unduly interfere with the normal farm operations. Individuals employed as
supervisors shall not be eligible for membership in farm workers' organizations under their supervision but may
form separate organizations of their own."
Sec. 41 of RA 3844 likewise recognizes the right of farmworkers to engage in concerted activities, to wit: "The
farm workers shall also have the right to engage in concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining and
other mutual aid or protection. For the purpose of this and the preceding Section, it shall be the duty of the farm
employer or manager to allow the farm workers, labor leaders, organizers, advisers and helpers complete freedom to
enter and leave the farm, plantation or compound at the portion of same where said farm workers live or stay
permanently or temporarily."
Elements:
a) Offender is the landowner, agricultural lessor or any person;
b) Offender commits acts which impair or prevent the exercise of
i. the right of farmworkers to self-organization under Sec. 40 of RA 3844; or
ii. the right to engage in concerted activities as defined under Sec. 41 of RA 3844.
6. Acts Violative of the Right of Farmworkers to a Minimum Wage
Sec. 167 (5) of RA 3844 provides "Any person who willfully violates the provisions of Section forty-two of this
Code shall, upon conviction thereof, be subject to a fine of not more than two thousand pesos, or upon second
conviction, to imprisonment of not more than one year or both such fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the
court. If any violation of the provisions of Section forty-two of this Code is committed by a corporation, partnership
or association, the manager or, in his default, the person acting as such when the violation took place shall be
criminally responsible."
Sec. 42 of RA 3844 protects the farmworkers right to a minimum wage and provides that "[n]otwithstanding any
provision of law or contract to the contrary, farm workers in farm enterprises shall be entitled to at least P3.50 a day
for eight hours' work: Provided, That this wage may, however, be increased by the Minimum Wage Board as
provided for in Republic Act Numbered Six hundred and two."
Elements:
a) Offender is a landowner or any other person; and
b) Offender fails or refuses to pay the farmworker the minimum daily wage as set in Sec. 43, RA
3844 or determined by the Minimum Wage Board.
By Agricultural Lessees
1. Cultivation of Another Farmland without Consent of Lessor
Sec. 167 (1) of RA 3844 penalizes the commission by agricultural lessees of the prohibited acts under Sec. 27 of
RA 3844.
Sec. 27 (1) of RA 3844 provides that it shall be unlawful for an agricultural lessee "[t]o contract to work
additional landholdings belonging to a different agricultural lessor or to acquire and personally cultivate an
economic family-size farm, without the knowledge and consent of the agricultural lessor with whom he had first
entered into household, if the first landholding is of sufficient size to make him and the members of his immediate
farm household fully occupied in its cultivation."
Elements:
a) Offender is an agricultural lessee;
b) The land leased by him is of sufficient size to make him and the members of his immediate farm
household fully occupied in its production;
c) He contracts to work another landholdings belonging to a different agricultural lessor or acquires
and personally cultivate an economic family-size farm; and
d) The cultivation of the other landholding is without the consent of his first lessor.
2. Unlawful Sublease of Leased Land by Lessor
Sec. 27 (b) of RA 3844 declares that it shall be unlawful for an agricultural lessee "[t]o employ a sub-lessee on
his landholding: Provided, however, That in the case of illness or temporary incapacity, he may employ laborers
whose services on his landholdings shall be on his account." This prohibition is reiterated in Item B(1), part VI of
DAR AO 5 (1997).
Elements:
a) Offender is an agricultural lessee;
b) That he employs as sublessee on his landholdings; and
c) The reason for the sub-contracting is other than illness or temporary incapacity.
Penalties for Violation
The penalties for the prohibited acts and omissions which are criminal in nature are as follows:
Act or Omission Penalty
Prohibited Acts or Omissions Imprisonment of not less than one (1) month to not
under RA 6657 more than three (3) years or a fine of not less than one
thousand pesos (1,000.00) and not more than fifteen
thousand pesos (P15,000.00), or both, at the discretion
of the court. (Sec. 74, RA 6657)
Premature Conversion Imprisonment of two (2) to six (6) years, or a fine
under RA 8435 equivalent to one hundred percent (100%) of the
government's investment cost, or both, at the
discretion of the court, and an accessory penalty of
forfeiture of the land and any improvement thereof.
(Sec. 11, RA 8435)
Violation of Sec. 13, Sec. 27, Fine not exceeding one thousand pesos or
and 31 (1) of RA 3844 imprisonment not exceeding one year or both in the
discretion of the court (RA 3844, Sec. 167 (1).)
Inducement to Execute Fine not exceeding five thousand pesos with
or Enter into a Share subsidiary imprisonment in accordance with the
Tenancy Contract Revised Penal Code (Sec. 167 [2], RA 3844)
(Sec. 167 [2], RA 3844)
Making untruthful statements Fine not exceeding one thousand pesos or
in affidavit required under imprisonment of not more than one year, or both, in
Sec. 13, RA 3844 the discretion of the Court (Sec. 167 (3), RA 3844)
(Sec. 167 (3), RA 3844)
Acts Violating Farmworker's Fine of not less than one hundred pesos nor more than
Rights to Self-organization one thousand pesos or by imprisonment of not less
and to Engage in Other than one month nor more than one year, or both such
Concerted Activities fine and imprisonment, in the discretion of the court
(Sec. 167[4] , RA 6657) (Sec. 167 [4], RA 6657).
Acts Violative of the Right Fine of not more than two thousand pesos, or upon
of Farmworkers to a second conviction, to imprisonment of not more than
Minimum Wage (Sec. one year or both such fine and imprisonment, in the
167[5], RA 3844) discretion of the court (Sec. 167 [5], RA 3844).
Upon the other hand, the penalties for prohibited acts and omissions which are administrative in nature are as
follows:
Acts or Omissions Administrative Sanction
Under MC 19 ( 1996) Cancellation of EPs/CLOAs and perpetual disqualification of
Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries (see MC 19 s. 1996, Part I).
Under AO 1 (1999) 1. Cancellation or withdrawal of the authorization for the land
use conversion;
2. Blacklisting of the applicant, developer, or representative;
3. Automatic disapproval of pending subsequent conversion
applications that the offender may file with the DAR;
4. Issuance of cease and desist order (CDO); and/or
5. Forfeiture of cash bond in accordance with Sec. 16 hereof.
(A.O. 1 s. 1999, Sec. 49)
Jurisdiction Over Violation of Agrarian Laws
The power and duty to hear and try cases involving the criminal acts enumerated under RA 6657, RA 8435 and
RA 3844 and other relevant agrarian laws belongs to the Special Agrarian Courts. HcaATE
With respect to administrative offenses, the DAR shall have jurisdiction over the same by virtue of its express
primary jurisdiction to determine and adjudicate agrarian reform matters and exclusive original jurisdiction over all
matters involving the implementation of agrarian reform.