Agrarian Law and Social Legislation

Saturday, 4:00pm-6:00pm
Atty. Gefer Mancol
Report on Chapter 1: Agrarian Law Preliminary

GROUP 1
Atencia, Jah T.
Bacosa, Marlo Wissam
Balana, Aya M.
Batangan, Israel D.
Carido, BJ M.
Fetalino, Raquel T.
Lazo, Marie Jann Klaire S.
Permato, Abigail G.
Pinili, Geoffrey Kyle B.
Villamar, Maria Janice B.
Yalung, Ma. Danela Q.

OUTLINE OF REPORT
Chapter 1: Agrarian Law Preliminary
A. Definition of Agriculture
B. Definition of Land Tenure
C. Related Concepts
1. Divine Right of Kingship
2. Feudalism
3. Spanish Encomienda System
4. Regalian Doctrine
5. Land Registration Act of 1902
6. Public Land Act of 1902
7. Friar Lands Act
8. Rice Share Tenancy Act of 1993
9. Sugarcane Tenancy Contracts Act of 1933
10. Republic Act 34 of 1946 (Agricultural Sharing)
11. Republic Act 1160 of 1954 (National Resettlement and Rehabilitation)
12. Republic Act 1199 of 1954 (Tenancy Rights)
13. Agricultural Land Reform Code of 1963
14. Presidential Decree no. 2 of 1972
15. Presidential Decree no. 27of 1972

D. Police Power as Doctrinal Basis of Agrarian Reform

1. Association de Agricultures v. Talisa-Silay Milling G.R. No. L-19937, Feb 19, 1979,
88 SCRA 294
A. ON THE DEFINITION OF AGRICULTURE

The Philippines is primarily an agricultural country with a land area of 30 million hectares,
47% of which is agricultural land. The global community acknowledges the Philippines’
frontrunner position in the agriculture industry. The situation being such, the agriculture remains
as a relevant matter as an aspect of the national economy even with the advent of technology and
it circumspect the everyday lives as Filipinos.

Defining ‘agriculture’ using the laymen’s language, it is the science, art, or practice of
cultivating the soil, producing crops, and raising livestock and in varying degrees the preparation
and marketing of the resulting products. On the other hand, Agriculture, Agricultural Enterprise or
Agricultural Activity is sharply denoted as “means the cultivation of the soil, planting of crops,
growing of fruit trees, including the harvesting of such farm products, and other farm activities
and practices performed by a farmer in conjunction with such farming operations done by persons
whether natural or juridical” on Sec. 3b, Chapter I, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
of 1988 (R.A. No. 6657 as amended by R. A. 7881. Although, both definitions focuses on the “soil
cultivation”, the fisheries sector forms part of the agricultural activities.

THREE STAGES OF AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT

Before the Spaniards came, land was owned by communities called barangay. The Datu is
considered their leader and head of the community. A barangay is composed of freemen and slaves
jointly cultivating the land and sharing the fruits of their production. This practice is so called as
the traditional agriculture that is carried on to the modern times. It is a primitive type of farming
that is associated with low productivity and the output is only for subsistence. The traditional
methods of farming are used which leads to a lower level of output and productivity. These output
are mostly for family consumption or communal consumption. The products are consist of staple
foods like rice, corn, sugar cane and others.

Land and labor are the only factors of production, and the capital investment is minimal.
As land is also limited, it forces the addition of labor force in order produce more output. However,
according to the law of diminishing return, the additional pay for laborers decreases the income.
Laborers also can only work during planting and harvesting season but remain unemployed during
most of the year. The farmers are always worried of inadequacy of rains, appropriation of their
lands and appearance of the money lenders to collect outstanding loans.

Stage II is the technologically dynamic Agriculture-Low Capital Technology. In this stage,

a complex change in technology increases the agricultural process and increases the agricultural
production. In this stage, development of cash crops like vegetables, tea, coffee, cotton and fruits
are produced, rather than the staple food crops. Because of the development, there are no longer
seasons of unemployment for laborers. The demand for labor increases on the farms, which leads
to increase the real wages of farm labor.
 The last stage is the technologically dynamic agriculture high Capital Technology. This is
the stage when agriculture has much of its relative importance in the generation of the National
Income. It is the most prevalent type of farming in advanced industrial nations. In this farming,
the motive is to make a profit rather than the need for food. Farmers aim at maximizing their output
per hectare. They are also acquainted with scientific inventions, harvesters, modern fertilizers,
cropping techniques and marketing trends.

As the commercial farming is made on big farms the use of modern agricultural machinery,
superior chemicals and hybrid seeds is increased. In this way, not only agricultural sector, but the
industrial concerns of the country would also expand. The employment will increase boosting the
national outputs. In this way, both agricultural and industrial sectors will support each other.

B. ON LAND TENURE

Agriculture and the concept of land cannot be distanced with its relationship to the owner
of the land. A reason as to why societies invented rules to regulate behavior on owning a piece of
land and rules on proper allocation, control, transfer of rights on a land. This social construct is
termed as land tenure. Land tenure is the law and arrangements relating to owning land, especially
land that is used for farming.

Because “land for the landless” has been a continuing slogan that underscores the acute
imbalance in the distribution of resources among Filipinos, there are several enactments, laws and
projects moving to pursue the reform on owning lands and agricultural development.
The country’s Land Tenure Structure connotes regulation on the rights to ownership and control
and usages of land and the duties accompanying such rights. There are three systems prevalent in
the country, namely, Agricultural Tenancy, Share Tenancy and Leasehold Tenancy.

C. Related Concepts

ON DIVINE RIGHT OF KINGSHIP

To understand the social milieu of the distribution of land and resources, political lenses
are needed to contextualize tenurial system involving the manner of holding agricultural lands and
mode of production of crops.

The development of society is traced in the first socioeconomic formation in the human
history which is the Primitive Communal System. With this system, everything was shared and
there was no concept of property.
This period basically coincides with the StoneAge. In the primitive communal system the
relationship to the means of production was the same for all members of society.Consequently, t
he mode of obtaining a share of the social product was the same for all.

During this period survival is measured by strength, production of crops or ability to supply
their commune. To sustain life within their community, groups called tribes would wage war
against each other to obtain the occupied lands of the other tribe or group. The losing tribe then
becomes their slaves. Warfare was the main means of acquiring fertile land and better trading
routes thus leaders would wage war against another community. This concept then turns us to the
next developmental stage of society called ‘masters and slaves’; Winning tribes takes the land
occupied by the losing tribe, furthering the land owned by the other tribe. Because of the warfare,
“lordship bondage” was established. Mode of production became better because of a developed
system of farming, fishing and other agricultural activities. Masters then becomes “landlords”.
These landlords soon established themselves as “monarchs”.

Monarchy focuses on the idea of social rank, although it is now considered to be absurd, it
is dated back to the medieval period. It is a political system based upon the
undivided sovereignty or rule of a single person over a vast land and larger group of people.
Production was not just for communal needs but for also for trade. A vast land is not considered a
property of all members of the community but is subjected to the monarch. The success of the
institution of “monarchy” was the concept of “Divine Right of Kingship” which highlights the
superiority and legitimacy of a monarch and ensures obedience towards its subjects. In the
medieval period this theory found its roots, mainly because people felt that God had bestowed
great power unto Kings, and it was their duty to serve God’s anointed monarch on earth – a concept
that continued through to the early modern period.

At its core, the concept of the Divine Right has religious and political origins, therefore
furthering its legitimacy. As a whole, this concept states that only God can judge a monarch,
because only he has the authority. It believes that a form of monarchical government is the most
appropriate, and allegiance should only be sworn to the legitimate heir to the crown.

ON FEUDALISM

With the phases of development in the society, each marked by different modes of
production, tribal, feudal and capitalist, all had the “bondage” between classes. With Feudalism,
the system of political organization prevailing in Europe from the 9th to about the 15th centuries,
the bondage was between “lords and vassals”.
Feudalism is the form of society in which agriculture is the basis of the economy and which
political power is monopolized by a class of landowners. The mass of the population consists of
dependent peasants subsisting on the produce of their family holdings. The landowners are
maintained by the rent paid by the peasants, which might be in the form of food, labour.
The feudal landlord exploited the peasants under his control by seizing a portion of their produce.
However, the feudal lord did allow his work-force to retain direct contact with the means of
production - the land. (In contrast, capitalism alienated the worker from the means of production.)

ON SPANISH ENCOMIENDA SYSTEM

 In 1565, the colonization of the Spaniards brought about the encomienda system, wherein,
Spanish officials, soldiers and favored citizens were given land grants ostensibly to educate and
protect the natives but in reality to collect tribute from them.

When the Spaniards came, common ownership of land slowly took the backseat, and
private property became dominant. From 1571 to 1610, the colonizers purchased communal lands
through Datus. The pressing issue is that, heads of the barangays sometimes does not know that it
is a sale of their communal land. Areas acquired were immediately given titles and lands were
reserved to the King of Spain. The King soon enough issued a Royal Decree and land grants in
favor of Spanish Friars paving way to the Encomienda System.

Encomienda is a vast tract of landholding which served as self-reliant food producing

community.

ON REGALIAN DOCTRINE

This concept was first introduced through the Laws of the Indies and the Royal Cedulas.
The Philippines passed to Spain by virtue of discovery and conquest. Consequently, all lands
became the exclusive patrimony and dominion of the Spanish Crown.
Capacity of the state to own or acquire property—foundation for the early Spanish decree
embracing the feudal theory of jura regalia The Law of the Indies was followed by the Ley
Hipotecaria or the Mortgage Law of 1893. This law provided for the systematic registration of
titles and deeds as well as possessory claims. The Maura Law: was partly an amendment and was
the last Spanish land law promulgated in the Philippines, which required the adjustment or
registration of all agricultural lands, otherwise the lands shall revert to the State

Under this doctrine, private title to land must be traced to some grant, express or implied,
from the Spanish Crown or its successors, the American Colonial Government, and thereafter, the
Philippine Republic. In broader sense, the term refers to royal rights, or those rights to which the
King has by virtue of his prerogatives. The theory of jure regalia was therefore nothing more than
a natural fruit of conquest.

ON LAND REGISTRATION ACT OF 1902

Landowners under this Act were required to register their landholdings and acquire Torrens
Title to land properties. Almost all land titles granted by the court of land registration up to 1910
were for large private landholdings. Small farmers who were either not aware of the law or were
too poor to pay the documentation, failed to register their lands. As in the Spanish times, land
grabbing through fraudulent surveys were rampant.

ON PUBLIC LAND ACT OF 1902

 Otherwise known as Philippine Bill of 1902, this bill limited private individual
landholdings to 16 hectares, and corporate landholdings to 1,024 hectares. It also gave Americans
the right to acquire agricultural lands. Thus, it enabled American agricultural interests to control
huge tracts of land for large scale farming.

ON FRIAR LANDS ACT

This Act instituted transfer of friar lands to the tenants to diffuse the peasant unrest which
found expression in the 1898 Revolution against Spain. The American government purchased
some of the 23 large friar estates covering 166,000 hectares for $7Million, which it resold to 60,000
tenants at full cost plus interest. The prices were beyond the reach of most tenants and some could
not understand why they had to buy back the lands transferred as a result of this Act were those in
which agrarian unrest was widespread. This act was later amended to allow sale of friar lands not
only to Filipino tillers but to foreign nationals. In a short time, the Sugar trust and American
corporation, purchased San Jose estate.

ON RICE SHARE TENANCY ACT OF 1993

Otherwise known as Public Act No. 4054 which was passed on February 27, 1933 by the
Philippine Legislature during the time of Governor-General Theodore Roosevelt, aimed at
protecting tenants against abuses of landlords. This Act provided for a 50-5- sharing of the crop,
an interest rate ceiling of 10 percent per crop year, and safeguards against arbitrary dismissal of
tenants by landlords. However, the law could go into effect “only in provinces where the municipal
councils shall, by resolution, petition for its application to the Governor General”. With its
provision, the law was ineffective because the members of the landed elite controlled the
municipalities. Subsequent amendments to make the law effective were also invalidated by
landlord resistance.

ON SUGARCANE TENANCY CONTRACTS ACT OF 1933

This law governed the relationship between landlords and tenants in sugar lands which
make it a duty of the sugar central where the sugarcanes are milled to exhibit to the tenant the
receipts of the number of tons milled by the landowner thereat, upon demand of the said tenant,
which receipts shall be the basis of the computation of the tenant’s share from the cane harvested.

ON REPUBLIC ACT 34 OF 1946 (AGRICULTURAL SHARING)

 During the term of former Philippine President Manuel Roxas, Republic Act. No. 34
of 1946 (Agricultural Sharing) – amended certain Sections of the Rice Share Tenancy Act,
providing for a 70 – 30 crop – sharing method sharing arrangements and regulating share-tenancy
contracts.

The Agrarian Commission was created by Administrative Order NO. 38 on June 4, 1946, to study
rural conditions specially in the rice regions, in so far as they affect discontent and unrest among
the people there. Among its recommendations which Congress embodied in Republic
Act No.34 approved on September 20, 1946, was the fixing of definite percentage rates for the
shares of the tenants and the landowners in the rice product. This law provides that not less than
70 per cent of the harvest goes to the tenant if he furnishes the necessary implements and the work
animals and defrays all the expenses for planting and cultivation of the crop, except when there is
a written agreement to the contrary. This legislation is calculated to improve the conditions of the
tenant in those congested rice regions where he usually received even less than 50 per cent of the
crop and had to render to the landowner certain gratuitous services in addition.

This law established the fairest possible contractual basis between the tenant and landowner; it
replaced the system of tenancy as we know it with a system of fixed land rental, either in money
or in produce; it will acquire large estates for the purpose of subdividing them for sale at cost to
the tenants; and, it opens large areas of public land for development and distribution to farmers to
be attracted from the congested farm areas. This program, together with scientific aid to agriculture
and the credit and other facilities that small farmers require in the organization of new farms,
necessitates the expenditure of considerable amounts of money. As soon as funds are available I
shall propose to the Congress the immediate implementation of this program

ON REPUBLIC ACT 1160 OF 1954 (NATIONAL RESETTLEMENT AND

REHABILITATION)

Another post-war piece of legislation, this law established the NATIONAL

RESETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION ADMINISTRATION (NARRA) which embarked
on a large-scale resettlement of landless dissidents and other landless farmers. The government
thru the NARRA made an all-time record of acquiring two landed estates from 1956 to 1957
involving 391 hectares that benefited some 569 landless farmers.

ON REPUBLIC ACT 1199 OF 1954 (TENANCY RIGHTS)

The Magsaysay reform programs were based on the enactment of this law, otherwise
known as the Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954 which infused an added boost to the tenurial rights
of the tenant-tillers and provided for the enforcement of fair tenancy practices. Under this law, a
tenant who supplies all requirements for production including labor, working animals, implements,
plowing, final harrowing and transplanting of rice crop, is entitled to 70% of the harvest. This act
is implemented by machinery called the Agricultural Tenancy Commission created under
Administrative Order no. 67 series of 1954.

ON AGRICULTURAL LAND REFORM CODE OF 1963

 This Act marked the abolition of share tenancy and or the system of share cropping between
the land owner and tenant, and the automatic conversion of share tenants into leaseholders. Passed
during the administration of Diosdado Macapagal, the law gave a break to tenants in improving
their lot by the creation of the Land Bank of the Philippines which provided for the financial
assistance. It also provided for a gradual conversion of the status of the tenant-farmer from that of
share tenant to leaseholder, from leasehold tenant to amortizing owner, and finally from amortizing
owner to owner cultivator.

ON PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 2 OF 1972

Shortly after President Ferdinand Marcos declared martial law on September 21, 1972, he
issued P.D. no 2 declaring the entire nation as a land reform area.

ON PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27OF 1972

On month after President Marcos declared the whole country as a land reform area, he
signed into law P.D. no.27, “Decreeing the emancipation of the tenants from the bondage of the
soil, transferring to them the ownership of the land they till and providing the instruments and
mechanism therefor”. Under this decree which took effect on October 21, 1972, all tenant-farmers
whether in land classified as land estate or not shall be deemed owner of a portion constituting a
family size farm of five hectares if not irrigated, and three hectares if irrigated. In all cases, the
landowner may retain an area of not more than seven hectares if such landowner is cultivating such
area or will cultivate it. Despite the revolutionary effect of this decree, it still did not satisfy certain
agricultural sectors since it only applied to lands devoted to rice and corn but exempted sugarcane
lands, coconut lands, citrus, fishponds, saltbeds and lands principally planted to cacao, coffee,
durian and other permanent trees mentioned in Section 35 of RA no. 3844

D. ON POLICE POWER AS DOCTRINAL BASIS OF AGRARIAN REFORM

Association de Agricultures v. Talisay-Silay Milling G.R. No. L-19937, Feb 19, 1979, 88 SCRA
294

“It is therefore beyond cavil that dealing as it did with the unfortunate plight of the farm
laborers crying for just and urgent amelioration and confronted with the usual constitutional
objections whenever contractual relations are sought to be regulated, Congress ultimately availed
of the state's police power, in the face of which all arguments about freedom of contract and
impairment of contractual obligation is have generally been held not to prevail.”

Sources:
 American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Volume 38, Issue 2, 1 May 1956, Pages 465–
474, https://doi.org/10.2307/1234386 Published: 01 May 1956

 Law on Agrarian Reform with Commentaries on Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of

1988 and other Related Laws by Recaredo P. Barte, 1991

 Agrarian Law annotated by Rufus Rodriguez, 1993

 https://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1979/feb1979/gr_l_19937_1979.html