Agrarian Law

Agrarian Law and Social Legislation Atty. Steve Paolo Arellano Mercano

I.

Definition COMPREHENSIVE AGRARIAN REFORM LAW OF 1988 REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657

SECTION 3. Definitions. - For the purpose of this Act, unless the context indicates otherwise: (a)

Agrarian Reform means the redistribution of lands, regardless of crops or fruits produced, to farmers and regular farm workers who are landless, irrespective of tenurial arrangement, to include the totality of factors and support services designed to lift the economic status of the beneficiaries and all other arrangements alternative to the physical redistribution of lands, such as production or profitsharing, labor administration, and the distribution of shares of stock which will allow beneficiaries to receive a just share of the fruits of the lands they work.

b.) 1987 Constitution Article 13 AGRARIAN AND NATURAL RESOURCES REFORM Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing. Section 5. The State shall recognize the right of farmers, farmworkers, and landowners, as well as cooperatives, and other independent farmers' organizations to participate in the planning, organization, and management of the program, and shall provide support to agriculture through appropriate technology and research, and adequate financial, production, marketing, and other support services. Section 6. The State shall apply the principles of agrarian reform or stewardship, whenever applicable in accordance with law, in the disposition or utilization of other natural resources, including lands of the public domain under lease or concession suitable to agriculture, subject to prior rights, homestead rights of small settlers, and the rights of indigenous communities to their

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

1|Page

ancestral lands. The State may resettle landless farmers and farmworkers in its own agricultural estates which shall be distributed to them in the manner provided by law. Section 7. The State shall protect the rights of subsistence fishermen, especially of local communities, to the preferential use of the communal marine and fishing resources, both inland and offshore. It shall provide support to such fishermen through appropriate technology and research, adequate financial, production, and marketing assistance, and other services. The State shall also protect, develop, and conserve such resources. The protection shall extend to offshore fishing grounds of subsistence fishermen against foreign intrusion. Fishworkers shall receive a just share from their labor in the utilization of marine and fishing resources. Section 8. The State shall provide incentives to landowners to invest the proceeds of the agrarian reform program to promote industrialization, employment creation, and privatization of public sector enterprises. Financial instruments used as payment for their lands shall be honored as equity in enterprises of their choice. C. Other Important Definitions (b) Agriculture, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity 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 of juridical. (As amended by R. A. 7881)chan robles virtual law library

(c) Agricultural Land refers to land devoted to agricultural activity as defined in this Act and not classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land. (d) Agrarian Dispute refers to any controversy relating to tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or otherwise, over lands devoted to agriculture, including disputes concerning farm workers' associations or representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of such tenurial arrangements. It includes any controversy relating to compensation of lands acquired under this Act and other terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landowners to farm workers, tenants and other agrarian reform beneficiaries, whether the disputants stand in the proximate relation of farm operator and beneficiary, landowner and tenant, or lessor and lessee. (f) Farmer refers to a natural person whose primary livelihood is cultivation of land or the production of agricultural crops either by himself, or primarily with the assistance of his immediate farm household, whether the land is

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

2|Page

owned by him, or by another person under a leasehold or share tenancy agreement or arrangement with the owner thereof. (g) Farmworker is a natural person who renders service for value as an employee or laborer in an agricultural enterprise or farm regardless of whether his compensation is paid on a daily, weekly, monthly or "pakyaw" basis. The term includes an individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, a pending agrarian dispute who has not obtained a substantially equivalent and regular farm employment. (h) Regular Farmworker is a natural person who is employed on a permanent basis by an agricultural enterprise or farm. (i) Seasonal Farmworker is a natural person who is employed on a recurrent, periodic or intermittent basis by an agricultural enterprise or farm, whether as a permanent or a non-permanent laborer, such as "dumaan", "sacada", and the like. (j) Other Farmworker is a farmworker who does not fall under paragraphs (g), (h) and (i). (k) Cooperatives shall refer to organizations composed primarily of small agricultural producers, farmers, farm workers, or other agrarian reform beneficiaries who voluntarily organize themselves for the purpose of pooling land, human, technological, financial or other economic resources, and operated on the principle of one member, one vote. A juridical person may be a member of a cooperative, with the same rights and duties as a natural person. D. CARL applicability depends on the existence of an agrarian dispute; elements of an agrarian tenancy relationship: Cases:

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

3|Page

STANFILCO EMPLOYEES AGRARIAN REFORM BENEFICIARIES MULTI-PURPOSE COOPERATIVE vs. DOLE PHILIPPINES, INC., GR 154048

FACTS:

On January 29, 1998, petitioner as seller, and respondent as buyer, entered into a Banana Production and Purchase Agreement (BPPA). The BPPA provided that SEARBEMCO shall sell exclusively to DOLE, and the latter shall buy from the former, all Cavendish bananas of required specifications to be planted on the land owned by SEARBEMCO.

On December 11, 2000, DOLE filed a complaint with the RTC against SEARBEMCO, the spouses Elly and Myrna Abujos (spouses Abujos), and Oribanex Services, Inc. (Oribanex) for specific performance and damages, with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction and of a temporary restraining order. DOLE alleged that SEARBEMCO sold and delivered to Oribanex, through the spouses Abujos, the bananas rejected by DOLE, in violation of paragraph 5(p), Article V of the BPPA which limited the sale of rejected bananas for "domestic non-export consumption." DOLE further alleged that Oribanex is likewise an exporter of bananas and is its direct competitor.

ISSUE:

Whether or not RTC has jurisdiction over the subject matter of the complaint of DOLE, considering that the case involves an agrarian dispute within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB.

HELD:

DOLE’s complaint falls within the jurisdiction of the regular courts, not the DARAB. SEARBEMCO mainly relies on Section 50 of RA No. 6657 and the characterization of the controversy as an agrarian dispute or as an agrarian reform matter in contending that the present controversy falls within the competence of the DARAB and not of the regular courts.

The BPPA, SEARBEMCO claims, is a joint venture and a production, processing and marketing agreement, as defined under Section 5 (c) (i) and (ii) of DAR AO No. 2-99; hence, any dispute arising from the BPPA is within the exclusive jurisdiction of the DARAB. SEARBEMCO also asserts that the parties’ relationship in the present case is not only that of buyer and seller, but also that of supplier of land covered by the CARP and of manpower on the part of SEARBEMCO, and supplier of agricultural inputs, financing and technological expertise on the

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

4|Page

part of DOLE. Therefore, SEARBEMCO concludes that the BPPA is not an ordinary contract, but one that involves an agrarian element and, as such, is imbued with public interest.

Additionally, the inclusion of third parties in the complaint supports our declaration that the present case does not fall under DARAB’s jurisdiction. DARAB’s quasi-judicial powers under Section 50 of RA No. 6657 may be invoked only when there is prior certification from the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (or BARC) that the dispute has been submitted to it for mediation and conciliation, without any success of settlement. Since the present dispute need not be referred to arbitration (including mediation or conciliation) because of the inclusion of third parties, neither SEARBEMCO nor DOLE will be able to present the requisite BARC certification that is necessary to invoke DARAB’s jurisdiction; hence, there will be no compliance with Section 53 of RA No. 6657. MENDOZA vs. GERMINO, GR 165676

FACTS:

THE petitioner filed a complaint with the (MTC) of Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija against respondent Narciso Germino for forcible entry, claiming that they were the registered owners of a fivehectare parcel of land in Soledad, Sta. Rosa, Nueva Ecija (subject property). On his answer, respondent claimed, among others, that his brother, was the plaintiffs' agricultural lessee and he merely helped the latter in the cultivation as a member of the immediate farm household. After several postponements, the plaintiffs filed a motion to remand the case to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), in view of the tenancy issue raised by respondent Narciso. The MTC issued an order remanding the case to the DARAB for further proceedings. PARAD found that the respondents were mere usurpers of the subject property, and ordered the respondents to vacate the subject property, and pay the plaintiffs 500 cavans of palay as actual damages. On appeal to DARAB, respondent argued that the case should have been dismissed because the MTC's referral to the DARAB was void with the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657. DARAB affirmed the PARAD decision. CA, however, set aside the DARAB decision and remanded the case to the MTC for further proceedings.

ISSUE:

Whether the MTC or the DARAB has jurisdiction over the case.

HELD:

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

5|Page

The CA committed no reversible error in setting aside the DARAB decision. While we lament the lapse of time this forcible entry case has been pending resolution, we are not in a position to resolve the dispute between the parties since the evidence required in courts is different from that of administrative agencies.

It is a basic rule that jurisdiction over the subject matter is determined by the allegations in the complaint. It is determined exclusively by the Constitution and the law. It cannot be conferred by the voluntary act or agreement of the parties, or acquired through or waived, enlarged or diminished by their act or omission, nor conferred by the acquiescence of the court. Well to emphasize, it is neither for the court nor the parties to violate or disregard the rule, this matter being legislative in character. Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 129, as amended by R.A. No. 7691, the MTC shall have exclusive original jurisdiction over cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer. Furthermore, allegation of tenancy does not divest the MTC of jurisdiction.

Under Section 50 of R.A. No. 6657, as well as Section 34 of Executive Order No. 129-A, the DARAB has primary and exclusive jurisdiction, both original and appellate, to determine and adjudicate all agrarian disputes involving the implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program, and other agrarian laws and their implementing rules and regulations.

An agrarian dispute refers to any controversy relating to, among others, tenancy over lands devoted to agriculture. For a case to involve an agrarian dispute, the following essential requisites of an agricultural tenancy relationship must be present: (1) the parties are the landowner and the tenant; (2) the subject is agricultural land; (3) there is consent; (4) the purpose is agricultural production; (5) there is personal cultivation; and (6) there is sharing of harvest or payment of rental.

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

6|Page

E. Constitutionality of the CARL Association of Small Landowners vs Sec. of Dar

“Equal Protection” These are 3 cases consolidated questioning the constitutionality of the Agrarian Reform Act. Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights includes a call for the adoption by the State of an agrarian reform program. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular farmworkers, who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands they till or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of the fruits thereof. RA 3844, Agricultural Land Reform Code, had already been enacted by Congress on August 8, 1963. This was substantially superseded almost a decade later by PD 27, which was promulgated on Oct 21, 1972, along with martial law, to provide for the compulsory acquisition of private lands for distribution among tenant-farmers and to specify maximum retention limits for landowners. On July 17, 1987, Cory issued EO 228, declaring full land ownership in favor of the beneficiaries of PD 27 and providing for the valuation of still unvalued lands covered by the decree as well as the manner of their payment. This was followed on July 22, 1987 by PP 131, instituting a comprehensive agrarian reform program (CARP), and EO 229, providing the mechanics for its implementation. Afterwhich is the enactment of RA 6657, Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, which Cory signed on June 10. This law, while considerably changing the earlier mentioned enactments, nevertheless gives them suppletory effect insofar as they are not inconsistent with its provisions. In considering the rentals as advance payment on the land, the executive order also deprives the petitioners of their property rights as protected by due process. The equal protection clause is also violated because the order places the burden of solving the agrarian problems on the owners only of agricultural lands. No similar obligation is imposed on the owners of other properties. The petitioners maintain that in declaring the beneficiaries under PD 27 to be the owners of the lands occupied by them, EO 228 ignored judicial prerogatives and so violated due process. Worse, the measure would not solve the agrarian problem because even the small farmers are deprived of their lands and the retention rights guaranteed by the Constitution. In his comment the Sol-Gen asserted that the alleged violation of the equal protection clause, the sugar planters have failed to show that they belong to a different class and should be differently treated. The Comment also suggests the possibility of Congress first distributing public agricultural lands and scheduling the expropriation of private agricultural lands later. From this viewpoint, the petition for prohibition would be premature. ISSUE: Whether or not there was a violation of the equal protection clause. HELD: The SC ruled affirming the Sol-Gen. The argument of the small farmers that they have been denied equal protection because of the absence of retention limits has also become academic under Sec 6 of RA 6657. Significantly, they too have not questioned the area of such limits. There is also the complaint that they should not be made to share the burden of agrarian reform, an objection also made by the sugar planters on the ground that they belong to a

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

7|Page

particular class with particular interests of their own. However, no evidence has been submitted to the Court that the requisites of a valid classification have been violated. Classification has been defined as the grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain particulars and different from each other in these same particulars. To be valid, it must conform to the following requirements: (1) it must be based on substantial distinctions; (2) it must be germane to the purposes of the law; (3) it must not be limited to existing conditions only; and (4) it must apply equally to all the members of the class. The Court finds that all these requisites have been met by the measures here challenged as arbitrary and discriminatory. Equal protection simply means that all persons or things similarly situated must be treated alike both as to the rights conferred and the liabilities imposed. The petitioners have not shown that they belong to a different class and entitled to a different treatment. The argument that not only landowners but also owners of other properties must be made to share the burden of implementing land reform must be rejected. There is a substantial distinction between these two classes of owners that is clearly visible except to those who will not see. There is no need to elaborate on this matter. In any event, the Congress is allowed a wide leeway in providing for a valid classification. Its decision is accorded recognition and respect by the courts of justice except only where its discretion is abused to the detriment of the Bill of Rights.

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

8|Page

Luz Farms v. DAR Secretary GR No. 86889 4 December 1990 Paras, J.

In 1988, RA 6657 was approved by the President of the Philippines. It includes the raising of livestock, poultry, and swine in its coverage.

W/N the CARL should include the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage.

In 1989, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform promulgated the IRR of Secs. 11, 13, and 39 of the said law. Luz Farms, a corporation engaged in the livestock and poultry business, allegedly stands to be adversely affected by the enforcement of certain sections of RA 6657, of the Guidelines and Procedures Implementing Production and Profit Sharing under RA 6657, and of the IRR of Section 11. It prays that the aforesaid statutes be declared unconstitutional.

W/N the requirement in Sections 13 and 32 of RA 6657 directing “corporate farms” to execute and implement “production-sharing plans” is unreasonable for being confiscatory and violative of due process, with respect to livestock and poultry raisers. Separate Opinion: Sarmiento, J. W/N the assailed provisions violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution.

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

NO. It was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to include the livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the agrarian reform program of the government. The intention of the Committee was to limit the application of the word “agriculture”. Thus, Section II of RA 6657 which includes “private agricultural lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry, and swine raising” in the definition of “commercial farms” is invalid, to the extent that the aforecited agro-industrial activities are made to be covered by the agrarian reform program of the State.

Raising of livestock, poultry, and swine are excluded from the coverage of the CARL.

YES. As there is no reason to include livestock and poultry lands in the coverage of agrarian reform, there is no need to call upon them to distribute from 3% of their gross sales and 10% of their net profits to their workers as additional compensation.

NO. Substantial distinctions exist between land directed purely to cultivation and harvesting of fruits or crops and land exclusively used for livestock, poultry and swine raising that make real differences: 1. There are no tenants nor landlords in livestock and poultry businesses; 2. Livestock and poultry do not sprout from land; 3. Land is not a primary resource; 4. Livestock and poultry production are industrial activities; 5. Livestock and poultry farmworkers are covered by

9|Page

minimum wage law rather than by tenancy law.

Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr.

10 | P a g e