This story
was taken from Bulatlat, the Philippines's alternative weekly
newsmagazine (www.bulatlat.com, www.bulatlat.net, www.bulatlat.org).
Vol. VI, No. 18, June 11-17, 2006
While government boasts of having placed under the agrarian reform program millions of hectares of land, farmer-beneficiaries complain they lose the lands awarded to them because of land-use reclassification. A Bulatlat study shows how decisions on the CARP coverage ultimately lie in the hands of the local government units which decide on land-use reclassification and the Supreme Court which usually confirms the conversion in its rulings.
Bulatlat
Part II: SC decisions favorable to landowners
In a study made by Bulatlat, most cases handled by the SC resulted in decisions favorable to landowners.
Norberto Agulay, Jr., head of the National Legal Service Program of the Sentro para sa Tunay na Repormang Agraryo Foundation, Inc. (SENTRA or Center for Genuine Agrarian Reform Foundation, Inc.), points out the two main factors why land tillers are, in most cases, at the losing end of a court battle are: one, if the lands have already been reclassified through a municipal ordinance, and two, because the SC decides on the basis of compliance to technical rules and procedures rather that on the merits of the case.
agulay cites as example the case of Aninao v. Asturias Chemicals (GR No. 160420) where 323 farmer-beneficiaries lost their right to 507 ha. of agricultural land in Calatagan town, province of Batangas (102 kms. south of Manila).
Court records show that DAR issued EPs to the farmers on various dates in 1989 and 1990 pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27 (PD 27), the agrarian reform program of former President Ferdinand Marcos covering rice and corn lands.
However, respondent Asturias Chemicals asserted, in its petition to the DAR, that the contested land “is and never was a rice and corn farm.”
An investigation made by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO) of Batangas had said that “on the premise that it cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt that the property is planted to palay or corn and tenanted,” it recommended that “the coverage of the property under OLT be nullified; and that the 818 EPs issued be cancelled to pave the way for the coverage [thereof] . . . under CARP.”
However, in its order of August 4, 2000, the DAR sustained the protest of Asturias Chemicals and accordingly recalled/nullified the coverage of the property in question for three reasons: 1) the landholding is not primarily devoted to rice/corn production; 2) the existence of tenancy relations has not been clearly established; and 3) the property had long ceased to be agricultural: it has become mineral land.
The farmer beneficiaries petitioned the case with the CA but lost.
At the first instance, the CA noted that only the farmers’ leader, Agustin Lopez, signed the petition. The CA gave Lopez five days to produce a Special Power of Attorney (SPA) to prove he was recognized by the farmers as their rightful representative.
Lopez was able to produce two sets of SPAs and submitted it to the CA on Sept. 16 and 22, 2002.
The CA however said that the SPAs would not suffice because “there are 297 petitioners with 31 names that were repeated. If we deduct the repeated names, the number of petitioners would be reduced to 266. SPA show that only 166 petitioners signed and out of this number, there were 24 persons who signed but were not listed as petitioners. In sum, there were only 142 petitioners out of 266 petitioners who signed the SPA.”
After losing their petition to the CA, the farmers went to the SC.
On Nov. 8, 2005, however, the SC decided against the farmers for three reasons: the land was not suitable for rice and corn; tenancy relations could not be proven; and that the petitioners violated the rules against forum shopping.
Another case where the farmers lost due to technicalities is the Tantoco v. Court of Appeals, DAR (GR No. 149621), which involves 101.5128 ha of agricultural land in San Francisco, General Trias, Cavite.
Although the SC stated in its decision that it has “established that the land in question can be properly subjected to CARP,” it handed out a decision against the farmer-beneficiaries on May 5 because the “landowners were denied due process.”
Court records show that the Tantocos (the landowning family) applied their property for a Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS) with the DAR in the amount of P500,000 per hectare ($9,403.80 at an exchange rate of P53.17 per US dollar) or P53,256,400 ($1,001,624.98) on May 8, 1989.
It was only on June 25, 1993 that the Tantocos received a Notice of Land Valuation from DAR which valued their property at P4,826,742.35 ($90,779.43).
On July 8 of the same year, the Tantocos withdrew the VOS saying that the land is not suitable for agriculture anymore and that it had been classified in 1981 by the Human Settlements Regulatory Commission (now HLURB) for residential, commercial or industrial purposes.
In the DAR vs. Apex Investment and Financing Corp. (now SM Investment Corp) case, the farmer beneficiaries lost merely on the basis that the DAR sent its Notice of Coverage to the wrong address. SM investment Corp. also said in its petition that its property has been reclassified for residential purposes. The SC decision, however, said it “cannot conclude that respondent's parcels of land are residential.”
There are instances where the farmer-beneficiaries win at the SC but were asked to pay huge amounts. In the Springsun Management vs. Camerino (G.R. No. 161029), the farmers won but were asked to pay P7,223,799.00 ($135,862.31) for the lands covered by TCT Nos. 120541, 120542 and the amount of P2,566,813.00 ($48,215.59) for the land covered by TCT No. 123872.
It is not known if the farmers were able to pay the amount to the respondents.
Exemptions
As of Jan 20, the Center for Land Use Policy Planning Implementation (CLUPPI) has so far approved 3,333 applications for Land Use Conversion totaling to 43, 863.4873 ha. It has so far approved 107 Applications for Exemption involving 4,721.5553 ha.
The number of pending applications for conversion and exemption are not available as of this writing.
De Leon said it is actually automatic that the application for conversion or exemption will be approved if the land in question has already been reclassified. “If the land is already more viable for other purposes, the municipality has the right to reclassify. If the local government decides that the lands are already suitable for industrial or commercial purposes, we will have to respect that,” he said.
The province of Cavite, he said, is part of Region IV-A or the CALABARZON area where industrial enclaves prevail. The said region has in fact the biggest number of approved conversions (17, 903.1147 ha.) and exemptions (7,398,6585 ha.).
The DAR official also said that once the land area has been reclassified, any farmer-petitioner would most likely lose in court.
In fact, the Department of Justice (DOJ) had ruled under DOJ Opinion No. 44, Series of 1990 that lands which has already been classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial and industrial areas, prior to June 15, 1988 shall be excluded from CARP coverage.
In the SC decision on the Junio v. CA, DAR case dated July 29, 2005, it stated: “Consequently, even if the subject landholding has been declared as agricultural for taxation purposes, once a local government has reclassified it as residential, that determination must prevail for zoning purposes.”
Nowhere to go
De Leon however said that farmers whose lands are affected by municipal zoning ordinances have a right to disturbance compensation and relocation.
Most farmers like Romano who knows no other means of livelihood except tilling the land would most likely end up with nothing but dashed hopes for the future.
“Kahit bigyan nila kami ng pera, saan naman kami pupunta? Ano trabaho namin?” (Even if they give us money, where will we go? How will we live?) he asked.
The few lucky enough to be relocated to another farming area, de Leon said, would never own the land where they will be relocated. “They will remain tenants,” he said.
All the cases cited above, and many more, show how decisions on CARP’s coverage ultimately lie in the hands of the local government units – which decide on land-use reclassification – and the Supreme Court – which usually confirms the conversion in its rulings. Bulatlat
© 2006 Bulatlat ■ Alipato Publications
Permission is granted to reprint or redistribute this article, provided its author/s and Bulatlat are properly credited and notified.