Petitions for or Protests Against Coverage Template

7/28/2019 Petitions for or Protests Against Coverage Template

1/16

TEMPLATE FOR PETITION FOROR PROTEST FROM COVERAGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This template may serve as a guide for petition for coverage or protestsagainst the coverage of a certain landholding under Comprehensive AgrarianReform Program (CARP). In resolving cases of this character, the decisionmaker must always remember that as a general rule, all public and privateagricultural lands are subject to CARP coverage pursuant to Section 4 ofRepublic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, except when there is a clear showing that theland is exempted or excluded from the coverage of the CARP under the law.

In all cases where there is a letter or petition asking the DARMO/DARPO/ RDto subject a certain landholding or a portion thereof to coverage under

agrarian reform law, the concerned DAR official must answer the letter withinfifteen (15) days from receipt thereof, indicating therein the reason(s) whythe property subject of the request cannot be covered or forthwith issue anotice of coverage if coverable under CARP.

All letter-complaints or petitions for coverage will be treated as summary innature. If the land subject thereof is coverable, the concerned DAR officialmust immediately issue a Notice of Coverage, subject to the rules on phasingpursuant to Section 7 of R.A. No. 6657, as implemented by DARAdministrative Order (A.O.) No. 2, Series of 2009.

II. CHECKLIST OF DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS

1. The following documents and facts are material and to be consideredin assessing whether the land may be covered under agrarianreform:

Name of landowner;

o Aggregate landholding of the landowner withinthe Philippines

o Grant of retention area in favor of landowner ifany

Location of property and area;

OCT/TCT or Tax Declaration/s;

Ocular inspection report indicating:

o Actual land use;


2/16

o Existence of agricultural activity;

o Photographs of the subject landholding.

Recommendation from the MARO and/or PARO on whetheror not to cover the landholding under CARP Coverage.

BARC report as to the number of tenants or tillers on thesubject landholding

Land Classification documents available; and

Other information vital to the determination of coverage ofthe land or portions thereof under CARP.

TITLED LANDS:

Certified copy of the original Original Certificate of Title (OCT) orTransfer Certificate of Title (TCT) on file with the Register ofDeeds

UNTITLED LANDS:

Certification of the DENR-CENRO/PENRO or RTD, LMS, thatthe tract of land covered by the survey is within an area

classified as A&D pursuant to DAR-DENR-LBP JMC No. 12, S.of 1994 as reconciled with R.A. No. 9176;

Certified copy of the latest Tax Declaration from theAssessors file in the name of the claimant with verified andcorrect lot numbers and area per approved survey plan (ASP)

Certification of the Assessor concerned showing the TaxDeclaration issued, the declarant/s, the area covered, and thebasis for the issuances and cancellations thereof up to the TaxDeclaration issued in the name of the claimant, as well as anyexisting liens on the current and previous Tax Declaration,

where applicable

Certification from the Clerk of Court concerned whether ornot the property/ies identified in the ASP is/are covered by landregistration proceedings or any civil case, and if the same hasbeen used as a bond in other court actions

Certification from the Assessors Office concerned that pertheir records, the property/ies as appearing in the ASP is/arefree from all liens and encumbrances

2


3/16

Note: For untitled land, there must be a showing that (a) the same

forms part of alienable and disposable land of public domain; (b) that

the one claiming ownership thereof or his predecessors-in-interest-

have been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious occupation ofthe property (c) land is under bona fide claim of ownership since June

12, 1945 or earlier. If later than 12 June 1945, the occupation must be

at least 30 years which must be counted from the time the land is

declared alienable and disposable and there must be a declaration by

the DENR that the land is no longer intended for public service or

development of national wealth (see: Republic vs. Rizaldo, G.R. No.

172011, March 7, 2011)

III. JURISDICTION

Classification and identification of landholdings for coverage under theComprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is an agrarian lawimplementation (ALI) case and thus governed by DAR A.O. No. 03, Series of2003. The Regional Director has the primary jurisdiction over all agrarian law

implementation cases. Appeals from the decision of the Regional Director willbe before the Secretary, who has the exclusive prerogative over the case.

IV. STANDING

Legal standing of the requesting party/ petitioner is not important forthe petition for coverage under CARP.

V. TIMELINESS

The landowner has thirty (30)-day prescribed period from receipt ordate of publication of Notice of Coverage, whichever is applicablewithin which to protest coverage. Upon receipt of the protest fromcoverage by DAR, the landowner has another thirty (30) days tosubstantiate his/her protest. Failure to comply with the said period willbe construed a waiver or abandonment of the right to protest.

VI. DECISION

(Basis: R.A. 6657, as amended)

Approve only if the following elements exist:1. The Notice of Coverage was properly served to the landowner.

(see infra) [required only for Protest from Coverage]

3


4/16

2. Coverage was made during the proper phase. (see chart onphasing, supra)

3. The landholding is any of the following:a. All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain

devoted to or suitable for agriculture.b. All lands of the public domain in excess to the specific limitsas determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph;

c. All other lands owned by the Government devoted to orsuitable for agriculture; and

d. All private lands devoted to or suitable for agricultureregardless of the agricultural products raised or that can beraised thereon

4. It is not exempted.Exempted from coverage are:

1. Parks;

2. Wildlife;3. Forest reserves;4. Reforestation;5. Fish sanctuaries and breeding grounds;6. Watersheds;7. Mangroves;8. National defense;9. School sites and campuses including experimental farm

stations operated by public or private schools foreducational purposes;

10. Seeds and seedlings research and pilot production

centers;11. Church sites and Islamic centers appurtenant

thereto;12. Communal burial grounds and cemeteries;13. Penal colonies and penal farms actually worked by

the inmates;14. Government and private research and quarantine

centers;15. All undeveloped lands with eighteen percent (18%)

slope and over;16. All lands actually, directly and exclusively used for

commercial, industrial or residential purposes andclassified as such before June 15, 1988;

17. Fish ponds and prawn farms;18. All lands actually, directly and exclusively used for

livestock raising;19. Ancestral lands and domain; and20. Retention areas granted to landowners.

However, to deny coverage on the basis of the aforementionedgrounds, there must be sufficient evidence on record that sustains the

4


5/16


6/16

Phase 2A

All remaining large singleagricultural lands with an

area of 24 to 50 hectares(with or without NOC)

All PALs of landowners withan aggregate area of above24 to 50 hectares with NOCas of December 10, 2008

All alienable and disposablepublic agricultural lands,regardless of size

Starting July 1, 2012 up to June 30,2013 Phase 2B

All remaining PALs of landowners with anaggregate area in excess of24 hectares with or withoutNOC

All alienable and disposablepublic agricultural lands,

regardless of size

Phase 3A

All PALs with an aggregatearea of above 10 hectares upto 24 hectares, with respectto the excess above 10hectares

All alienable and disposable

public agricultural lands,regardless of size

6


7/16

Starting July 1, 2013 up to June 30,2014 Phase 3B

All PALs with an aggregatearea from above 5 hectares

up to 10 hectares, withrespect to the excess above5 hectares

All alienable and disposablepublic agricultural lands,regardless of size

For specific/special examples, refer to M.C. No. _______, Series of 2011.

Proper NOC Service:1. The MARO should post copies of the NOC in the bulletin

board of any conspicuous place in both the barangayand the municipal/city where the property is located forat least 7 days. This fact should be certified with thecorresponding Certification of Posting Compliance.

2. The MARO or any DAR personnel authorized by thePARO shall send the NOC to the landowner.- If it is a co-ownership, it must be sent to each co-

owner.- If the landowner (or any of the co-owners) reside

outside the jurisdiction of the MARO, the latter shallendorse the NOC to the MARO where the landowneris a resident of and that MARO shall serve the NOC.

- If the landowner does not reside in the Philippines:service shall be made by publication

- If the landowner is unknown or cannot be diligentlyfound: service shall be made by publication

3. Special types of service:a. Landowner is a minor or incompetent:

o To the landowner AND his legal guardiano If there is no legal guardian, the DAR shall ask

the courts to appoint a guardian ad litem.

o In the case of minors: service may be done toeither or both of his/her parents

b. Landowner is a domestic juridical entity: servicemay be made to any of the following:

o Presidento Managing Partnero General Managero Corporate Secretaryo Treasurero In-house Counsel

7


8/16

o Administrator (only on or after 14 August2005)

c. Landowner is an entity without juridical personality:service may be made to any of the following:

o Any of those composing the entityo Person in charge of the office or place of

businesso Note: persons not served with notice, if

served after his/her ties were severed fromthe entity, shall not be bound by it

Special Cases regarding Protests against improper service ofNOCSales of Agricultural LandA. Sale of agricultural land prior to June 15, 1988

Prior considerations: If agricultural land was tenanted rice and corn Sale is null and

void for violation MAR M.C. No. 2, Series of 1973, M.C. No. 2-A,Series of 1973 and M.C. No. 8, Series of 1978 (Heirs ofBatongbacal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125063, September24, 2002, 389 SCRA 517, Taguinod v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.154654, September 14, 2007)

If land is untenanted or is not rice and corn, consider if the land isregistered or unregistered land and if the sale was registered or

unregistered:

1. If land was registered in the Register of Deeds and the sale wasannotated on the title prior to issuance of NOC NOC shouldbe/have been served to the vendee.

2. If land was registered in the Registry of Deeds but the sale wasnot registered NOC should be/have been served to the vendor.Unregistered sale does not bind third parties, including the state.(See Calalang v. Register of Deeds of Quezon City, G.R. Nos.76265 and 83280, 11 March 1994, 231 SCRA 88; Villasor v.Camon, 89 Phil. 404)

3. If land was unregistered but the sale was registered in theRegistry of unregistered property and the NOC was issued to thevendor NOC should be served to the vendee.

a. Note: Proceed with caution as the right of the vendee iswithout prejudice to one who has a better right over theproperty. The mere registration of a sale in one's favordoes not give him any right over the land if the vendor was

8


9/16

not anymore the owner of the land having previously soldthe same to somebody else even if the earlier sale wasunrecorded. [See Radiowealth Finance Company v. Palileo,274 Phil. 516, May 20, 1991; Spouses Abrigo v. De Vera,

G.R. No. 154409, June 21, 2004)b. Grant protest only if the right of the vendee over the land

is apparent and that the due process rights of the vendeeas the owner was violated. However, the improper serviceof NOC does not, of itself, justify the cancellation ofCertificates of Land Ownership Award( CLOAs). It merelyamounts to a violation ofproceduraldue process by thevendee the DAR must be given the chance to correct itsprocedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings. (SeeRoxas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127876, December 17,1999, 321 SCRA 106) The improper service will only affectthe determination of just compensation of the landowneras the taking will be determined from the proper service ofNOC as to him. (See Sta. Monica Industrial Corporation v. DARRegional Director III, G.R. No. 164846, June 18, 2008, 555 SCRA97

4. If land was unregistered and the sale was likewise unregistered. NOC should be served to the claimant. (See Presidential DecreeNo. 1529, Sections 112-113; Spouses Dadizon v. Court ofAppeals, G.R. No. 159116, September 30, 2009, 601 SCRA 351)

In case of doubt, issue it to both the vendor and vendee.

B. Sale of agricultural land after June 15, 1988

Prior considerations If the sale was done without the requisite DAR clearance as

required by DAR Administrative Order No. 1, Series of 1989, thesale should be declared null and void for a violation of Section73(e) of R.A. No. 6657 and the protest must forthwith be denied.

To determine the effect of the sale on the service of NOC, use thesame guidelines provided above.

OTHER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES:

If a Petition for Coverage was filed afterwhich a Petition for Exemption is filed,but the claimfolder has not yet been transmitted to the LBP (involvingthe same landholding): the process for the Petition for Coverage shall

9


10/16

still be continued until right before the submission of the claimfolder tothe LBP. The claimfolder shall not be submitted first to the LBP.

If a Petition for Coverage was filed afterwhich a Petition for Exemption is filed,and the claimfolder has already been transmitted to the LBP (involving

the same landholding): LBP shall continue with the process but theCertificate of Deposit shall be issued to the PARO who shall hold it inthe mean time.

If a Petition for Exemption was filed afterwhich a Petition for Coverage is filed(involving the same landholding): the Petition for Coverage shall beheld in abeyance until the final resolution of the Exemption case.

VII. PROCESS

DECISION PROCESS FLOW

10

Check if the applicant hassubmitted documentaryrequirements to establish thatthe subject land is subject toCARP coverage

Issue notice of coverage

NO

If the land is not coverableunder CARP, answer the letterwithin fifteen (15) days fromreceipt indicating therein thereason why the land cannot becovered or notice of coveragecannot be issued.

YES


11/16

VIII. APPEALS

The decision of the DAR Regional Director may be appealed to the DARSecretary pursuant to Rule IV of DAR A.O. No. 03, Series of 2003.

The decision of the DAR Secretary disposing of the appeal from theDAR Regional Director may be appealed to the Office of the President in

accordance with Rule V of DAR A.O. No. 03, Series of 2003 and AdministrativeOrder No. 18, Series of 1987.

IX. APPLICABLE PRINCIPLES, LAWS, RULES, POLICIES,JURISPRUDENCE

1. LEGAL PROVISIONS

The entire Chapter II of R.A. No. 6657

Take special note of Section 4:

SEC. 4.Scope. -The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 shall cover,regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity produced, all public and privateagricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229,including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture: Provided, Thatlandholdings of landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and below shall notbe covered for acquisition and distribution to qualified beneficiaries.

"More specifically, the following lands are covered by the CARP:

"(a) All alienable and disposable lands of the public domain devoted to orsuitable for agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to

agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act untilCongress, taking into account ecological, developmental and equityconsiderations, shall have determined by law, the specific limits of the publicdomain;

"(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits asdetermined by Congress in the preceding paragraph;

"(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable foragriculture; and

11


12/16


13/16

awarded a certificate of land transfer in July 22, 1981. The sale to Sta.Monica in 1986 is void for being contrary to law. Trinidad remained theowner of the agricultural land.

X X X

Second, buyer Sta. Monica is owned and controlled by Trinidad andher family. Records show that Trinidad, her husband and two sons ownmore than 98% of the outstanding capital stock of Sta. Monica. Theyare all officers of the corporation. There are only two non-relatedincorporators who own less than one percent of the outstanding capitalstock of Sta. Monica and who are not officers of the corporation.

To be sure, Trinidad and her family exercise absolute control of thecorporate affairs of Sta. Monica. As owners of 98% of the outstandingcapital stock, they are the beneficial owners of all the assets of thecompany, including the agricultural land sold by Trinidad to Sta.Monica.

Third, Trinidad and her counsel failed to notify the DAR of the priorsale to Sta. Monica during the administrative proceedings. Worse,

Trinidad feigned ignorance of the sale by filing a motion for bill ofparticulars seeking specifics from De Guzman of her allegedlandholdings which are subject of his petition with the DAR.

It is highly unusual and unbelievable for her not to know, or at least beaware, of the sale to Sta. Monica. She herself signed the deed of saleas seller. She is also a stockholder and officer of Sta. Monica. Moreimportantly, she cannot feign ignorance of De Guzmans claim becausehe was her agricultural tenant since the 1970s. She knows, or at leastought to know, that the subject matter of the petition with the DAR washer own landholding, which she sold to Sta. Monica in direct violation ofP.D. No. 27.

The apparent lack of candor is heightened by the fact that bothTrinidad and Sta. Monica are represented by the same counsel, Atty.Ramon Gutierrez. We cannot stretch Our credulity on how Trinidadfiled a motion for bill of particulars with the DAR seeking specifics onthe sale to Sta. Monica when she herself signed for the vendor as aparty to the transaction.

It is the duty of Atty. Gutierrez to inform the DAR, at the very firstopportunity, of the sale to Sta. Monica. He was utterly remiss of this

duty. Instead of informing the DAR, Trinidad and her counsel engagedin wild goose chase and stonewalling, feigning ignorance when theyought to have informed the DAR of the sale to Sta. Monica. Atty.Gutierrez is reminded that, as an officer of the court, he owes it theduty of candor, honesty and fairness.

Fourth, it was only after an adverse decision against Trinidad that Sta.Monica suddenly filed a petition for certiorari with the CA questioningthe lack of notice of coverage under the CARP law. It is highly unlikelythat Sta. Monica, an artificial being acting only through its duly

13


14/16

authorized representatives, was not sufficiently informed or had noconstructive knowledge of the DAR proceedings.

Trinidad and by extension, her family members, were informed orshould be sufficiently aware of the DAR proceedings. They are all

stockholders and corporate officers of Sta. Monica. They knew, theyought to know, that Sta. Monica would suffer damage should the DARaward, as it awarded, the agricultural land to De Guzman.

As directors and corporate officers, they owe a duty of care to thecorporation to inform it of the pending proceedings with the DAR.

Fifth, the ultimate factor that betrays Trinidad and Sta. Monica is thecontinued payment of lease rentals by De Guzman. Records show thatDe Guzman paid and continued to pay lease rentals to Trinidad evenafter she sold the land to Sta. Monica. The receipt dated May 30, 2002discloses that De Guzman paid 40 cavans ofpalayto Clodinaldo delaCruz, the authorized representative of Trinidad, as lease rentals for the

agricultural land.

It is incredible that Trinidad would still continue to collect lease rentalsfrom De Guzman if she had long sold the agricultural land to Sta.Monica in 1986. The continued payment of lease rentals indicates that

Trinidad never sold the agricultural land to Sta. Monica. Evidently, thesale was a mere ruse to skirt coverage under the comprehensiveagrarian reform law.

All these circumstances indicate that Trinidad has remained as the realowner of the agricultural land sold to Sta. Monica. The sale to Sta.Monica is not valid because it is prohibited under P.D. No. 27. Moreimportantly, it must be deemed as a mere ploy to evade the applicableprovisions of the agrarian law.

But it is a fiat that the corporate vehicle cannot be used as a shield toprotect fraud or justify wrong. Thus, the veil of corporate fiction will bepierced when it is used to defeat public convenience and subvertpublic policy.

Considering that Trinidad remained to be the true and legal owner ofthe agricultural land, there is no need for another notice of coverage tobe sent or furnished to Sta. Monica. At the very least, the notice to heris already notice to Sta. Monica because the corporation acted as amere conduit of Trinidad. The CA correctly dismissed the petition of

Sta. Monica to annul the orders of the Regional Director placing theagricultural land of Trinidad under the agrarian reform law.

Service of NOCs on Corporations and other Private Juridical Entities

The service of the Notice of Coverage must comply with the requirementunder Section 16(a) of R.A. No. 6657, as ruled in the case ofDepartment of

Agrarian Reform v. Apex Investment and Financing Corp2, to wit:

2 G.R. No. 14922, April 10, 2003.

14


15/16

In the instant case, petitioner does not dispute that respondent did notreceive the Notice of Acquisition and Notice of Coverage sent to thelatter's old address. Petitioner explained that its personnel could noteffect personal service of those notices upon respondent because itchanged its juridical name from Apex Investment and Financing

Corporation to SM Investment Corporation. While it is true, thatpersonal service could not be made, however, there is no showing thatpetitioner caused the service of the notices via registered mail asrequired by Section 16(a) of R.A. No. 6657. On this point, petitionerclaimed that the notices were sent "not only by registered mail butalso by personal delivery" and that there was actual receipt byrespondent as shown by the signature appearing at the bottom left-hand corner of petitioner's copies of the notices. But petitioner couldnot identify the name of respondent's representative who allegedlyreceived the notices. In fact, petitioner admitted that the signaturethereon is illegible. It is thus safe to conclude that respondent was notnotified of the compulsory acquisition proceedings. Clearly, respondentwas deprived of its right to procedural due process. It is elementary

that before a person can be deprived of his property, he should beinformed of the claim against him and the theory on which such claimis premised.

For landowners served with NOC prior to the effectivity of DAR A.O. No. 1,Series of 2003 (February 6, 2003), service of Notice of Coverage should bedone in accordance with DAR A.O. No. 12, Series of 1989, DAR A.O. No. 9,Series of 1990 and the ruling in Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals3.Thus,the NOC must be served on the corporations:

1. President;

2. Manager;

3. Secretary;

4. Cashier;

5. Agent; or

6. Any of its directors.

Otherwise, service of NOCs should be done in accordance withDAR A.O. No. 1, Series of 2003, as amended by DAR A.O. No. 4,Series of 2005 which allows the service of the NOC on thefollowing officers:

For corporations & other like juridical entities:

1. President;2. Corporate Secretary;

3. Treasurer;

3 G.R. No. 127876, 378 Phil. 727 (1999).

15


16/16

4. In-house counsel; or

5. Administrator

For partnerships:

1. Managing Partner2. General Manager

3. In-house counsel; or

4. Administrator

Policy Consideration:

In ruling cases on this ground, the dictum in the case ofSta. Monica IndustrialCorporation v. DAR Regional Director III4 should be controlling, to wit:

The dubious use of seemingly legal means to sidestep the CARP lawpersists. Corporate law is resorted to by way of circling around theagrarian law. As this case illustrates, agricultural lands are beingtransferred, simulated or otherwise, to corporations which are fully orat least predominantly controlled by former landowners, now calledstockholders. Through this strategy, it is anticipated that thecorporation, by virtue of its corporate fiction, will shield the landownersfrom agricultural claims of tenant-farmers.

The use of corporate fiction as a means to evade legal liability is not

new. This scheme or device has long been perceived to be used inother fields of law, notably taxation to minimize payment of tax withvarying degrees of success and acceptability. But the continuedemployment of the scheme in agrarian cases is not only deplorable; itis alarming. It is time to put a lid on the cap.

4G.R. No. 164846, June 18, 2008.

16

Documents

Petitions for or Protests Against Coverage Template