{waiting watching wishing}

Friday, November 28, 2008

{CARPER NOW! March with the farmers as they call for extension with reforms of the CARP}

Farmers from Northern and Southern Luzon began a marching on foot on November 28, 2008. They will convene in Metro Manila on Wednesday, December 3 which is dubbed 'CARPER Day.'

in line with this, the UP Law Student Government National Affairs Committee is inviting everyone to join the farmers in their worthwhile cause this Monday, December 1 at 8AM in Caritas, Jesus St., Manila. Particularly, we will be welcoming the Banasi Farmers who have walked all the way from Camarines Sur in protest of their exclusion from coverage under the CARP and the cancellation of their Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) as well as to call for extension with reforms of the CARP or CARPER.

For inquiries or if you are interested in joining the UP LSG-NAC Contingent, please contact (0917)8972331. Thank you!

Read about the Banasi Farmers below:

This is the case of 57 farmer-beneficiaries who were awarded a collective Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) over 123.35 hectares of agricultural land situated at Sitio Banasi, Pawili, Bula, Camarines Sur. The former landowners are the spouses Edilberto and Corazon Fajardo. The CLOA (CLOA No. 00495527) was registerd on December 24, 1997.

On July 27, 1998 the Fajardo’s filed a petition for exclusion/exemption from CARP coverage of the subject land before the Regional Office V of the Department of Agrarian Reform alleging that their landholdings are pasture land as indicated in the Tax Declaration, and were declared as such in the Order by the Office of the President (OP) dated October 15, 1981 in a case for Petition for Cancellation of CLTs pursuant to PD 27;

On June 9, 1999, the DAR Regional Director in an Order denied the Petition for Exemption/Exclusion from CARP Coverage. He based his decision on the Actual field investigation conducted on July 26, 1995, jointly undertaken by the DAR representative, the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) of Sitio Banasi, Pawili, Bula, Camarines Sur and by the Land bank of the Philippines representative. The investigation report showed that:

a) twenty (20) hectares more or less is planted with sugar cane;
b) twenty one (21) hectares more or less is planted with rice (unirrigated)
c) Eighty one (81.8765) hectares more or less is planted with corn;
d) One hectare, three hundred ninety one sq. m. (1.3910) more or less from part of private roads
TOTAL 124.2675 hectares

Furthermore, the Certification from the Municipal Treasury of Bula, Camarines Sur dated September 23, 1998 shows that no record of cattle or any domestic animals kept for farm purposes including sheep, goat was registered in the name of Edilberto Fajardo or Augustia Fajardo in 1995 until the date of Certification.

The Motion for Reconsideration filed by the Fajardo’s was likewise denied on November 5, 1999;

The landowners appealed the case to the Office of the DAR Secretary. On February 7, 2007, the DAR Secretary denied the appeal and affirmed the June 9, 1999 decision of the DAR Regional Office.

The case was elevated to the Office of the President. Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, issued a Decision dated April 16, 2008 setting aside the Orders of the DAR Regional Office dated June 9, 1999 and November 5, 1999 and the Office of the DAR Secretary Order dated February 7, 2007. Said Decision grants the petition for exemption/exclusion from coverage of CARP and further Orders the cancellation of the Certificate of Land Ownership Award previously issued to fifty seven (57) farmer beneficiaries saying that the land is devoted to pasture and is exempted under the Sutton Case. The Sutton Case is a Supreme Court decision in 2005 that clarified the exemption from CARP the lands directly, actually and exclusively devoted to livestock raising.

DAR Secretary did not file a Motion for Reconsideration which compelled the 57 farmer-beneficiaries to intervene in the case by fling a MOTION FOR RECONSIDERTION/ MOTION FOR INTERVENTION on June 15, 2008 before the OP, arguing that the assailed decision is contrary to both law and jurisprudence.

The OP has not acted on the Motion for intervention/Motion for reconsideration. The farmers filed a Motion for Early Resolution on November 18, 2008. Some of the farmers were issued notice to vacate from the Sheriff.

Legal Arguments of the Banasi Farmers.

1. They can intervene in the case because they have legal interest being CLOA holders and owners of the subject land

The 57 Banasi farmers should be allowed to intervene in the case and be given the opportunity to question the OP decision dated April 16, 2008 which nullifies the title over their land.

During the entire case, the Banasi farmers were not given the opportunity to raise their defenses against the petition for exclusion/exemption from CARP coverage filed by the landowners.

They should be allowed to intervene in the case. After all, DAR Memorandum Circular No. 19, dated August 16, 2004 RE: REAFFIRMING THE INDEDEASIBILITY OF EMANCIPATION PATENTS (EPs) AND CERTIFICATES OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARDS (CLOAs) AS TITLES UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM specifically provides that “no action shall be given due course if the farmer-beneficiaries awarded with registered EPs or CLOAs are not directly impleaded in such case.”

2. The subject land is not exempted/ excluded from CARP coverage. The Sutton Case is not applicable in the present case.

While it is true that on December 4, 1990, in an en banc decision in the case of Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR, the Honorable Supreme Court declared as null and void for being unconstitutional Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657 insofar as the inclusion of the raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its coverage, the fact remains that the lands being referred to in the Decision in LUZ Farms case is land devoted to livestock and poultry-raising.

The land involved in this case is a 123.3 hectares of agricultural land NOT devoted to livestock and/or poultry-raising. Hence, the land subject not exempted/excluded from CARP coverage.

The investigation Report concluded that the character of the subject land as pasture did not exist. These findings were approved by the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) and the Chief Legal Division.

Actual field investigation conducted on July 26, 1995, jointly undertaken by the DAR representative, the Barangay Agrarian Reform Committee (BARC) of Sitio Banasi, Pawili, Bula, Camarines Sur and by the Land bank of the Philippines representative show that:

e) twenty (20) hectares more or less is planted with sugar cane;
f) twenty one (21) hectares more or less is planted with rice (unirrigated)
g) Eighty one (81.8765) hectares more or less is planted with corn;
h) One hectare, three hundred ninety one sq. m. (1.3910) more or less from part of private roads
TOTAL 124.2675 hectares

Furthermore, the Certification from the Municipal Treasury of Bula, Camarines Sur dated September 23, 1998 shows that no record of cattle or any domestic animals kept for farm purposes including sheep, goat was registered in the name of Edilberto Fajardo or Augustia Fajardo in 1995 until the date of Certification.

The actual inspection of the subject landholding shows that there are no buildings, infrastructure such as calving houses, feed storage, corrals, electric installation and other physical facilities, equipment or improvement to show that this vast tract of land is devoted to pasture of large cattle and/or livestock.

As correctly founded by the DAR Regional Director and the Office of the DAR Secretary, when “the area or portions are no longer devoted to livestock, poultry and swine raising shall be automatically reverted to agricultural and shall be covered by CARP”.

In the instant case, while the landowners claim that their landholdings are exempted because it is a pasture land as indicated in the Tax Declaration, and were declared as such in the Order by the Office of the President dated October 15, 1981 in a case for Petition for Cancellation of CLTs pursuant to PD 27, the joint field investigation conducted by DAR, BARC and Land Bank of the Philippines shows that at the time that the subject land was placed under compulsory acquisition, the land ceased to be devoted to livestock raising. It therefore is automatically reverted to agricultural, hence should be covered by CARP.

Recently, DAR AO 7 series of 2008 dated September 3, 2008, clarifies the Sutton Case exemption and affirms that agricultural lands not directly, actually and exclusively devoted to livestock and/or cultivated or planted with crops are covered under CARP.

3. The Certificate of Title issued to the herein farmer beneficiaries can no longer be cancelled on the ground that EPs and CLOAs are, in themselves,
indefeasible as certificates of title.

The OP decision dated April 16, 2008 has the effect of nullifying the issuance of title to herein 57 farmer beneficiaries despite the fact that such title has already been registered with the Register of Deeds is an expressed affront to public policy of protecting the gains of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program and promoting stability of the Torrens System;

EPs and CLOAs are titles evidencing the ownership and tenure of the farmers to their land. They are given by the government pursuant to its agrarian reform laws, particularly PD 27 and RA 6657;

EPs and CLOAs are considered as evidence of ownership by express provision of laws. Section 24 of RA 6657 provides that “ownership of the beneficiary shall be evidenced by a Certificate of Land Ownership Award, which shall contain the restrictions and conditions provided for in this Act, and shall be recorded in the Register of deeds concerned and annotated in the Certificate of Title.” Under the present laws, EPs and CLOAs must be registered at the Register of Deeds in order for it to come under the operations of the Torrens System. This in effect will constitute the registered EPs and CLOAs as torrens title, thus, the title issued in favor of the farmer beneficiaries is indefeasible, a conclusive evidence of ownership and relieves the land of unknown liens or claims against it.

This principle has been upheld in the case of Baguio v. Republic (301 SCRA 451), where the Honorable Supreme Court declared that “once a patent is registered and the corresponding certificate of title is issued, the land covered by them ceases to be part of the public domain and becomes private property, and the Torrens Title pursuant to the patent becomes indefeasible upon the expiration of one year from the date of the issuance of the patent.”

These principles as to the indefeasible nature of CLOAs were reiterated in DAR Memorandum Circular No. 19, S. of 2004 “REAFFIRMING THE INDEDEASIBILITY OF EMANCIPATION PATENTS (EPs) AND CERTIFICATES OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARDS (CLOAs) AS TITLES UNDER THE TORRENS SYSTEM. This Memorandum Circular provides the following guidelines:

a. EPs and CLOAs being titles brought under the operation of the Torrens System enjoy the same indefeasibility and security afforded to all titles under the said Torrens System as provided under Presidential Decree No. 1529;

b. In the resolution of Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) cases affecting the integrity of EPs or CLOAs awarded to farmer beneficiaries such as but not limited to: (a) exercise of the right of retention by the landowner; (b) exemption from coverage under Sec. 10 of RA 6657; xxx all doubts should be resolved in favor of the indefeasibility of such land titles; PROVIDED THAT all options should be explored in the resolution of the instant case with the end in view of protecting the tenurial security of innocent farmer beneficiaries already awarded with registered EPs and CLOAs; PROVIDED FURTHER THAT no action shall be given due course if the farmer beneficiaries awarded with registered EPs and CLOAs are not directly impleaded in such case;

c. Farmers who qualified and awarded with registered land under PD 27 and RA 6657 are deemed purchasers in good faith and are entitled to the rights and protection of all such purchasers under existing laws. Xxx (Underscoring ours for emphasis)

In a recent jurisprudence involving the indefeasibility of Emancipation Patents issued to a group of farmers in Sta. Josefa, Agusan del Sur, the Supreme Court said that after complying with the procedure in Section 105 of the Presidential; Decree No. 1529, where the Department of Agrarian Reform is required to issue the corresponding certificate of title after granting an EP to tenant-farmers who have complied with Presidential Decree No. 27, the TCTs issued to petitioners pursuant to their EPs acquire the same protection accorded to other TCTs. Certificates of Title issued pursuant to Emancipation Patents are as indefeasible as TCTs issued in registration proceedings. Thus, the Supreme Court in the said decision, declared valid all the emancipation patents and the transfer certificates of title (TCTs) over portions of the 277.5 hectares of land in Sta. Josefa, Agusan del Sur originally owned by the Hacienda Maria, Inc. (HMI). (Samuel Estribillo, et.al. v. DAR and Hacienda Maria, Inc., G.R. No. 159674, June 30, 2006)

Posted by arianne at 8:58 PM