TEMPLATE FOR PETITION FOR OR PROTEST FROM COVERAGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This template may serve as a guide for petition for coverage or protests against the coverage of a certain landholding under Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). In resolving cases of this character, the decision maker must always remember that as a general rule, all public and private agricultural lands are subject to CARP coverage pursuant to Section 4 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, except when there is a clear showing that the land 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/ RD to subject a certain landholding or a portion thereof to coverage under agrarian reform law, the concerned DAR official must answer the letter within fifteen (15) days from receipt thereof, indicating therein the reason(s) why the property subject of the request cannot be covered or forthwith issue a notice of coverage if coverable under CARP. All letter-complaints or petitions for coverage will be treated as summary in nature. If the land subject thereof is coverable, the concerned DAR official must immediately issue a Notice of Coverage, subject to the rules on phasing pursuant to Section 7 of R.A. No. 6657, as implemented by DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 2, Series of 2009.

II. CHECKLIST OF DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS 1. The following documents and facts are material and to be considered in assessing whether the land may be covered under agrarian reform:
Name of landowner; o o Aggregate landholding of the landowner within the Philippines Grant of retention area in favor of landowner if any

Location of property and area; OCT/TCT or Tax Declaration/s; Ocular inspection report indicating: o Actual land use;

o o

Existence of agricultural activity; Photographs of the subject landholding.

Recommendation from the MARO and/or PARO on whether or not to cover the landholding under CARP Coverage. BARC report as to the number of tenants or tillers on the subject landholding Land Classification documents available; and Other information vital to the determination of coverage of the land or portions thereof under CARP.

TITLED LANDS: Certified copy of the original Original Certificate of Title (OCT) or Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) on file with the Register of Deeds UNTITLED LANDS: Certification of the DENR-CENRO/PENRO or RTD, LMS , that the 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 the Assessors file in the name of the claimant with verified and correct lot numbers and area per approved survey plan (ASP) Certification of the Assessor concerned showing the Tax Declaration issued, the declarant/s, the area covered, and the basis for the issuances and cancellations thereof up to the Tax Declaration issued in the name of the claimant, as well as any existing liens on the current and previous Tax Declaration, where applicable Certification from the Clerk of Court concerned whether or not the property/ies identified in the ASP is/are covered by land registration proceedings or any civil case, and if the same has been used as a bond in other court actions Certification from the Assessors Office concerned that per their records, the property/ies as appearing in the ASP is/are free from all liens and encumbrances 2

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-interesthave been in open, continuous, exclusive and notorious occupation of the 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 the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is an agrarian law implementation (ALI) case and thus governed by DAR A.O. No. 03, Series of 2003. The Regional Director has the primary jurisdiction over all agrarian law implementation cases. Appeals from the decision of the Regional Director will be before the Secretary, who has the exclusive prerogative over the case.

IV.

STANDING

Legal standing of the requesting party/ petitioner is not important for the petition for coverage under CARP. V. TIMELINESS The landowner has thirty (30)-day prescribed period from receipt or date of publication of Notice of Coverage, whichever is applicable within which to protest coverage. Upon receipt of the protest from coverage by DAR, the landowner has another thirty (30) days to substantiate his/her protest. Failure to comply with the said period will be 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

2. Coverage was made during the proper phase. (see chart on phasing, 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 limits as determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph; c. All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and d. All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised 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 for educational 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 and classified 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; and 20. Retention areas granted to landowners.
However, to deny coverage on the basis of the aforementioned grounds, there must be sufficient evidence on record that sustains the 4

conclusion htat the land is indeed exempt from CARP coverage. Please refer to DAR A.O. No. 13, Series of 1990, as amended by DAR A.O. No. 10, Series of 1994, DAR A.O. No. 03, Series of 1995, and DAR A.O. No. 04, Series of 2003.

5. Coverage should be done during the proper phase:

Schedule Starting July 1, 2009 up to June 30, 2012 Phases

Phase 1 includes: All large single private agricultural lands above fifty (50) hectares (with or without Notice of Coverage) All large aggregate private agricultural lands (PALs) of landowners with a total area greater than 50 hectares with Notice Of Coverage (NOC) as of December 10, 2008 P.D. 27 lands (rice and corn), regardless of size All idle or abandoned agricultural lands, regardless of size All lands offered under Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS), regardless of size Lands covered by Voluntary Land Transfer (VLT) submitted as of June 30, 2009 Government Financial Institutions (GFI)-foreclosed lands, regardless of size PCGG-acquired lands, regardless of size All other government-owned alienable and disposable agricultural lands, regardless of size

Phase 2A All remaining large single agricultural lands with an area of 24 to 50 hectares (with or without NOC) All PALs of landowners with an aggregate area of above 24 to 50 hectares with NOC as of December 10, 2008 All alienable and disposable public agricultural lands, regardless of size

Starting July 1, 2012 up to June 30, 2013

Phase 2B All remaining PALs of landowners with an aggregate area in excess of 24 hectares with or without NOC All alienable and disposable public agricultural lands, regardless of size

Phase 3A All PALs with an aggregate area of above 10 hectares up to 24 hectares, with respect to the excess above 10 hectares All alienable and disposable public agricultural lands, regardless of size

Starting July 1, 2013 up to June 30, 2014

Phase 3B All PALs with an aggregate area from above 5 hectares up to 10 hectares, with respect to the excess above 5 hectares All alienable and disposable public 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 barangay and the municipal/city where the property is located for at least 7 days. This fact should be certified with the corresponding Certification of Posting Compliance. 2. The MARO or any DAR personnel authorized by the PARO shall send the NOC to the landowner. - If it is a co-ownership, it must be sent to each coowner. - If the landowner (or any of the co-owners) reside outside the jurisdiction of the MARO, the latter shall endorse the NOC to the MARO where the landowner is 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 diligently found: 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 guardian o 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 to either or both of his/her parents b. Landowner is a domestic juridical entity: service may be made to any of the following: o President o Managing Partner o General Manager o Corporate Secretary o Treasurer o In-house Counsel 7

Administrator (only on or after 14 August 2005) c. Landowner is an entity without juridical personality: service may be made to any of the following: o Any of those composing the entity o Person in charge of the office or place of business o Note: persons not served with notice, if served after his/her ties were severed from the entity, shall not be bound by it o

Special Cases regarding Protests against improper service of NOC Sales of Agricultural Land A. 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 of Batongbacal v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 125063, September 24, 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 is registered or unregistered land and if the sale was registered or unregistered: 1. If land was registered in the Register of Deeds and the sale was annotated on the title prior to issuance of NOC NOC should be/have been served to the vendee. 2. If land was registered in the Registry of Deeds but the sale was not 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 the Registry of unregistered property and the NOC was issued to the vendor NOC should be served to the vendee. a. Note: Proceed with caution as the right of the vendee is without prejudice to one who has a better right over the property. The mere registration of a sale in one's favor does not give him any right over the land if the vendor was
8

not anymore the owner of the land having previously sold the same to somebody else even if the earlier sale was unrecorded. [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 vendee as the owner was violated. However, the improper service of NOC does not, of itself, justify the cancellation of Certificates of Land Ownership Award( CLOAs). It merely amounts to a violation of procedural due process by the vendee the DAR must be given the chance to correct its procedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings. (See Roxas v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 127876, December 17, 1999, 321 SCRA 106) The improper service will only affect the determination of just compensation of the landowner as the taking will be determined from the proper service of NOC as to him. (See Sta. Monica Industrial Corporation v. DAR
Regional Director III, G.R. No. 164846, June 18, 2008, 555 SCRA 97

4. If land was unregistered and the sale was likewise unregistered. NOC should be served to the claimant. (See Presidential Decree No. 1529, Sections 112-113; Spouses Dadizon v. Court of Appeals, 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, the sale should be declared null and void for a violation of Section 73(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 the same 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 (involving the same landholding): the process for the Petition for Coverage shall

still be continued until right before the submission of the claimfolder to the 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 the Certificate of Deposit shall be issued to the PARO who shall hold it in the 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 be held in abeyance until the final resolution of the Exemption case.

VII. PROCESS DECISION PROCESS FLOW

Check if the applicant has submitted documentary requirements to establish that the subject land is subject to CARP coverage NO YES

If the land is not coverable under CARP, answer the letter within fifteen (15) days from receipt indicating therein the reason why the land cannot be covered or notice of coverage cannot be issued.

Issue notice of coverage

10

VIII. APPEALS
The decision of the DAR Regional Director may be appealed to the DAR Secretary pursuant to Rule IV of DAR A.O. No. 03, Series of 2003. The decision of the DAR Secretary disposing of the appeal from the DAR 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 Administrative Order 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 private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture: Provided, That landholdings of landowners with a total area of five (5) hectares and below shall not be 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 or suitable for agriculture. No reclassification of forest or mineral lands to agricultural lands shall be undertaken after the approval of this Act until Congress, taking into account ecological, developmental and equity considerations, shall have determined by law, the specific limits of the public domain; "(b) All lands of the public domain in excess of the specific limits as determined by Congress in the preceding paragraph; "(c) All other lands owned by the Government devoted to or suitable for agriculture; and

11

"(d) All private lands devoted to or suitable for agriculture regardless of the agricultural products raised or that can be raised thereon. "A comprehensive inventory system in consonance with the national land use plan shall be instituted by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), in accordance with the Local Government Code, for the purpose of properly identifying and classifying farmlands within one (1)year from effectivity of this Act, without prejudice to the implementation of the land acquisition and distribution." (As amended by RA 9700)

2. IMPLEMENTING RULES AND REGULATIONS

DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2009 DAR Administrative Order No. 04, Series of 2005

3. JURISPRUDENCE
Special Cases regarding Protests against improper service of NOC To determine the effect of the sale on the service of NOC, use the same guidelines provided above. Note: If the sale of the land was effected to circumvent agrarian reform law, the sale must be struck down as null and void and the service of NOC to the vendor is deemed a sufficient service of NOC to the vendee as was held in Sta. Monica Industrial Corporation v. DAR Regional Director III 1. In that case, the Supreme Court held:
Records disclose that there was indeed a deed of sale between Trinidad and Sta. Monica over the agricultural land awarded to De Guzman. Sta. Monica was also issued a new transfer certificate of title over the land. If We rely solely on the sale, it is a foregone conclusion that Sta. Monica was denied due process of law. As the owner on record of the agricultural land, it should have been given a notice of coverage. However, there is much to be said of the attendant circumstances that lead Us to conclude that notice of coverage to Trinidad is also sufficient notice to Sta. Monica. Moreover, We find that the sale between Trinidad and Sta. Monica was a mere ruse to frustrate the implementation of the agrarian law. First, the sale to Sta. Monica is prohibited. P.D. No. 27, as amended, forbids the transfer or alienation of covered agricultural lands after October 21, 1972 except to the tenant-beneficiary. The agricultural land awarded to De Guzman is covered by P.D. No. 27. He was
1

G.R. No. 164846, June 18, 2008, 555 SCRA 97.

12

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 the owner of the agricultural land. XXX Second, buyer Sta. Monica is owned and controlled by Trinidad and her family. Records show that Trinidad, her husband and two sons own more than 98% of the outstanding capital stock of Sta. Monica. They are all officers of the corporation. There are only two non-related incorporators who own less than one percent of the outstanding capital stock of Sta. Monica and who are not officers of the corporation. To be sure, Trinidad and her family exercise absolute control of the corporate affairs of Sta. Monica. As owners of 98% of the outstanding capital stock, they are the beneficial owners of all the assets of the company, including the agricultural land sold by Trinidad to Sta. Monica. Third, Trinidad and her counsel failed to notify the DAR of the prior sale to Sta. Monica during the administrative proceedings. Worse, Trinidad feigned ignorance of the sale by filing a motion for bill of particulars seeking specifics from De Guzman of her alleged landholdings which are subject of his petition with the DAR. It is highly unusual and unbelievable for her not to know, or at least be aware, of the sale to Sta. Monica. She herself signed the deed of sale as seller. She is also a stockholder and officer of Sta. Monica. More importantly, she cannot feign ignorance of De Guzmans claim because he was her agricultural tenant since the 1970s. She knows, or at least ought to know, that the subject matter of the petition with the DAR was her own landholding, which she sold to Sta. Monica in direct violation of P.D. No. 27. The apparent lack of candor is heightened by the fact that both Trinidad and Sta. Monica are represented by the same counsel, Atty. Ramon Gutierrez. We cannot stretch Our credulity on how Trinidad filed a motion for bill of particulars with the DAR seeking specifics on the sale to Sta. Monica when she herself signed for the vendor as a party to the transaction. It is the duty of Atty. Gutierrez to inform the DAR, at the very first opportunity, of the sale to Sta. Monica. He was utterly remiss of this duty. Instead of informing the DAR, Trinidad and her counsel engaged in wild goose chase and stonewalling, feigning ignorance when they ought 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 the duty 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 questioning the lack of notice of coverage under the CARP law. It is highly unlikely that Sta. Monica, an artificial being acting only through its duly

13

authorized representatives, was not sufficiently informed or had no constructive knowledge of the DAR proceedings. Trinidad and by extension, her family members, were informed or should be sufficiently aware of the DAR proceedings. They are all stockholders and corporate officers of Sta. Monica. They knew, they ought to know, that Sta. Monica would suffer damage should the DAR award, as it awarded, the agricultural land to De Guzman. As directors and corporate officers, they owe a duty of care to the corporation to inform it of the pending proceedings with the DAR. Fifth, the ultimate factor that betrays Trinidad and Sta. Monica is the continued payment of lease rentals by De Guzman. Records show that De Guzman paid and continued to pay lease rentals to Trinidad even after she sold the land to Sta. Monica. The receipt dated May 30, 2002 discloses that De Guzman paid 40 cavans of palay to Clodinaldo dela Cruz, the authorized representative of Trinidad, as lease rentals for the agricultural land. It is incredible that Trinidad would still continue to collect lease rentals from 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, the sale was a mere ruse to skirt coverage under the comprehensive agrarian reform law. All these circumstances indicate that Trinidad has remained as the real owner 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. More importantly, it must be deemed as a mere ploy to evade the applicable provisions of the agrarian law. But it is a fiat that the corporate vehicle cannot be used as a shield to protect fraud or justify wrong. Thus, the veil of corporate fiction will be pierced when it is used to defeat public convenience and subvert public policy. Considering that Trinidad remained to be the true and legal owner of the agricultural land, there is no need for another notice of coverage to be sent or furnished to Sta. Monica. At the very least, the notice to her is already notice to Sta. Monica because the corporation acted as a mere conduit of Trinidad. The CA correctly dismissed the petition of Sta. Monica to annul the orders of the Regional Director placing the agricultural 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 requirement under Section 16(a) of R.A. No. 6657, as ruled in the case of Department of Agrarian Reform v. Apex Investment and Financing Corp 2, to wit:
2

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

14

In the instant case, petitioner does not dispute that respondent did not receive the Notice of Acquisition and Notice of Coverage sent to the latter's old address. Petitioner explained that its personnel could not effect personal service of those notices upon respondent because it changed its juridical name from Apex Investment and Financing Corporation to SM Investment Corporation. While it is true, that personal service could not be made, however, there is no showing that petitioner caused the service of the notices via registered mail as required by Section 16(a) of R.A. No. 6657. On this point, petitioner claimed that the notices were sent "not only by registered mail but also by personal delivery" and that there was actual receipt by respondent as shown by the signature appearing at the bottom lefthand corner of petitioner's copies of the notices. But petitioner could not identify the name of respondent's representative who allegedly received the notices. In fact, petitioner admitted that the signature thereon is illegible. It is thus safe to conclude that respondent was not notified of the compulsory acquisition proceedings. Clearly, respondent was deprived of its right to procedural due process. It is elementary that before a person can be deprived of his property, he should be informed of the claim against him and the theory on which such claim is 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 be done 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 with DAR 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 the following officers: For corporations & other like juridical entities: 1. President; 2. Corporate Secretary; 3. Treasurer;
3

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

15

4. In-house counsel; or 5. Administrator For partnerships: 1. Managing Partner 2. General Manager 3. In-house counsel; or 4. Administrator Policy Consideration:
In ruling cases on this ground, the dictum in the case of Sta. Monica Industrial Corporation v. DAR Regional Director III4 should be controlling, to wit:
The dubious use of seemingly legal means to sidestep the CARP law persists. Corporate law is resorted to by way of circling around the agrarian law. As this case illustrates, agricultural lands are being transferred, simulated or otherwise, to corporations which are fully or at least predominantly controlled by former landowners, now called stockholders. Through this strategy, it is anticipated that the corporation, by virtue of its corporate fiction, will shield the landowners from 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 in other fields of law, notably taxation to minimize payment of tax with varying degrees of success and acceptability. But the continued employment of the scheme in agrarian cases is not only deplorable; it is alarming. It is time to put a lid on the cap.

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

16