Landowners’ Retention Rights Under Agrarian Reform: Upholding Constitutional Guarantees

The Supreme Court clarifies the scope of landowners’ retention rights under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Landowners can retain land up to five hectares, safeguarding their property rights while balancing social justice concerns.

G.R. NO. 132759, G.R. NO. 132866, October 25, 2005

Introduction

Imagine owning a piece of land passed down through generations, only to face the uncertainty of agrarian reform. This is the reality for many landowners in the Philippines. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) aims to redistribute land to landless farmers, but it also recognizes the rights of landowners to retain a portion of their property. The Supreme Court case of Alejandro Danan, et al. vs. The Honorable Court of Appeals and Estrella Arrastia clarifies the extent of these retention rights and provides guidance for landowners navigating the complexities of agrarian reform.

In this case, a group of farmers claimed rights to cultivate a vast landholding owned by the Arrastia heirs. The central legal question was whether these farmers were qualified beneficiaries under CARP and whether the landowner, Estrella Arrastia, could retain her property.

Legal Context: Land Retention and Agrarian Reform

The legal framework for agrarian reform in the Philippines is rooted in the Constitution, which mandates the State to promote social justice and ensure equitable distribution of wealth. Republic Act No. 6657, also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), implements this mandate by providing for the acquisition and distribution of agricultural lands to qualified beneficiaries.

However, CARL also recognizes the rights of landowners to retain a portion of their land. Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657 states:

“SECTION 6. Retention Limits.-Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly or indirectly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-size farm…but in no case shall retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares.”

This provision allows landowners to retain up to five hectares of agricultural land. This retention right is a constitutionally guaranteed right, balancing the interests of landless farmers with the property rights of landowners. Prior cases, such as Eudosia Daez and/or Her Heirs v. Court of Appeals, et al., have affirmed this right, emphasizing that social justice should not perpetrate injustice against landowners.

Case Breakdown: Danan vs. Arrastia

The Danan vs. Arrastia case unfolded as follows:

• 1976: Rustico Coronel leased the subject property for twelve years.
• 1986: Farmers claiming to be members of the Aniban ng mga Manggagawa sa Agrikultura (AMA) entered the land without the landowners’ consent.
• 1988: AMA filed a complaint with the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), seeking to prevent the landowner, Estrella Arrastia, from interfering with their farming activities.
• 1989: Arrastia filed a case against the farmers for violating Section 73(b) of R.A. No. 6657, which prohibits the premature entry into agricultural lands.
• 1989: The farmers filed a complaint for injunction and damages before the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAD), alleging they were forcibly evicted.
• 1993: The PARAD ruled in favor of the farmers, declaring them qualified beneficiaries under CARP.
• 1994: The DARAB modified the PARAD decision, identifying some farmers as agricultural lessees and ordering their reinstatement.
• Court of Appeals: Reversed the DARAB decision, finding the farmers ineligible for CARP due to their premature entry and violation of restraining orders.

The Supreme Court upheld the Court of Appeals’ decision, emphasizing that:

“The essence of due process is simply an opportunity to be heard or, as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one’s side or an opportunity to seek reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.”

The Court also noted that since Arrastia owned only 4.4630 hectares of the disputed property, which is below the five-hectare retention limit, her land was not subject to CARP coverage. The court quoted:

“A retained area, as its name denotes, is land which is not supposed to anymore leave the landowner’s dominion, thus sparing the government from the inconvenience of taking land only to return it to the landowner afterwards, which would be a pointless process.”

Practical Implications: Protecting Landowner Rights

This ruling reinforces the importance of respecting landowners’ retention rights under CARP. It clarifies that landowners are entitled to retain up to five hectares of agricultural land and that this right should be upheld unless there is a clear legal basis for denying it.

For businesses, property owners, or individuals facing similar situations, it is crucial to understand the following:

• Landowners have the right to retain up to five hectares of agricultural land.
• Premature entry into agricultural lands can disqualify individuals from becoming CARP beneficiaries.
• Due process must be observed in administrative proceedings, but this does not necessarily require a formal hearing.

Key Lessons

• Know Your Rights: Landowners should be aware of their retention rights under CARP and take steps to protect them.
• Comply with the Law: Individuals seeking to become CARP beneficiaries must comply with the law and avoid premature entry into agricultural lands.
• Seek Legal Advice: Navigating the complexities of agrarian reform requires expert legal guidance.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q: What is the retention limit under CARP?

A: The retention limit is five hectares for landowners.

Q: Can a landowner choose which part of their land to retain?

A: Yes, the landowner has the right to choose the area to be retained, as long as it is compact and contiguous.

Q: What happens if farmers prematurely enter agricultural land?

A: They may be disqualified from becoming CARP beneficiaries.

Q: What is due process in administrative proceedings?

A: It is the opportunity to be heard, explain one’s side, or seek reconsideration of a ruling.

Q: What should I do if I am a landowner facing agrarian reform issues?

A: Seek legal advice from a qualified lawyer specializing in agrarian law.

ASG Law specializes in agrarian law and property rights. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.