ASG Law

Tag: Fishponds

  • Agrarian Reform or Industrial Activity?: Determining Jurisdiction over Fishpond Disputes After R.A. 7881

    The Supreme Court held that after the enactment of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 7881, fishponds are no longer considered agricultural lands under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). Consequently, disputes arising from fishpond operations fall under the jurisdiction of regular courts, not the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB). This ruling clarifies the scope of agrarian reform laws and impacts how property disputes involving fishponds are resolved, emphasizing the shift from agrarian to industrial perspectives in fishpond management.

    From Tenant’s Claim to Court’s Verdict: Unpacking a Fishpond Dispute

    This case revolves around a dispute over a fishpond in Bulacan, where Magdalena Dillena claimed to be a legitimate tenant entitled to peaceful possession. Dillena asserted that her predecessors were instituted as tenants by the original landowners, a claim the respondents contested, arguing that Dillena was merely a civil law lessee under an expired agreement. The core legal question is whether the DARAB has jurisdiction over this dispute, considering R.A. No. 7881, which exempts fishponds from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).

    The legal journey began when Dillena filed a petition with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD), seeking to be declared a de jure tenant. The PARAD initially ruled in Dillena’s favor, a decision upheld by the DARAB, which affirmed her right to peaceful possession. However, the Court of Appeals (CA) reversed these decisions, holding that the PARAD and DARAB lacked jurisdiction because R.A. No. 7881 removed fishponds from CARL coverage. The CA’s decision hinged on the interpretation of R.A. No. 7881, which amended R.A. No. 6657, also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, or CARL. Prior to R.A. No. 7881, fishponds were considered agricultural lands under both R.A. No. 3844 (the Agricultural Land Reform Code) and R.A. No. 6657. However, R.A. No. 7881 explicitly exempted private lands used for fishponds from CARL coverage.

    The Supreme Court’s analysis centered on whether the enactment of R.A. No. 7881 affected the DARAB’s jurisdiction over disputes involving fishponds. The Court acknowledged its previous rulings, particularly Sanchez, Jr. vs. Marin, which initially held that the DARAB retained jurisdiction over cases filed before the enactment of R.A. No. 7881. The key distinction, however, lies in the timing of the case’s filing. In Dillena’s case, the petition was filed in 2004, well after R.A. No. 7881 took effect in 1995. Therefore, the Court reasoned that the DARAB never had jurisdiction over the dispute because the land was no longer considered agricultural under agrarian reform laws at the time the case was initiated.

    The Court further emphasized that R.A. No. 7881 superseded R.A. No. 3844 concerning fishponds and prawn farms. To support this, the court cited Pag-asa Fishpond Corporation v. Jimenez, where it was established that the jurisdiction of agrarian reform bodies is limited to agrarian disputes. Since fishponds are no longer classified as agricultural lands under R.A. No. 7881, disputes related to them do not fall under agrarian jurisdiction. The Supreme Court stated:

    The jurisdiction of the PARAD, DARAB and the CA on appeal, is limited to agrarian disputes or controversies and other matters or incidents involving the implementation of the CARP under R.A. No. 6657, R.A No. 3844 and other agrarian laws.

    Moreover, the court addressed Dillena’s argument that a tenurial arrangement existed, granting her rights under R.A. No. 3844. The Court clarified that R.A. No. 7881’s exemption of fishponds from CARL coverage effectively nullified such claims. Allowing such claims would undermine the intent of R.A. No. 7881, rendering the exemption meaningless. Therefore, any rights Dillena might have claimed under previous agrarian laws were extinguished by the subsequent legislation.

    The court addressed the remedies available to individuals like Dillena, referencing Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1995. This order provided options for workers in exempted areas, such as remaining as workers or becoming beneficiaries in other agricultural lands. Dillena and her husband had the opportunity to seek benefits under existing labor laws but not under agrarian laws, as the fishpond was no longer covered by CARL or R.A. No. 3844. The practical implication of this decision is significant for landowners and individuals involved in fishpond operations. It clarifies that disputes related to fishponds are now resolved in regular courts, where the legal framework considers the industrial aspects of fish farming rather than agrarian reform policies.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether the DARAB has jurisdiction over a dispute involving a fishpond, considering R.A. No. 7881, which exempts fishponds from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL).
    What is Republic Act No. 7881? R.A. No. 7881 is a law that amended certain provisions of R.A. No. 6657 (CARL), specifically exempting private lands used for prawn farms and fishponds from the coverage of agrarian reform.
    When did R.A. No. 7881 take effect? R.A. No. 7881 took effect on February 20, 1995.
    What was the Court of Appeals’ ruling? The Court of Appeals reversed the DARAB’s decision, holding that the PARAD and DARAB lacked jurisdiction over the case because R.A. No. 7881 removed fishponds from CARL coverage.
    What did the Supreme Court decide? The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision, holding that because the case was filed after R.A. No. 7881 took effect, the DARAB never had jurisdiction over the dispute.
    Does this ruling affect existing tenurial arrangements? The ruling implies that any tenurial arrangements based on agrarian laws are superseded by R.A. No. 7881, meaning that fishpond operations are no longer governed by agrarian reform policies but by civil law.
    What options were available to workers in exempted areas? According to Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No. 3, workers in exempted areas could choose to remain as workers with labor rights or become beneficiaries in other agricultural lands.
    Where are disputes over fishponds now resolved? Disputes related to fishponds are now resolved in regular courts, considering the industrial aspects of fish farming rather than agrarian reform policies.

    In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s decision in Dillena v. Alcaraz clarifies the jurisdictional boundaries in disputes involving fishponds, affirming that R.A. No. 7881 effectively removed fishponds from the ambit of agrarian reform laws. This shift necessitates a re-evaluation of legal strategies for both landowners and individuals engaged in fishpond operations, emphasizing the importance of understanding the evolving legal landscape in Philippine agriculture and aquaculture.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Magdalena C. Dillena v. Mariano Alcaraz, G.R. No. 204045, December 14, 2017

  • Security of Tenure vs. Agrarian Reform: Fishpond Tenant’s Vested Rights Prevail

    The Supreme Court’s decision in Jaime Sanchez, Jr. v. Zenaida F. Marin, et al. emphasizes that a tenant’s previously established security of tenure on a fishpond remains protected, even when subsequent amendments to agrarian reform laws exclude fishponds from coverage. This means that despite changes in land classification, long-standing tenants retain their rights to the land they cultivate. The court upheld the tenant’s right to peaceful possession, demonstrating that vested rights acquired under earlier agrarian laws are not automatically nullified by later legislation. This decision offers significant protection to agricultural tenants who have established rights prior to legal reclassifications of land use.

    When a Fishpond Tenant’s Rights Cast a Long Shadow

    This case revolves around a dispute over a 10-hectare fishpond in Lucena City. Jaime Sanchez, Jr., the petitioner, had been instituted as a tenant in 1977. In 1985, the land was leased to Zenaida Marin. When Marin attempted to remove Sanchez, he asserted his rights as a tenant. The central legal question is whether Sanchez’s right to security of tenure, established prior to amendments in agrarian law that excluded fishponds, remains valid.

    The legal journey began when Sanchez filed a complaint with the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Lucena City in 1986, seeking to be declared a tenant. The RTC ruled in his favor in 1987, and the Court of Appeals affirmed this decision in 1989. This declaration granted Sanchez the right to security of tenure under the existing law. Later, Sanchez sought to fix leasehold rentals, while the landowners tried to eject him. The Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) ruled in favor of Sanchez in 1993. Subsequently, the DARAB affirmed this decision in 2000. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the DARAB decision, citing amendments to agrarian laws that excluded fishponds from coverage.

    The Supreme Court grounded its decision, examining prior classifications of fishponds in agrarian reform. Initially, Republic Act No. 3844, defined agricultural land to include fishponds. However, this changed with Republic Act No. 7881, which amended Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657, expressly exempting private lands used for prawn farms and fishponds from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL). This meant that operating a fishpond was no longer considered an agricultural activity. Consequently, land devoted to fishponds ceased to be considered agricultural land under the amended law.

    Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended by Republic Act No. 7881, explicitly states:

    SEC. 10.  Exemptions and Exclusions. –

    b) Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act: Provided, That said prawn farms and fishponds have not been distributed and Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) issued to agrarian reform beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.

    Despite recognizing that the fishpond was not currently covered by CARL due to these amendments, the Supreme Court disagreed with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the tenurial arrangement was nullified. The High Court emphasized that Sanchez’s status as a tenant, including his right to security of tenure, had been previously established by a final and executory decision of the RTC in 1987 and affirmed by the Court of Appeals in 1989. Thus, Sanchez had acquired a vested right to the fishpond. Such a right could not be retroactively defeated by the 1995 amendments introduced by Republic Act No. 7881.

    DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1995, further supports this view, acknowledging tenancy relationships that existed before the amendments to Republic Act No. 6657. It stated, “A worker who chooses to remain in the exempted area shall remain therin and shall be entitled to such rights, benefits and privileges granted to farmworkers under existing laws, decrees, and executive orders.” This demonstrated an intention to protect existing tenant rights despite changes in land classification.

    The Supreme Court also addressed the jurisdiction of the DARAB, the case having been started in 1991 when Republic Act No. 6657 still covered fishponds. The court reasoned that even though Republic Act No. 7881 removed fishponds from CARL coverage in 1995, it could not divest the DARAB of jurisdiction because the case was already pending appeal before the agency. The court held that once a court acquires jurisdiction, it retains that jurisdiction until the case is fully terminated. Therefore, DARAB correctly assumed jurisdiction over this case. The decision ensures that tenants with long-standing rights are not unfairly displaced by subsequent changes in agrarian laws. The law gives importance to previously existing agrarian relations.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The key issue was whether a fishpond tenant’s right to security of tenure, established prior to amendments in agrarian law excluding fishponds, remains valid and enforceable.
    What did the Court decide regarding the tenant’s rights? The Court ruled that the tenant’s previously established security of tenure remained protected, even though subsequent amendments to agrarian reform laws excluded fishponds from coverage.
    Why did the Court rule in favor of the tenant? The Court emphasized that the tenant had acquired a vested right to the fishpond through prior court decisions that recognized his tenancy, a right that could not be retroactively defeated by later legislation.
    What is the significance of Republic Act No. 7881 in this case? Republic Act No. 7881 amended agrarian laws to exclude fishponds from coverage under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), leading the Court of Appeals to rule against the tenant.
    Did the DARAB have jurisdiction over this case? Yes, the Supreme Court affirmed that the DARAB had jurisdiction because the case was initiated before Republic Act No. 7881 took effect, and a court retains jurisdiction once it is acquired.
    What is the practical implication of this ruling for fishpond tenants? The ruling provides significant protection for fishpond tenants with long-standing rights, ensuring they are not unfairly displaced by subsequent changes in agrarian laws.
    What is a “vested right” in the context of this case? A “vested right” refers to a right or interest that has become fixed and established and is no longer open to doubt or controversy, as it was granted to the tenant by the court’s previous decisions.
    How did DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 1995, affect the ruling? This administrative order supported the Court’s view by acknowledging and respecting existing tenancy relationships that existed before the amendments to Republic Act No. 6657, thus affirming the tenant’s rights.

    The Supreme Court’s decision solidifies the importance of respecting established rights in agrarian disputes. This ruling shows that courts must balance agrarian reform policies with the protection of vested rights, particularly for tenants who have long depended on the land for their livelihoods. Courts must not undermine prior judicial pronouncements regarding vested tenant rights. This creates a more just and predictable legal environment for all parties involved.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: Jaime Sanchez, Jr. v. Zenaida F. Marin, et al., G.R. No. 171346, October 19, 2007

  • Agrarian Reform vs. Civil Lease: Determining Jurisdiction over Fishponds

    The Supreme Court has ruled that fishponds are not covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), thus clarifying that disputes involving fishpond leases fall under civil law, not agrarian law. This means the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (PARAB) lacks jurisdiction over cases involving fishponds, and these disputes should be resolved in regular courts. The ruling ensures that large-scale commercial fishpond operations are treated as civil lease agreements rather than agrarian tenancies, impacting how these properties are managed and regulated.

    From Tenant to Lessee: Who Decides the Fate of Pampanga’s Fishponds?

    The central question in Sps. Numeriano and Carmelita Romero vs. Mercedes L. Tan, et al. revolved around whether the dispute over a fishpond in Lubao, Pampanga, should be governed by agrarian reform laws or civil lease agreements. The petitioners, Sps. Romero, claimed they were tenant-lessees since 1985 and thus protected by agrarian reform laws. The respondents, the landowners, argued that the relationship was a simple civil lease governed by the Civil Code. This disagreement led to a jurisdictional battle, with the PARAB initially siding with the petitioners and the Court of Appeals later reversing this decision, highlighting the importance of defining the true nature of the land use and the relationship between the parties.

    The Supreme Court addressed the issue of PARAB’s jurisdiction, referring to Republic Act No. 7881, which amended Section 10 of RA 6657 (CARL), expressly excluding private lands used for prawn farms and fishponds from CARP coverage. The court emphasized that while Section 166 (1) of Rep. Act No. 3844 previously included fishponds in the definition of agricultural land, this has been modified by Rep. Act No. 7881.

    Expressly, the amendment has excluded private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds from the coverage of the CARL.

    The Supreme Court further elaborated on the criteria for establishing an agrarian tenancy relationship. Key elements include agricultural land as the subject matter, agricultural production as the purpose, and personal cultivation by the tenants. In this case, the court found that the operation of a fishpond does not constitute “agricultural activity” as defined under CARL. This distinction is critical because it shifts the focus from agrarian protection to ordinary contractual obligations.

    Moreover, the court pointed out that petitioners’ agreement with a third party, Kenneth Bautista, weakened their claim of personal cultivation. According to the agreement, Bautista would share in the operation and management of the fishpond, pay the agreed rentals, and split net profits equally. This arrangement suggested that the operation was a large-scale commercial venture rather than a small-scale agricultural endeavor that qualifies for agrarian reform benefits. The court emphasized that unless these elements concur, tenancy under CARL cannot be established.

    The principle of res judicata was also a significant factor in the court’s decision. The compromise agreement between the parties, duly approved by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Malabon, had the force of res judicata. The Supreme Court stated that absent any evidence of mistake, fraud, violence, intimidation, or undue influence, the compromise agreement must be upheld. The MTC’s jurisdiction over the ejectment case was also affirmed because jurisdiction is determined by the allegations in the complaint, which clearly indicated a suit for ejectment.

    Regarding the procedural issues, the Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals’ decision to allow a special civil action of certiorari. This remedy was appropriate because the respondents questioned the PARAB’s jurisdiction to take cognizance of the case. The court highlighted that appeal would have been an inadequate remedy because the core issue was whether the PARAB had the authority to hear the case at all.

    The decision underscores the importance of aligning legal remedies with the nature of the dispute. The intent of agrarian laws is to emancipate small farmers and farm workers. However, the court found that the petitioners were not small farmers deserving of agrarian law protection but were instead businessmen engaged in aquaculture on a large scale. Consequently, their claim fell properly under civil law rather than agrarian reform legislation, affirming that not all land-related disputes fall under agrarian jurisdiction.

    FAQs

    What was the key issue in this case? The central issue was whether a dispute over a fishpond lease should be governed by agrarian reform laws or civil lease agreements, thereby determining which court had jurisdiction. The court determined fishponds are excluded from CARL coverage, placing disputes under civil law.
    What is the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL)? CARL, or Republic Act No. 6657, is a law designed to redistribute land to landless farmers and farm workers to promote social justice and agricultural development. However, it was amended to exclude fishponds.
    What is res judicata? Res judicata is a legal principle that prevents the same parties from relitigating issues that have already been decided by a competent court. It ensures finality in judicial decisions and promotes efficiency in the legal system.
    What did the compromise agreement entail? The compromise agreement between the parties, approved by the MTC, stipulated that the petitioners would vacate the leased premises by a certain date. This agreement became the basis for applying the principle of res judicata.
    Why was certiorari the appropriate remedy in this case? Certiorari was the appropriate remedy because the respondents questioned the jurisdiction of the PARAB to hear the case. They argued that PARAB acted without or in excess of its jurisdiction.
    What is the significance of “personal cultivation” in agrarian cases? Personal cultivation refers to the tenant directly managing and working the land himself or with the help of his immediate family. This element is necessary to establish a tenancy relationship under agrarian laws.
    How does Republic Act No. 7881 affect fishponds? Republic Act No. 7881 amended CARL to expressly exclude private lands used for prawn farms and fishponds from its coverage, thus removing them from the jurisdiction of agrarian reform bodies. This directs disputes to civil courts.
    What are the implications of this ruling for fishpond owners and lessees? The ruling means that disputes related to fishpond leases will be resolved under civil law, potentially affecting the rights and obligations of both owners and lessees. Fishpond operators must adhere to civil lease agreements rather than agrarian laws.

    The Supreme Court’s decision clarifies the scope of agrarian reform laws and their application to fishponds, ensuring that disputes are resolved in the appropriate legal forum. The ruling emphasizes that not all land-related conflicts fall under the umbrella of agrarian reform, particularly when dealing with commercial ventures like large-scale fishpond operations.

    For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

    Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
    Source: SPS. NUMERIANO AND CARMELITA ROMERO, VS. MERCEDES L. TAN, G.R. No. 147570, February 27, 2004

  • Aquaculture and Agrarian Reform: Understanding Land Use Exemptions in the Philippines

    Fishponds and Prawn Farms Exempted: Understanding Agrarian Reform Amendments

    G.R. No. 93100, June 19, 1997 (Atlas Fertilizer Corporation vs. The Honorable Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform)

    Imagine a thriving fishpond, the heart of a family’s livelihood for generations. Suddenly, the threat of agrarian reform looms, casting uncertainty over their future. This scenario reflects the real-world impact of the legal battles surrounding the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) and its application to aquaculture lands in the Philippines. This case, Atlas Fertilizer Corporation vs. The Honorable Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, delves into the complex question of whether fishponds and prawn farms should be covered by agrarian reform, ultimately leading to significant amendments that redefined the scope of the law.

    The central legal question revolved around the constitutionality of including aquaculture lands, specifically fishponds and prawn farms, within the coverage of CARL. Petitioners argued that CARL’s provisions violated the Constitution by extending agrarian reform beyond agriculture lands, treating aquaculture lands unfairly compared to other industrial lands, distorting employment benefits, and depriving them of government-induced investments. The Supreme Court’s resolution hinged on the interpretation of “agricultural lands” and the impact of subsequent legislative amendments.

    Understanding the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL)

    The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), or Republic Act No. 6657, is a landmark legislation in the Philippines aimed at promoting social justice and equitable land distribution. It seeks to redistribute private and public agricultural lands to landless farmers and farmworkers, empowering them and boosting agricultural productivity. The law defines key terms and establishes the mechanisms for land acquisition, compensation, and distribution.

    However, the implementation of CARL has been fraught with challenges, particularly in defining the scope of “agricultural lands.” The original law included activities like “raising of fish” within the definition of agriculture, leading to disputes over whether fishponds and prawn farms fell under its coverage. This ambiguity prompted legal challenges and ultimately led to legislative amendments to clarify the law’s intent.

    Key provisions of CARL that were challenged in this case include:

    • Section 3(b): Defined “Agricultural, Agricultural Enterprise or Agricultural Activity” to include the “raising of fish.”
    • Section 11: Defined “commercial farms” as private agricultural lands devoted to fishponds and prawn ponds.
    • Section 13: Called upon landowners to execute a production-sharing plan.
    • Sections 16(d) and 17: Vested the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) with the authority to determine just compensation for lands covered by CARL.
    • Section 32: Spelled out the production-sharing plan, requiring a percentage of gross sales to be distributed to farmworkers.

    These provisions were challenged on the grounds that they unconstitutionally extended agrarian reform to aquaculture lands and violated the equal protection clause.

    The Case: Atlas Fertilizer Corporation vs. DAR

    Atlas Fertilizer Corporation, along with the Philippine Federation of Fishfarm Producers, Inc. and Archie’s Fishpond, Inc., challenged the constitutionality of the aforementioned provisions of CARL. These entities, engaged in the aquaculture industry, argued that fishponds and prawn farms should not be subject to agrarian reform.

    The petitioners’ main arguments were:

    • That aquaculture lands are not “agriculture lands” as defined by the Constitution.
    • That including aquaculture lands violates the equal protection clause because they are treated the same as agricultural lands but are fundamentally different.
    • That the provisions distort employment benefits and burdens.
    • That the provisions deprive them of government-induced investments.

    The case reached the Supreme Court, where the central issue was whether the inclusion of fishponds and prawn farms within the coverage of CARL was constitutional. The Court considered the arguments presented by the petitioners and the legal context surrounding the law.

    However, while the case was pending, a crucial development occurred: the enactment of Republic Act No. 7881. This law amended certain provisions of CARL, specifically addressing the issue of aquaculture lands. Section 2 of R.A. No. 7881 explicitly states:

    “Private lands actually, directly and exclusively used for prawn farms and fishponds shall be exempt from the coverage of this Act…”

    This amendment effectively removed fishponds and prawn farms from the coverage of CARL, rendering the constitutional questions raised in the case moot and academic.

    As the Supreme Court stated:

    “In view of the foregoing, the question concerning the constitutionality of the assailed provisions has become moot and academic with the passage of R.A. No. 7881.”

    The Court, therefore, dismissed the petition.

    Practical Implications of R.A. No. 7881

    The enactment of R.A. No. 7881 had significant implications for the aquaculture industry in the Philippines. By exempting fishponds and prawn farms from CARL coverage, the law provided much-needed clarity and security to aquaculture businesses. This exemption allowed them to continue their operations without the threat of land redistribution, fostering investment and growth in the sector.

    Furthermore, R.A. No. 7881 introduced incentives for fishpond and prawn farm owners to share a portion of their profits with their workers. Section 32-A mandates that owners execute an incentive plan with their workers’ organization, distributing 7.5% of their net profit before tax as compensation. This provision aimed to balance the interests of landowners and workers, promoting fair labor practices within the aquaculture industry.

    Key Lessons:

    • Legislative amendments can significantly alter the interpretation and application of existing laws.
    • The definition of “agricultural lands” does not automatically include aquaculture lands, as clarified by R.A. No. 7881.
    • Fishpond and prawn farm owners should be aware of the incentives and profit-sharing requirements outlined in R.A. No. 7881.

    Frequently Asked Questions

    Q: Does CARL still apply to agricultural lands in general?

    A: Yes, CARL remains in effect for agricultural lands not specifically exempted by law.

    Q: What is the retention limit for landowners under CARL?

    A: The retention limit is generally five hectares, with certain exceptions.

    Q: What happens if a fishpond was already distributed before R.A. No. 7881?

    A: If a fishpond was distributed and a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) was issued, a majority of the workers must consent to the exemption within one year of R.A. 7881’s effectivity. If they don’t agree, the fishpond will be collectively managed by a worker-beneficiary cooperative.

    Q: Are there incentives for fishpond owners to share profits with workers?

    A: Yes, R.A. No. 7881 mandates a profit-sharing plan where 7.5% of the net profit before tax is distributed to regular and other pond workers.

    Q: Does this exemption apply to agricultural lands converted to fishponds after R.A. No. 7881?

    A: The exemption does not apply to agricultural lands converted to fishponds if the converted land exceeds the landowner’s retention limit.

    ASG Law specializes in agrarian reform and land use regulations. Contact us or email hello@asglawpartners.com to schedule a consultation.