REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM
PROVINCIAL OFFICE OF TARLAC
Tuloy ang Pag-asa at Pag-unlad Hatid ng Repormang Agraryo
(BUREAU OF AGRARIAN LEGAL ASSISTANCE)
MEMORANDUM
FOR : JAMES ARSENIO O. PONCE, CESO III
Regional Director
DAR Region III
THRU : GARLAND LEILA A. CUARTEROS
Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer II
DARPO - Tarlac
FROM : ATTY. FERDINAND T. SALLY
Chief, Legal Services Division
DARPO-Tarlac
DATE : MAY 15, 2025
SUBJECT : SPLIT – ALI – A PETITION FOR
DISQUALIFICATION OF JOSE CARLO M.
MANALASTAS AND ISABELITA T. MANALASTAS,
OVER A LANDHOLDING UNDER ORIGINAL
CERTIFICATE OF TITLE (OCT) No. 11783 WITH
CERTIFICATE OF LAND OWNERSHIP AWARD
(CLOA) No. 00161285, CONTAINING AN AREA OF
62,269 SQM, SITUATE AT BRGY. ANUPUL,
BAMBAN, TARLAC.
Docket No. III-TAR-SPLIT-00000
LEGAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
STATEMENT OF THE FACTS
The subject parcel of land is a Collective CLOA covered by Original Certificate of
Title (OCT) No. 11783 with Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 00161285,
containing an area of 62,269 square meters, situated at Brgy. Anupul, Bamban, Tarlac.
The following allegations and prayers were upstretched:
The process began with the preparation of necessary documentation by MARO
Cluster III and the Field Validation Team (FVT) to facilitate a meeting ("pulong-pulong")
with the aforementioned agrarian reform beneficiaries.
A Notice of Meeting, dated February 22, 2024, was issued by the Municipal
Agrarian Reform Program Officer of Cluster II, inviting the registered agrarian reform
beneficiaries (ARBs) to an assembly scheduled for March 4, 2024. The purpose of this
meeting was to present the details of the SPLIT Project. Documentation confirms that
the Office of the Mayor of Bamban, Tarlac, received this Notice.
DAR TARLAC PROVINCIAL OFFICE
2nd Floor, Pinnacles Building, Tarlac-Sta. Rosa Road,
Matatalaib, Tarlac City 2300
CONTACT NO.: 0917-126-3228
DARTAR-STOD-QF-024 REV 00 WEBSITE: [Link]
Effectivity date: May 27, 2025
Further investigation by the FVT resulted in a verified Field Validation Report
concerning the collective CLOA. This Report confirmed the respondents' absence from
the meetings and their lack of involvement in the management and control of the
collective Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA). The Report also noted that the
land remained titled under the Republic of the Philippines. Supporting this Report were
official Certifications obtained by the FVT from Barangays Anupul, San Nicolas, and San
Roque, confirming that the respondents were not residents of Brgy. Anupul or adjacent
areas.
Approximately one year later, on February 15, 2025, the Redocumentation
Completion Team (RCT) revisited the landholding to locate and engage with the
respondents regarding the SPLIT Project. These efforts were unsuccessful. The RCT
also sought assistance from barangay officials at the last known address of Jose Carlo
and Isabelita but found no record of these individuals in the Brgy. Anupul database.
The RCT further investigated in Brgy. Nicolas, where they obtained a Certification
dated March 6, 2025, from barangay officials confirming that the respondents were not
residents and could not be found in their records.
Based on the documented absence of the farmer-beneficiaries from scheduled
meetings, their apparent lack of involvement in managing the landholding, and the
unsuccessful attempts by the FVT and RCT to locate them through official channels and
local inquiries, the RCT recommended the filing of a petition based on the perceived
abandonment of their obligation to cultivate the land.
A notice to comment was sent to the ARBS. As of this date, no Comment/Answer
has been received by this Office.
ISSUE
WHETHER OR NOT THE INSTANT PETITION FOR DISQUALIFICATION
OF THE ARBs, JOSE CARLO M. MANALASTAS AND ISABELITA T.
MANALASTAS,OF COLLECTIVE CLOA NO. 00161285 BE GIVEN DUE
COURSE IN THE LIGHT OF EXISTING
AND APPLICABLE AGRARIAN LAWS AND RULES
DISCUSSION/FINDINGS
Before addressing the central issue of the present case to formulate an
appropriate response to the matter before this Office, it was deemed necessary to
consider pertinent administrative rules and regulations expressly provided by agrarian
law.
For the purpose of determining the merit of issue, it is initially significant to
mention that Administrative Order No. 03, Series of 2017 titled “2017 Rules for
Agrarian Law Implementation Cases”, states that the instant case are among
those cases, the determination and resolution of which are within the jurisdiction of the
Secretary/Regional Director, to quote:
“Section 2. ALI cases. These rules shall govern all cases
arising from or involving:
2.1 x x x x;
2.2 Classification, identification, inclusion, exclusion,
qualification, or disqualification of potential/actual farmer-
beneficiaries;
x x x x x x x;
2.19 Such other agrarian cases, disputes, matters or concerns
referred by the Secretary to the Regional Director, other DAR
Officials, or in other cases where the Secretary assumes
jurisdiction.” (Emphasis Supplied)
In the instant case, the Petition for Disqualification falls within the aforesaid
jurisdiction of the Secretary/Regional Director, and it must now be discussed whether
meritorious.
Going now to the merit of the case, the Petition alleged that the ARBs in the
CCLOA are not in physical possession of the land in question. The actual
tillers/occupants of the same are herein petitioners. To support their claim, they
submitted an approved survey plan.
Section 5 of the Republic Act No. 6657 (RA 6657) otherwise known as
“Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law”, enumerates the grounds for
disqualification/exclusion of ARBs under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
(CARP), to wit:
Section 5. Grounds for Disqualification/Exclusion.
The following shall be the grounds for
disqualification/exclusion as ARBs of the CARP:
5.1. Failure to meet the qualifications as provided for under
Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657;
5.2. Non-payment of an aggregate of three (3) annual
amortizations or default in payment of three (3) annual
amortizations with the landowner (LO) that resulted to the
foreclosure of mortgage on the awarded land by the LBP or
repossession by the landowners (in the case of voluntary
land transfer/direct payment scheme or VLT/DPS) of the
awarded lands except if the non-payment of the rental is
due to crop failure as a result of fortuitous events per
Section 36(6) of R.A. No. 3844, to the extent of seventy-
five percent (75%);
5.3. Misuse or diversion of financial support services
extended to them (Section 37 of R.A. No. 6657);
5.4. Negligence or misuse of the land or any
support extended to them (Section 22 of R.A. No.
6657);
5.5. Material misrepresentation of the ARB’s basic
qualifications as provided for under Section 22 of R.A.
No. 6657, P.D. No. 27, and other agrarian laws;
5.6. Sale, disposition, or abandonment of the lands
awarded by the government under CARP or P.D. 27
which is violative of the agrarian laws; [emphasis supplied]
xxxx
On the other hand, R.A. No. 6657 Section 22 provides:
SECTION 22. Qualified Beneficiaries. — The lands covered
by the CARP shall be distributed as much as possible to
landless residents of the same barangay, or in the absence
thereof, landless residents of the same municipality in the
following order of priority:
(a) agricultural lessees and share tenants;
(b) regular farmworkers;
(c) seasonal farmworkers;
(d) other farmworkers;
(e) actual tillers or occupants of public lands;
(f) collectives or cooperatives of the above beneficiaries;
and
(g) others directly working on the land. [emphasis
supplied]
The petition is found to be meritorious.
Addressing the merits of the petitioner's claim, it is important to emphasize that
assuming the status of an agrarian reform beneficiary entails certain obligations and
responsibilities. Failure to fulfill these obligations may result in the permanent
disqualification of the agrarian reform beneficiary in question.
A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be his willingness, aptitude, and ability
to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible. The DAR shall adopt a system
of monitoring the record or performance of each beneficiary, so that any beneficiary
guilty of negligence or misuse of the land or any support extended to him shall forfeit
his right to continue as such beneficiary.
The ARB's failure to maintain productivity and the petitioner's current cultivation,
as certified by the BARC, suggests a lack of interest and abandonment by the former.
Relevant laws and jurisprudence hold that abandonment or neglect for two
continuous years due to willful non-cultivation can lead to ARB disqualification.
Therefore, the ARB's non-cultivation, affirmed by the BARC through Certification, form a
legal basis for terminating the ARB's.
Given the above, this Office hereby recommends that the ARBs be disqualified as
the farmer-beneficiaries over the subject land, for it is clear that the same is not in their
actual tillage nor possession, in violation of agrarian laws and rules.
WHEREFORE, in light of the foregoing facts and discussion, the petition for the
disqualification of ARBs, JOSE CARLO M. MANALASTAS AND ISABELITA T.
MANALASTAS, MUST BE GIVEN DUE COURSE.
SO RECOMMENDED.
Prepared and evaluated by:
RAYMUND ANDREW D. BASILIO
Legal Assistant I
Approved by:
ATTY. FERDINAND T. SALLY
Chief, Legal Services Division
