MEMORANDUM

TO: Atty. Aison Garcia

FROM: Floyd B. Mago, legal representative of TASK FORCE MAPALAD (TFM) on

behalf of Ms. Susan Libang

RE: Land Settlement Dispute between Hennesy Corp. and farmers of Task Force
Mapalad (TFM)

DATE: July 2, 2014

Statement of the Facts:

The land in question is an agricultural land with a size of 123.93 hectares

situated at San Juan Batangas. The Perez family initially owned the land and afterwards
sold it to the Hennesy Corporation for the price of 28 pesos per sq. meter. An issue now
arose because there were 59 families that were living and farming on the said land.
Hennesy Corp. subsequently offered an amicable settlement in terms of monetary
compensation for the 59 families by offering to pay the tenants land on which they were
farming, at around 70,000 pesos per family. Some of the families accepted it while most
of them did not and thus the Hennesy Corp. again had another offer which was to give
the remaining families 220 sq. m. of land which they would then have to buy from the
said corporation. Those who opted to pay for the 220 square meter land were not given
titles with neither reason nor statement being presented by Hennesy Corp. Thereafter,
Hennesy Corp. filed ejectment cases against the said tenants. Meanwhile, in 1991 the
said land was also subjected to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP)
and its owner, Hennesy Corp. was sent a corresponding Notice of Coverage (NOC).
These families that were subjected to the ejectment cases by Hennesy Corp. formed
the group Task Force Mapalad (TFM) with the view of expediting the transfer of the
ownership of the disputed land which was already a subject of the NOC under the
CARP program and winning the ejectment case which was filed by the latter against
them. For its part the Hennesy Corp. in 2013, applied that the disputed land be
exempted from being classified as an agricultural land and with it came the bulldozers
and security guards from the said corporation that fenced the land and destroyed the
crops that were planted by the TFM farmers.

Task Force Mapalad (TFM) represented by its spokesperson Ms. Susan Libang
and other members, thus camped out on the gates of the Department of Agrarian
Reform (DAR) requesting for the expedition of the distribution of the said land to the
poor farmers under the CARP program with the case now pending for more than 20
years.

Issues:

1.) Whether or not the land in question should be subjected under the CARP
law

2.) Whether or not the distribution process thru the CARP of the land in
question should be expedited
 3.) Whether or not the farmers of the Task Force Mapalad (TFM) should
receive the land the land in question

Arguments:

1.) Yes. Sec. 29 of the Republic Act 66571 otherwise known as CARP
stated that lands owned by corporate farms such as the Hennesy
Corp. shall be distributed directly to the individual worker-
beneficiaries.

SECTION 29. Farms Owned or Operated by Corporations or Other

Business Associations. In the case of farms owned or operated
by corporations or other business associations, the following rules
shall be observed by the PARC: In general, lands shall be
distributed directly to the individual worker-beneficiaries.

It is clear from the provision that pursuant to the CARP program, that the lands
owned by corporate farms which were deemed in excess of the allowed limit should be
distributed directly to the individual workers. On the case at bar, the fact that the land in
question was already issued a Notice of Coverage (NOC) by DAR means that it was
deemed in excess by the government and thus should be subjected to the CARP
program for distribution.

Moreover, the move by Hennesy Corp. to have the land reclassified is devoid of
merit for it was already subjected by the DAR as an agricultural land for distribution by
its issuance of the NOC in 1991, some twenty two (22) years before the said action of
the Hennesy Corp. As was held in the case of Buklod nang Magbubukid sa Lupaing
Ramos, Inc. v. E.M. Ramos and Sons, Inc.2 To be exempt from CARP, all that is
needed is one valid reclassification of the land from agricultural to non-agricultural by a
duly authorized government agency before June 15, 1988, when the CARL took effect.
Clearly the request for reclassification by the Hennesy Corp. came after 1988 and also
later than the NOC that was issued by the DAR and thus is not exempted from CARP.

2.) Yes. The provisions on Sec. 16 of R.A. 66573 provide that the
processes of land acquisition and distribution should take only a
reasonable amount of time and the case at bar is already long
overdue.

SECTION 16. Procedure for Acquisition of Private Lands.

For purposes of acquisition of private lands, the following
procedures shall be followed:

(c) If the landowner accepts the offer of the DAR, the Land Bank of
the Philippines (LBP) shall pay the landowner the purchase price of

1 What is CARP (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program), or RA 6657? available at

http://www.dar.gov.ph/ra-6657-what-is-carp-comprehensive-agrarian-reform-program
(accessed on July 2,2014)

2 Buklod nang Magbubukid sa Lupaing Ramos, Inc. v. E.M. Ramos and Sons, Inc.
G.R. No. 131481 (2011) available at
http://www.chanrobles.com/cralaw/2011marchdecisions.php?id=255 (accessed on
July 2,2014)

3 See supra note 1

 the land within thirty (30) days after he executes and delivers a
deed of transfer in favor of the government and surrenders the
Certificate of Title and other muniments of title.

(d) In case of rejection or failure to reply, the DAR shall conduct

summary administrative proceedings to determine the
compensation for the land requiring the landowner, the LBP and
other interested parties to submit evidence as to the just
compensation for the land, within fifteen (15) days from the receipt
of the notice. After the expiration of the above period, the matter is
deemed submitted for decision. The DAR shall decide the case
within thirty (30) days after it is submitted for decision.

(e) Upon receipt by the landowner of the corresponding payment or,

in case of rejection or no response from the landowner, upon the
deposit with an accessible bank designated by the DAR of the
compensation in cash or in LBP bonds in accordance with this Act,
the DAR shall take immediate possession of the land and shall
request the proper Register of Deeds to issue a Transfer Certificate
of Title (TCT) in the name of the Republic of the Philippines.
The DAR shall thereafter proceed with the redistribution of the land
to the qualified beneficiaries.

It is clear from the following provisions that it was not within the contemplation of the law
that the process of land acquisition and distribution should take more than twenty years.
From the foregoing, if Hennesy Corp. accepted the offer of DAR then it should have
executed and delivered the deeds of transfer and surrendered the Certificate of Title
and other muniments of title in favor of the government already which they obviously
have not done yet. On the other hand if they refused or failed to reply from the offer of
DAR then it should have taken DAR roughly just forty-five (45) days to decide on the
pending case.

3.) Yes. The farmers of the TFM are qualified beneficiaries under Sec. 22
of the said CARP law.4

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. Provided, however, That the children of
landowners who are qualified under Section 6 of this Act shall be
given preference in the distribution of the land of their parents: and
Provided, further, That actual tenant-tillers in the landholdings shall
not be ejected or removed therefrom. Beneficiaries under
Presidential Decree No. 27 who have culpably sold, disposed of, or
abandoned their land are disqualified to become beneficiaries

4 Ibid.
 under this Program. A basic qualification of a beneficiary shall be
his willingness, aptitude, and ability to cultivate and make the land
as productive as possible.

It is clear from the wording of the law that the farmers of TFM, being landless
residents who are tilling the said land in question are beneficiaries contemplated in
the CARP program thus they should receive the said land in question after its
distribution.

Conclusion:

In view of the foregoing, it is hereby concluded and recommended that the distribution
process of the land in question under the CARP program be expedited and given to the
farmers of the Task Force Mapalad (TFM) without undue delay.