RETENTION RIGHT TEMPLATE

I.

INTRODUCTION
This template shall apply to issues and cases pertaining to the retention rights of
landowners (LOs).

II.

CHECKLIST OF DOCUMENTARY REQUIREMENTS

1.

For landowners who own lands of five (5) hectares or less requesting for the

issuance of a Certification of Retention:

[]

CARP-LAD Form No. 13 (Request for Certification of Retention)

[]

Landowner's (LO) affidavit of sole and aggregate ownership of

agricultural land nationwide

[]

Certification of Provincial and Municipal/City Assessors regarding

LO's aggregate land ownership

2.

For landowners whose lands consist of more than five (5) hectares and are

subject of Compulsory Acquisition:

A.

B.

To determine if the right of retention was exercised on time:

[]

Notice of Coverage (NOC)

[]

Proof of receipt of NOC by the landowner, or

[]

Publication of NOC

To determine if the applicant is the proper party to exercise the right of

retention:
[]

Certified true copy of title/tax declaration of parcel of land

which is the subject of application for retention, and other proof of

ownership
[]

Special Power of Attorney and the document listed above, if

the applicant is a representative of the landowner

[]

Articles of Incorporation and/or Secretary's Certificate of

Authorization, if the applicant is a juridical person

[]

Certified true copy of marriage contract, prenuptial agreement,

judicial decree of separation of property, if the exercise of retention

rights will touch on the landowner and his or her spouses' property
regime
[]

Sworn statement of personal cultivation and Barangay

Agrarian Reform Council (BARC) attestation to such fact, if the

applicant is a homestead grantee or is an heir of said grantee
[]

A Certified True Copy of the Deed of Extrajudicial

Settlement/Affidavit of Adjudication of Sole Heir, if applicable

Additional requirements if the applicant is an heir of the
landowner:
[]

Death Certificate of the landowner

[]

Birth Certificate of the applicant

[]

A manifestation of the landowner's intention to exercise his

right of retention prior to 23 August 1990

C.

To determine the choice of area to be retained and other matters:

[]

Sketch map of the entire property with delineation or shading

or general indication of the retained area as manifested by the

landowner, or as chosen by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer

(MARO)
[]

Sworn Application for Retention, indicating the following

information:

Names of occupants of the land, their status, and the

crops growing on the property

Description of the parcels of land surrounding the

chosen retention area, particularly the land use, crops

cultivated, productivity level, etc.

Complete list of children (if applicable), with copies of

their birth certificates

Previous land sales where the applicant was a seller or

buyer

[]

Indicate where the area to be retained is located.

MARO's field verification and investigation report pertaining

to information alleged in the application for retention

[]
D.

Landowner's affidavit of aggregate landholding nationwide

If the retention area was chosen by the MARO due to the landowner's

failure to timely select his retention area and there is opposition thereto, the
following documents may be considered:
[]

Notice of Coverage (NOC)

[]

Proof of receipt of NOC by the landowner, or

[]

Publication of NOC

[]

MARO's field verification and investigation report pertaining

to the determination of aggregate landholdings of the landowner,

description of the area chosen for retention, and identification of
occupants/tenants on the property
[]

MARO's notice to the landowner of his chosen retention area

and proof of receipt of such notice

3.

For untitled private agricultural lands, certification from the Department of

Environment and Natural Resources Office (DENRO) (for administrative

confirmation of imperfect title) that the titling process or proceeding has already
commenced and that there are no adverse claims; or the clerk of court (for judicial
confirmation of imperfect title) that there is a pending action before the court;

For untitled land, there must be a showing that:

i.

the same forms part of alienable and disposable land of

public domain;
ii.

that the one claiming ownership thereof or his

predecessors-in-interest have been in open, continuous,

exclusive and notorious occupation of the property;
iii.

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 (Republic

vs. Rizaldo, G.R. No. 172011, March 7, 2011)
References for this Section:
DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2003 and its attached Sworn
Application for Retention under Republic Act No. 6657
DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2009 and its attached forms
DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011 and its attached forms
III.

JURISDICTION
1.

Manifestation to exercise the Right of Retention shall be filed before the PARO.

(Section 27, DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011)

2.

If landowner had already exercised their Retention Rights, the PARO shall issue

Certifications of Retention. (Section 33, DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011)
3.

If landowner has an aggregate area of five (5) hectares or less, the PARO may issue

a Certification of Retention upon the former's request. (Section 33, DAR Administrative
Order No. 07, Series of 2011)
4.

If the subject of coverage is more than five (5) hectares, the Regional Director (RD)

shall exercise primary jurisdiction over all agrarian law implementation (ALI) cases except
when a separate special rule vests jurisdiction in a different DAR office. (Rule II, Section 7
of Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order (DAR A.O.) No. 3, Series of 2003)
5.

The Secretary shall exercise appellate jurisdiction over all ALI cases, and may

delegate the resolution of the appeals to the Undersecretary. (Rule II, Sec. 10 of DAR A.O. 3,
Series of 2003)
IV.

DETERMINATION OF THE APPROPRIATE ACTION

STEP 1: Determine the applicants standing:
A.

Any person, natural or juridical, who owns agricultural lands with an aggregate area

of five (5) hectares, more or less, and or subject of compulsory acquisition, may apply for a
retention area.

If a juridical person, check the secretary's certificate or other proof of its

capacity to apply for a retention area:

If there is none, deny the application for retention.

If there is, proceed with the application.

If co-owners, or heirs to an unsettled Estate of an LO, check if there is a joint

application executed by all of them, with an agreement regarding the retention area of
each of the said co-owners or heirs:

If yes, the retention area will be confined to the portion of the

property allotted to him.

Subject to the limitation under Section 37 of A.O. No. 07,

Series of 2011 which provides that heirs of deceased LOs who died
after 15 June 1988 are only entitled to the five (5) hectare retention
area of the deceased LO.
In case one or more of the co-owners or heirs refuses or fails to join with the
others in the application:

The rest of the co-owners or heirs may not choose a retention

area unless they have partitioned their co-ownership or the Estate,

whichever is applicable.

Some or all of the co-owners or heirs may file, together with

their manifestation to exercise their right of retention, a manifestation

to partition their co-ownership or the Estate.

If married, determine the property regime between the spouse:

For marriages covered by the Conjugal Property of Gains

Regime:
>

Spouses whose agricultural lands are entirely conjugal

in nature may retain a total of not more than five (5) hectares
of such properties.
>

However, if either or both of them are LOs in their own

respective rights (capital and/or paraphernal), they may each

retain not more than five (5) hectares of their respective
landholdings.
>

In no case shall the total retention area of such couple

exceed ten (10) hectares.

For marriages covered by the Absolute Community of Property

Regime:
>

The spouses, together, may retain not more than five

(5) hectares.
>

All properties (capital, paraphernal, and conjugal) shall

be considered to be held in absolute community, i.e., the

ownership relationship is one, and, therefore, only a total area
of five (5) hectares may be retained by the couple.

For marriages covered by a Complete Separation of Property

Regime:
>

Each of them may retain not more than five (5)

hectares of their respective landholdings.

The property regime of a married couple whose marriage was

celebrated prior to 03 August 1988 shall be presumed to be the

Conjugal Property of Gains, unless otherwise stated in a valid marriage
settlement.

The property regime of those whose marriage was celebrated

on or after 03 August 1988 shall be presumed to be the Absolute

Community of Property, unless otherwise stated in a valid marriage
settlement.
Reference for this Section: DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011
B.

LOs or heirs of LOs not qualified to retain lands under P.D. No. 27 cannot claim

retention under R.A. No. 6657, as amended, or even under R.A. No. 9700, over their
landholdings that were covered under P.D. No. 27.

The same LOs or heirs of LOs, however, may still exercise their right of

retention over other landholdings that hereafter shall be covered by R.A. No. 6657, as
amended.
Reference for this Section: DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011
A landowner who exercised his right of retention under Presidential Decree
(P.D.) No. 27 may no longer exercise the same right under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657.

Determine whether right of retention under P.D. No. 27 has already been

exercised.

If yes, and the applicant was granted seven (7) hectares as

retention area, determine if the applicant is aware that if he opts to

retain five (5) hectares of the properties covered under CARP, he will
lose the seven (7)-hectare retention area granted to him under P.D. No.
27. Proceed with the application.

If his landholding was covered under OLT but he has not yet

exercised his right of retention, determine if the applicant's actions are

barred by laches or if he is disqualified under Letter of Instruction
(LOI) No. 474 (OLT).
>

If yes in either circumstance, deny the application for

retention.
>
C.

Otherwise, proceed with the application.

A landowner, who owns five (5) hectares or less of land which is not subject of

CARP coverage based on the schedule of LAD phasing in Section 7 of R.A. No. 6657, may
also file an application for retention. A Certificate of Retention will be issued in his favor.
D.

If owner of landholdings covered by homestead grants and free patents issued

pursuant to Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141 or an heir or heirs of said grantee, proceed
with the application, as long as the said persons were cultivating the said landholdings and
continue to cultivate the same.
E.

If deceased landowner died after 15 June 1988, heirs are only entitled to the five (5)

hectare retention of the deceased landowner.

If the deceased landowner died before 15 June 1988 and the NOC was sent after his
death, each of his compulsory heirs is entitled to a maximum of five (5) hectares as retention
area.
The right of retention of a deceased landowner may be exercised by his heirs
provided that the decedent landowner, during his lifetime, manifested his intention to
exercise his right of retention prior to 23 August 1990 (the finality of the Supreme
Court ruling in the case of Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc.
vs. The Honorable Secretary of Agrarian Reform; G.R. No. 78742, 14 July 1989).

Determine if the heir's predecessor-in-interest manifested an intention to

exercise the right of retention under R.A. No. 6657 prior to 23 August 1990.

If he did not, deny the application.

If yes, proceed with the application for retention.

Reference for this Section:

Section 3 of DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2003
Section 37 of DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011
NOTE: In all cases, if there are CLOA/EP holders over the land subject of the petition for
retention, they must be personally notified and must be asked to comment on the petition.
STEP 2 : Determine the mode of land acquisition:
A.

If acquired through Compulsory Acquisition (CA), proceed with the application if

application was filed within the reglamentary period pursuant to the applicable A.O. at the
time when the NOC was issued.
Note: Take into consideration the date of receipt of NOC or date of its publication.

B.

If acquired through Voluntary Offer to Sell (VOS), check if the landowner exercised

his right of retention and right to nominate children as preferred beneficiary/ies thereof to
the PARO prior to the completion of Service of Letter of Acceptance.

If not, deny the application for retention.

If yes, proceed with the application.

For VOS lands submitted prior to 1 July 2009 where the master list of ARBs has
been finalized, the retention areas of LOs covered under said VOS shall be processed under
the existing guidelines of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, before July 1, 2009.
C.

Landholdings covered by homestead grants and Free Patents issued pursuant to

Commonwealth Act (C.A.) No. 141 still owned by the original grantees or their direct
compulsory heirs shall be retained by them as long as they were cultivating the said
landholdings and continue to cultivate the same.
D.

If covered under Operation Land Transfer (OLT):

A landowner is entitled to retain a maximum of seven (7) hectares if he filed

his application for retention on or before 27 August 1985. If he filed his application
after that date, he will still be entitled to seven (7) hectares, provided that he
complied with LOI Nos. 41, 45, and 52.

If he filed his application for retention after 27 August 1985 but did not

comply with LOI Nos. 41, 45, and 52, he shall be entitled to a maximum of five (5)
hectares as retention area.

If he has other agricultural lands that is, aside from his retained area under

P.D. No. 27 he can opt to retain five (5) hectares of these lands and the seven (7)
hectares previously retained by him under P.D. No. 27 shall be placed under the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

As a general rule under R.A. 6657, a person cannot own an aggregate

agricultural land of five (5) hectares. For OLT, the following can no longer exercise
their right to retain:
(a)

Those who, as of 21 October 1972, owned more than twenty-

four (24) hectares of tenanted rice and corn lands;

(b)

Those who owned less than twenty-four (24) hectares of

tenanted rice and corn lands but additionally owned:

>

other agricultural lands of more than seven (7)

hectares, whether tenanted or not, whether cultivated or not,

and regardless of the income derived therefrom,
>

lands used for residential, commercial, industrial, or

other urban purposes from which he derives adequate income

to support himself and his family.
References for this Section:
Letter of Instruction (LOI) No. 474
DAR Administrative Order No. 01, Series of 1985
Section 8 of DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2003.
DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011
STEP 3 : Determine the timeliness of the application for retention:
A.

For lands five (5) hectares and below:

The law provides for an automatic exclusion from coverage, hence there is no

need to file an application for retention.

In any case, the landowner may opt to request for the issuance of a

Certification of Retention from the PARO.

B.

For lands of more than five (5) hectares:

All private agricultural lands covered under Section 4 of R.A. No. 6657, as

amended, but which have not been issued Notices of Coverage (NOCs); and private
agricultural lands issued with NOCs but where the list of potential beneficiaries has
not been finalized by the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) concerned as
of 1 July 2009 (Section 1, DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011):

Within a non-extendible period of thirty (30) days from

his/her/its/their receipt of the NOC, the LO may file a Manifestation to

Exercise the Right of Retention before the PARO.
>

All manifestations made after this period shall no

longer be accepted.
>

Failure to file said Manifestation within the

reglementary period shall be construed as a waiver on the part

of the landowner of the right to exercise the right of retention.
(Section 27, DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011)

For landholdings under VOS, the landowner shall exercise his

right of retention by submitting a notarized notice thereof to the PARO

who has jurisdiction over the landholding offered at any time prior to
the completion of service of the Letter of Acceptance.
>

Failure to exercise the said rights in this case at the

prescribed time shall be construed as a waiver thereof.

As a general rule, the landowner may choose a retention area at the same time

that he/she/it manifested to exercise the right of retention. If this is not done at the
same time, the LO can choose the area within a non-extendible period of fifteen (15)
days after manifesting his/her/its desire to exercise the said right.

In case of a co-ownership or an unsettled Estate of a land owner on which a

manifestation to partition is filed, the co-owners or heirs must partition the coownership or Estate and choose a retention area within sixty (60) days from receipt of
the NOC. If such manifestation to partition is not filed, the co-owners or heirs must
accomplish such partition and choose a retention area within the fifteen (15) days
allotted to a single LO.

The failure to choose his/her/its/their desired area within the

fifteen (15)-day or sixty (60)-day period, whichever is applicable, shall

be deemed a waiver to do so, and shall automatically authorize the
MARO to choose the area to be retained.

The MARO shall choose, on or before the conduct of the

Survey, in the LO's behalf.

As soon as the MARO shall have identified the area, the DAR

shall notify the LO, by registered mail with return card, the portion
selected as his/her retention area. The same notice shall indicate that
the Retained Area chosen may not be contested.

Reference for this Section: DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2011
NOTE: The thirty (30)-day period shall be used for cases where the applicable
issuance is DAR A.O. No. 02, Series of 2009, which took effect on 01 July 2009. For other
cases prior to the said A.O.'s effectivity, a sixty (60)-day period shall be used, as provided
for in DAR A.O. No. 02, Series of 2003, which took effect on 07 February 2003.
STEP 4 : Evaluate the retained area being applied for:
Factors to be considered in granting the choice of retained area:
A.

The landowner, as a general rule, has the right to choose the area to be retained.

B.

The retained area must be compact and contiguous.

In case of a co-ownership or an unsettled Estate mentioned in Section 30 of

A.O. No. 07, Series of 2011, each co-owner or heir may choose an area not
contiguous with that chosen by his/her/its co-owner/co-heir, provided, that if it is the
MARO who shall choose the retention area on their behalf, the retention area of all
co-owners/co-heirs must, as far as practicable, be compact and contiguous with each
other.

Original homestead grantees under the Homestead Act or their direct

compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time R.A. No. 6657
took effect, may retain the same area as long as they continue to cultivate the land.
C.

If there exists a waiver of the right to choose the retained area, the MARO must

select a parcel of land in such a way that it would be least prejudicial to the entire
landholding and the majority of the farmers on the property. The MARO shall consider the
following factors in choosing the retained area: (a) commodity produced, (b) terrain, (c)
available infrastructure and (d) soil fertility.
D.

The retained area must not exceed five (5) hectares.

The five (5)-hectare retention limit applies to all lands regardless of how

acquired (i.e. by purchase, award, succession, donation) as the law does not
distinguish.
Sample Illustration:
A child of the landowner who was awarded three (3) hectares as preferred
beneficiary and who subsequently acquired a five (5)-hectare landholding of his parent
through succession, can retain only five (5) hectares of the total landholding.

EXCEPT:
i.

The application for retention involves property covered under

OLT and was filed before 27 August 1985, in which case the
landowner will be entitled to seven (7) hectares of retained area.
ii.

The application for retention involves property covered under

OLT, was filed after 27 August 1985, and the landowner complied with
LOI Nos. 41, 45, and 52, in which case he will also be entitled to seven
(7) hectares of retained area.
iii.

The spouses, if either or both of them are LOs in their own

respective rights (capital and/or paraphernal), they may each retain not
more than five (5) hectares of their respective landholdings. In no case
shall the total retention area of such couple exceed ten (10) hectares.

iv.

For marriages covered by a Complete Separation of Property

Regime, each of them may retain not more than five (5) hectares of
their respective landholdings.
E.

Retention will not be granted at this stage if:

The applicant committed acts which constitute a waiver of the right to retain,

such as in the following circumstances:

i.

Executing an affidavit, letter or any document duly attested to

by the MARO, Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO), or RD

indicating that the landowner is expressly waiving his retention right
over the subject landholding.
ii.

Signing of the Landowner-Tenant Production Agreement and

Farmer's Undertaking (LTPA-FU) or Application to Purchase and

Farmer's Undertaking (APFU) covering the subject property.
iii.

Entering into a Voluntary Land Transfer/Direct Payment

Scheme (VLT-DPS) agreement as evidenced by a Deed of Transfer

over the subject property.
iv.

Offering the subject landholding under VOS scheme and failure

to indicate his retained area.

v.

Signing/submission of other documents indicating consent to

have the entire property covered, such as the form letter of the Land
Bank of the Philippines (LBP) on the disposition of the cash and bond
portions of a land transfer claim for payment, and the Deed of
Assignment, warranties and undertaking executed in favor of the LBP.
vi.

Performing acts which constitute estoppel by laches.

vii.

Doing such act or acts as would amount to a valid waiver in

accordance with applicable laws and jurisprudence.

Reference for this Section:
DAR Administrative Order No. 05, Series of 2000
DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011

The property was covered under OLT, the applicant would not be qualified to

retain because of the provisions in LOI No. 474, and he is now opting to exercise his
right of retention under R.A. No. 6657.
F.

If there are tenants on the retained area:

Within a period of one (1) year from the time the LO manifests his/her choice

of the area for retention, the tenant must exercise the option whether to:

Choose to remain in the LO's retained area; or

Choose to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land.

In case a tenant chooses to remain in the LO's retained area:

He/she shall be a leaseholder in the said land and shall not

qualify as a beneficiary under CARP

Conversely, if the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural

land:

He/she cannot be a leaseholder in the land retained by the LO

He/she shall be given preference in other landholdings whether

or not these lands belong to the same LO, without prejudice to the

farmers who are already in place in said other landholdings and subject
to the priorities under Section 22 of R.A. No. 6657, as amended.

In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers on the LO's

retained land prior to the approval of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, shall be respected.
Further, actual tenant-farmers in the landholdings shall not be ejected or removed
therefrom.
Reference for this Section:
DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2003
DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011
V.

OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE EXERCISE OF RETENTION

RIGHTS
A.

DAR Clearance on Land Transactions

As a general rule, the sale, disposition, lease or transfer of private lands

by the original landowner in violation of R.A. No. 6657 shall be null and void.

Land transactions executed prior to 15 June 1988:

shall be valid only when registered with the Registry of Deeds

on or before 13 September 1988

Land transactions executed on or after 15 June 1988:

Where the transfer/sale of a landholding involves a total area of

five (5) hectares and below and such landholding is the retention area
of or subject of retention by the transferor, and where the transferee
will not own an aggregate area of more than five (5) hectares as a
result of the sale:
>

The transfer is legal and proper.

>

However, a DAR clearance is needed for monitoring

purposes and as a requisite for the registration of the title in the

name of the transferee with the ROD.

With respect to LOs who have yet to exercise their right of

retention, where more than five (5) hectares of the landholding is sold
or transferred, whether through a single transaction, multiple
transactions, or a series of transfers/sales:
>

Only the first five (5) hectares sold/conveyed and the

corresponding titles therefor issued by the ROD in the name of

the transferee shall be considered valid and treated as the
transferor's retained area
>

In no case shall the transferee exceed the five (5)-

hectare landholding ceiling pursuant to Sections 6, 70, and 73

(a) of R.A. No. 6657, as amended.
>

The excess area beyond the five (5) hectares sold and

conveyed is concerned, the same shall be covered under

CARP, regardless of whoever is the current title-holder to the
land, and even if the said current title-holder owns less than
five (5) hectares of agricultural landholding, considering that
the transferor has no right to dispose of these lands since
CARP coverage of these lands is mandated by law as of 15

June 1988. Any landholding still registered in the name of the

LO after earlier dispositions up to an aggregate of five (5)
hectares are no longer part of his retention area and therefore
shall be covered under CARP.

In cases where there has been an improper, invalid, or unlawful

transfer:

NOC shall be sent to the last lawful owner of the landholding

and to such person who is registered as the owner of the same

Coverage shall be done in accordance with the pertinent

guidelines on the matter.

The provisions of LOI No. 474 also apply to landowners whose

properties were covered under OLT but who exercised their right of retention
under R.A. No. 6657 (Reyes vs. Garilao, G.R. No. 136466, 25 November
2009).
References for this Section:
Part IV.B. Section 7 of DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2009.
Article II of DAR Administrative Order No. 02, Series of 2003.
Bacugan, Agrarian Law and Jurisprudence, 2000.
DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011
B.

Conditions for LGU Retention Limit Exemption

CARP-covered agricultural lands which are to be expropriated or

acquired by LGUs for actual, direct, and exclusive public purposes, such as
roads and bridges, public markets, school sites, resettlement sites, local
government facilities, public parks, and barangay plazas or squares, consistent
with the approved local government land use plan:

shall not be subject to the five (5)-hectare retention limit.

However, prior to the expropriation/acquisition by the LGU

concerned, the subject land shall first undergo the land acquisition and
distribution process of the CARP.

ARBs therein shall be paid just compensation without prejudice

to their qualifying as ARBs in other landholdings under the CARP.

References for this Section: Section 41, DAR Administrative Order No. 07,
Series of 2011
C.

CARP-Covered Agricultural Lands Subject of Expropriation

Pursuant to Section 6-A of R.A. No. 6657, as amended, an LGU may,

through its Chief Executive and/or pursuant to an ordinance, exercise the

power of eminent domain on agricultural lands for public use, purpose, or
welfare of the poor and the landless, upon payment of just compensation to the
ARBs on these lands, pursuant to the provisions of the Constitution and
pertinent laws.

The power of eminent domain may not be exercised unless:

a valid and definite offer has been previously made to the

ARBs, and such offer was not accepted.

In cases where the land sought to be acquired has been issued

with an NOC or is already subject to VOS (with a letter-offer

submitted to DAR):
>

the concerned LGU shall suspend the exercise of its

power of eminent domain until after the LAD process has been
completed and the title to the property has been transferred to
the ARBs.

Where agricultural lands have been subjected to expropriation, the

ARBs therein shall be paid just compensation.

References for this Section: Section 42, DAR Administrative Order No.
07, Series of 2011
D.

R.A. No. 1400 or the Land Reform Act of 1955, which deals with the

acquisition and distribution of landed estates, provides for a retention area of three
hundred (300) hectares of contiguous land if owned by natural persons and six
hundred (600) hectares if owned by corporations. Exempt from this rule are lands
where justified agrarian unrest existed.

Some cases under R.A. No. 1400:

In Republic of the Philippines vs. Mariano Lichauco, et al.

(G.R. No. L-21436, 18 August 1972), the Land Tenure Administration

(LTA) and the landowners merely executed an Agreement and Joint
Motion where the LTA granted retention areas to the co-owners one
co-owner, for instance, was given a retention area of 144.1449 hectares
and another, 5.5375 hectares.

Since R.A. No. 1400 did not specify who was to choose the

retained area, it was held that the landowner and the Land Tenure
Administration were expected to try to reach an agreement on the
choice of retained area. In the event of disagreement, the courts of
justice would settle the issue (Land Tenure Administration vs. Ceferino
Ascue and Felisa Ramos De Ascue; G.R. No. L-14969, 29 April 1961).
VI.

APPLICABLE LAWS, RULES, AND POLICIES

A.

Legal Provisions:
i.

Article XIII, 1987 Constitution

Section 4. The State shall, by law, undertake an agrarian
reform program founded on the right of farmers and regular
farmworkers who are landless, to own directly or collectively the lands
they till, or, in the case of other farmworkers, to receive a just share of
the fruits thereof. To this end, the State shall encourage and undertake
the just distribution of all agricultural lands, subject to such priorities
and reasonable retention limits as the Congress may prescribe, taking
into account ecological, developmental, or equity considerations, and
subject to the payment of just compensation. In determining retention
limits, the State shall respect the right of small landowners. The State
shall further provide incentives for voluntary land-sharing. (emphasis
added)

ii.

Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657 (effective 15 June 1988), as amended by

R.A. No. 9700 (effective 01 July 2009)

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, such as
commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as
determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC)
created hereunder, but in no case shall retention by the landowner
exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each
child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that
he is at least fifteen (15) years of age, and (2) that he is actually tilling
the land or directly managing the farm; Provided, That landowners
whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be
allowed to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder, further,
That original homestead grantees or direct compulsory heirs who still
own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall
retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said
homestead.
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be
compact or contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner, Provided,
however, That in case the area selected for retention by the landowner is
tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain
therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with
similar or comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to remain in
the retained area, he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his
right to be a beneficiary under this Act. In case the tenant chooses to be
a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as a lease
holder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise
this option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner
manifests his choice of the area for retention.
In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or farmworkers
on the land prior to the approval of this Act shall be respected.
Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease,
management contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed
by the original landowner in violation of this Act shall be null and void;
Provided, however, That those executed prior to this Act shall be valid
only when registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of
three (3) months after the effectivity of this Act. Thereafter, the Register
of Deeds shall inform the DAR within thirty (30) days of any
transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares.
Section 6-A.

Exception to Retention Limits.

Provincial, city, and municipal government units acquiring private

agricultural lands by expropriation or other modes of acquisition to be
used for actual, direct and exclusive public purposes, such as roads and

bridges, public markets, school sites, resettlement sites, local

government facilities, public parks and barangay plazas or squares,
consistent with the approved local comprehensive land use plan, shall
not be subject to the five (5)-hectare retention limit under this Section
and Sections 70 and 73(a) of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended:
Provided, That lands subject to CARP shall first undergo the land
acquisition and distribution process of the program: Provided, further,
That when these lands have been subjected to expropriation, the
agrarian reform beneficiaries therein shall be paid just compensation.
Section 6-B.

Review of Limits of Land Size. Within

six (6) months from the effectivity of this Act, the DAR shall submit a
comprehensive study on the land size appropriate for each type of crop
to Congress for a possible review of limits of land sizes provided in the
Act.
iii.

Presidential Decree (P.D.) No. 27 (effective 21 October 1972)

In all cases, the landowner may retain an area of not more than seven

(7) hectares if such landowner is cultivating such area or will now cultivate it;
iv.

Republic Act (R.A.) No. 1400 (effective 09 September 1955)

Section 6.

Powers. In pursuance of the policy in the enunciated

section two hereof, the Administration is authorized to:

xxx

xxx
(2)

xxx

Initiate and prosecute expropriation proceedings for the

acquisition of private agricultural lands in proper cases, for the same

purpose of resale at cost: Provided, That the power herein granted shall
apply only to private agricultural lands as to the area in excess of three
hundred hectares of contiguous area if owned by natural persons and as
to the area in excess of six hundred hectares if owned by corporations:
Provided, further, That land where justified agrarian unrest exists may
be expropriated regardless of its area.
B.

Implementing Rules and Regulations

i.

DAR Administrative Order No. 7, Series of 2011 (effective October

15, 2011)
ii.

DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 2009 (effective July 1,

2009)
iii.

DAR Administrative Order No. 3, Series of 2003 (effective 08

February 2003)
iv.

DAR Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 2003 (effective 07

February 2003)
v.

DAR Administrative Order No. 5, Series of 2000 (effective 17

September 2000)
vi.

Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Administrative Order No. 4,

Series of 1991
[Approval date: 26 April 1991. It was provided for in the A.O. that the
issuance was to take effect ten (10) days after publication in two (2) national
newspapers of general circulation.]

vii.

DAR Administrative Order No. 11, Series of 1990

[Approval date: 30 August 1990. It was provided for in the A.O. that

the issuance was to take effect ten (10) days after publication in two (2)
national newspapers of general circulation.]
VII.

JURISPRUDENCE
A.

HACIENDA LUISITA, INCORPORATED vs. PRESIDENTIAL AGRARIAN

REFORM COUNCIL et al., G.R. NO. 171101 NOVEMBER 22, 2011

The rule on retention limits does not apply to the ownership of
agricultural lands under the stock distribution scheme but only to the eventual
acquisition of the agricultural lands from the qualified FWBs under the
proposed buy-back scheme:
Worse, by raising that the qualified beneficiaries may sell their interest
back to HLI, this smacks of outright indifference to the provision on retention
limits under RA 6657, as this Court, in effect, would be allowing HLI, the
previous landowner, to own more than five (5) hectares of agricultural land,
which We cannot countenance. There is a big difference between the
ownership of agricultural lands by HLI under the stock distribution scheme
and its eventual acquisition of the agricultural lands from the qualified FWBs
under the proposed buy-back scheme. The rule on retention limits does not
apply to the former but only to the latter in view of the fact that the stock
distribution scheme is sanctioned by Sec. 31 of RA 6657, which specifically
allows corporations to divest a proportion of their capital stock that "the
agricultural land, actually devoted to agricultural activities, bears in relation to
the company's total assets." On the other hand, no special rules exist under RA
6657 concerning the proposed buy-back scheme; hence, the general rules on
retention limits should apply.
B.

HEIRS OF DR. JOSE DELESTE vs. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

(LBP), G.R. No. 169913, June 8, 2011

i.

Failure to notify that the property shall be under the coverage of the

agrarian reform program violates due process of law; there must be proof that
petitioner was given the opportunity to at least choose and identify its
retention area
Firstly, the taking of subject property was done in violation of
constitutional due process. The Court of Appeals was correct in
pointing out that Virginia A. Roa was denied due process because the
DAR failed to send notice of the impending land reform coverage to the
proper party. The records show that notices were erroneously addressed
and sent in the name of Pedro N. Roa who was not the owner, hence,
not the proper party in the instant case. The ownership of the property,
as can be gleaned from the records, pertains to Virginia A. Roa. Notice
should have been therefore served on her, and not Pedro N. Roa.
xxx

xxx

xxx

In addition, the defective notice sent to Pedro N. Roa was

followed by a DAR certification signed by team leader Eduardo
Maandig on January 8, 1988 stating that the subject property was

tenanted as of October 21, 1972 and primarily devoted to rice and corn
despite the fact that there was no ocular inspection or any on-site factfinding investigation and report to verify the truth of the allegations of
Nicolas Jugalbot that he was a tenant of the property. The absence of
such ocular inspection or on-site fact-finding investigation and report
likewise deprives Virginia A. Roa of her right to property through the
denial of due process.
By analogy, Roxas & Co., Inc. v. Court of Appeals applies to the
case at bar since there was likewise a violation of due process in the
implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law when the
petitioner was not notified of any ocular inspection and investigation to
be conducted by the DAR before acquisition of the property was to be
undertaken. Neither was there proof that petitioner was given the
opportunity to at least choose and identify its retention area in
those portions to be acquired. Both in the Comprehensive Agrarian
Reform Law and Presidential Decree No. 27, the right of retention and
how this right is exercised, is guaranteed by law.
ii.

Despite a finding that there was a violation of due process in the

implementation of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program; such

violation does not give the Court the power to nullify the certificates of
land ownership award (CLOAs) already issued to the farmerbeneficiaries, since the DAR must be given the chance to correct its
procedural lapses in the acquisition proceedings.
On this note, We take exception to our ruling in Roxas & Co.,
Inc. v. CA, where, despite a finding that there was a violation of due
process in the implementation of the comprehensive agrarian reform
program when the petitioner was not notified of any ocular inspection
and investigation to be conducted by the DAR before acquiring the
property, thereby effectively depriving petitioner the opportunity to at
least choose and identify its retention area in those portions to be
acquired, this Court nonetheless ruled that such violation does not give
the Court the power to nullify the certificates of land ownership award
(CLOAs) already issued to the farmer-beneficiaries, since the DAR
must be given the chance to correct its procedural lapses in the
acquisition proceedings.
C.

DEL MONTE PHILIPPINES INC. EMPLOYEES AGRARIAN REFORM

BENEFICIARIES COOPERATIVE (DEARBC) vs. JESUS SANGUNAY and SONNY

LABUNOS, G.R. NO. 180013, JANUARY 31, 2011
A proper action for recovery of possession filed with the regular court
does not divest the latter of its jurisdiction even if there is a claim of being
farmer-beneficiaries with right of retention:
Verily, all that DEARBC prayed for was the ejectment of the
respondents from the respective portions of the subject lands they allegedly
entered and occupied illegally. DEARBC avers that, as the owner of the

subject landholding, it was in prior physical possession of the property but was
deprived of it by respondents' intrusion.
Clearly, no "agrarian dispute" exists between the parties. The absence
of tenurial arrangements, whether leasehold, tenancy, stewardship or
otherwise, cannot be overlooked. In this case, no juridical tie of landownership
and tenancy was alleged between DEARBC and Sangunay or Labunos, which
would so categorize the controversy as an agrarian dispute. In fact, the
respondents were contending for the ownership of the same parcels of land.
This set of facts clearly comprises an action for recovery of possession.
The claim of being farmer-beneficiaries with right of retention will not divest
the regular courts of jurisdiction, since the pleas of the defendant in a case are
immaterial.
The ruling in DAR v. Hon. Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Yupangco Cotton
Mills, Inc. is inapplicable to the present case. The complaint in Abdulwahid
impugn(ed) the CARP coverage of the landholding involved and its
redistribution to farmer beneficiaries, and (sought) to effect a reversion thereof
to the original owner, Yupangco and essentially prayed for the annulment of
the coverage of the disputed property within the CARP. The dispute was on
the "terms and conditions of transfer of ownership from landlord to agrarian
reform beneficiaries over which DARAB has primary and exclusive original
jurisdiction, pursuant to Section 1(f), Rule II, DARAB New Rules of
Procedure."
Although the complaint filed by DEARBC was similarly denominated
as one for recovery of possession, it utterly lacks allegations to persuade the
Court into ruling that the issue encompasses an agrarian dispute.
DEARBC's argument that this case partakes of either a boundary
dispute, correction of a CLOA, and ouster of an interloper or intruder, as
found under Section 1, Rule 11 of the 2003 DARAB Rules of Procedure, is
unavailing. Nowhere in the complaint was the correction or cancellation of the
CLOA prayed for, much less mentioned. DEARBC merely asserted its sole
ownership of the awarded land and no boundary dispute was even hinted at.
D.

CELESTINO SANTIAGO vs. AMADA R. ORTIZ-LUIS, G.R. NOS. 186184

AND 186988, SEPTEMBER 20, 2010

The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or
contiguous, shall pertain to the landowner. Provided, however, That in case the
area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have
the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same
or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features.
In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be
considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this
Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land,
he loses his right as a lease-holder to the land retained by the landowner. The
tenant must exercise this option within a period of one (1) year from the time
the landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention.

E.

NAPOLEON MAGNO vs. GONZALO FRANCISCO and REGINA VDA. DE

LAZARO, G.R. NO. 168959, MARCH 25, 2010

Issues with respect to retention rights are within the jurisdiction of DAR
Secretary:
Verily, there is an established tenancy relationship between petitioner
and respondents in this case. An action for Ejectment for Non-Payment of
lease rentals is clearly an agrarian dispute, cognizable at the initial stage by the
PARAD and thereafter by the DARAB. But issues with respect to the retention
rights of the respondents as landowners and the exclusion/exemption of the
subject land from the coverage of agrarian reform are issues not cognizable by
the PARAD and the DARAB, but by the DAR Secretary because, as
aforementioned, the same are Agrarian Law Implementation (ALI) Cases.
Proof necessary for the resolution of the issues on OLT coverage and
petitioner's right of retention should be introduced in the proper forum. The
Office of the DAR Secretary is in a better position to resolve these issues
being the agency lodged with such authority since it has the necessary
expertise on the matter.
F.

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM vs. PABLO BERENGUER et al.,

G.R. No. 154094, March 9, 2010

Exclusion from CARP coverage based on speculation and conjecture, violates
right from CARP coverage as well as the worker's right of retention:
The only reason given by the DAR for not including the workers of the
landholdings as farmer beneficiaries was that "it could be that either they have
manifested lack/loss of interest in the property, as it has happened in many
other areas placed under CARP coverage, because of their loyalty to the
original landowner, like respondents, or because of fear or, simply, they
refused to heed/answer the call of our field offices to submit to the screening
process." Such reason is unacceptable. The CARL has set forth in mandatory
terms in its Section 22, supra, who should be the qualified beneficiaries, but
the DAR did not strictly comply with the law. Instead, the DAR excluded such
workers based on its speculation and conjecture on why the actual workers on
the landholdings had not shown interest and had not responded to the call of
the DAR field officers during the screening process. As such, the DAR did not
really determine who the lawful beneficiaries were, failing even to present any
documentary proof that showed that the respondents' workers genuinely
lacked interest to be considered beneficiaries of the landholdings, or refused to
subject themselves to the screening process.
xxx

xxx

xxx

The highly irregular actuations of the DAR did not end with the
unwarranted awarding of the landholdings to Baribag in violation of Section
22 of the CARL. The DAR also violated the respondents' right of retention
under Section 6 of the CARL, which accorded to the respondents as the
landowners the right to retain five hectares of their landholdings, and the right
to choose the areas to be retained, which should be compact or contiguous.
Thus, assuming that the respondents' landholdings were covered by the CARL,

and that the DAR was correct in awarding the landholdings to Baribag, the
DAR's cancellation of all of the respondents' TCTs effectively nullified the
respondents' right of retention, thereby depriving them of their property
without due process of law.
G.

HEIRS OF JUAN GRIO, SR. vs. DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM,

G.R. NO. 165073, JUNE 30, 2006

Where a landowner is not entitled to retain land under PD 27, he cannot avail
of the right of retention over the same land under RA 6657:
. . . Statement of the Supreme Court clearly indicates that a landowner
who failed to exercise his retention right of land under PD 27 may do so under
RA 6657 provided he is qualified to do so under the regime of PD 27. Stated
differently, where a landowner is not entitled to retain land under PD 27, he
cannot avail of the right of retention over the same land under RA 6657.
H.

LUCIA MAPA VDA. DE DELA CRUZ, ET AL., vs. ADJUTO ABILLE, G.R.

No. 130196, February 26, 2001

The issuance of an emancipation patent does not bar the landowner from
retaining the area covered thereby:
In the case of Daez v. Court of Appeals, where the Certificates of Land
Transfer of farmer beneficiaries over some four (4) hectares of riceland were
issued without the landowner having been accorded her right to choose what
to retain among her landholdings, we held that the Transfer Certificate of Title
issued on the basis of Certificates of Land Transfer issued to the farmerbeneficiaries cannot operate to defeat the right of the heirs of the deceased
landowner to retain the said riceland. Even the issuance of an emancipation
patent does not bar the landowner from retaining the area covered thereby.
Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1994 provides: Emancipation
patents or certificates of land ownership award issued to agrarian reform
beneficiaries may be corrected and cancelled for violations of agrarian laws,
rules and regulations. This includes cases of lands which are found to be
exempted/excluded from P.D. No. 27/E.O. No. 228 of CARP coverage, or part
of the landowner's retained area.
I.

EUDOSIA DAEZ vs. THE HON. COURT OF APPEALS, G.R. NO. 133507,

FEBRUARY 17, 2000

i.

Exemption and retention in agrarian reform are two (2) distinct

concepts the finality of judgment in one does not preclude the subsequent
institution of the other:
Thus, on one hand, exemption from coverage of OLT lies if: (1)
the land is not devoted to rice or corn crops even if it is tenanted; or (2)
the land is untenanted even though it is devoted to rice or corn crops.
On the other hand, the requisites for the exercise by the
landowner of his right of retention are the following: (1) the land must
be devoted to rice or corn crops; (2) there must be a system of sharecrop or lease-tenancy obtaining therein; and (3) the size of the
landholding must not exceed twenty-four (24) hectares, or it could be
more than twenty-four (24) hectares provided that at least seven (7)

hectares thereof are covered lands and more than seven (7) hectares of
it consist of "other agricultural lands".
Clearly, then, the requisites for the grant of an application for
exemption from coverage of OLT and those for the grant of an
application for the exercise of a landowner's right of retention, are
different.
Hence, it is incorrect to posit that an application for exemption
and an application for retention are one and the same thing. Being
distinct remedies, finality of judgment in one does not preclude the
subsequent institution of the other.
ii.

Right of retention may be exercised over tenanted land despite the

issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer (CLT) to farmer-beneficiaries. What

must be protected, however, is the right of the tenants to opt to either stay on
the land chosen to be retained by the landowner or be a beneficiary in another
agricultural land with similar or comparable features:
In the landmark case of Association of Small Landowners in the
Phil., Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, we held that landowners
who have not yet exercised their retention rights under P.D. No. 27 are
entitled to the new retention rights under R.A. No. 6657. We
disregarded the August 27, 1985 deadline imposed by DAR
Administrative Order No. 1, series of 1985 on landowners covered by
OLT. However, if a landowner filed his application for retention after
August 27, 1985 but he had previously filed the sworn statements
required by LOI Nos. 41, 45 and 52, he is still entitled to the retention
limit of seven (7) hectares under P.D. No. 27. Otherwise, he is only
entitled to retain five (5) hectares under R.A. No. 6657.
Sec. 6 of R.A. No. 6657, which provides, viz.: . . . defines the
nature and incidents of a landowner's right of retention. For as long as
the area to be retained is compact or contiguous and it does not exceed
the retention ceiling of five (5) hectares, a landowner's choice of the
area to be retained, must prevail. Moreover, Administrative Order No.
4, series of 1991, which supplies the details for the exercise of a
landowner's retention rights, likewise recognizes no limit to the
prerogative of the landowner, although he is persuaded to retain other
lands instead to avoid dislocation of farmers.
Without doubt, this right of retention may be exercised over
tenanted land despite even the issuance of Certificate of Land Transfer
(CLT) to farmer-beneficiaries. What must be protected, however, is the
right of the tenants to opt to either stay on the land chosen to be
retained by the landowner or be a beneficiary in another agricultural
land with similar or comparable features.
iii.

Land awards made pursuant to the government's agrarian reform

program are subject to the exercise by a landowner, who is so qualified, of his

right of retention:

The issuance of EPs or CLOAs to beneficiaries does not

absolutely bar the landowner from retaining the area covered thereby.
Under Administrative Order No. 2, series of 1994, an EP or CLOA may
be cancelled if the land covered is later found to be part of the
landowner's retained area.
xxx

xxx

xxx

In the instant case, the CLTs of private respondents over the

subject 4.1685-hectare riceland were issued without Eudosia Daez
having been accorded her right of choice as to what to retain among her
landholdings. The transfer certificates of title thus issued on the basis of
those CLTs cannot operate to defeat the right of the heirs of deceased
Eudosia Daez to retain the said 4.1685 hectares of riceland.
VIII.

APPEAL TO THE SECRETARY

1.

Grounds: No appeal shall be given due course unless the decision of the RD is

final, disposing of the case on the merits, and only on the following grounds:
A.

Serious errors in the findings of fact or conclusion of law which

may cause grave and irreparable damage or injury to the appellant; or

B.

Coercion, fraud, or clear graft and corruption in the issuance of a

decision.
2.

When to appeal: Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the adverse decision.

3.

Where to appeal: The notice of appeal shall be filed with the Regional

Director (RD) with proof of payment of the requisite appeal fee. The appeal fee may
be received by official cashiers of any DAR office.
Non-perfection of the appeal within the fifteen (15)-day period merits
dismissal of the appeal.
4.

Withdrawal of Appeal: An appeal may be withdrawn by filing with the

Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) a motion to withdraw appeal at any

time prior to the promulgation of the appellate decision, except when the withdrawal
is prejudicial to public interest. The withdrawal may take effect only after the
Secretary issues an order approving the motion to withdraw.
Reference for this Section:
Rule IV of DAR Administrative Order No. 03, Series of 2003
DAR Administrative Order No. 07, Series of 2011
VIII.

STRUCTURE OF THE DECISION

A.

NATURE OF THE CASE

The opening paragraph should discuss the nature of the case. The

reader then knows specifically what the RD is being asked to decide. State
how the matter is before the RD. Identify the parties and the nature of the
proceedings.
Example:
"This is a case involving the retention application of ________________
which was filed on _____________________ for the landholding with TCT
_______________________ located at ______________________ with an
area _________________."
B.

FACTS

Those facts necessary to a disposition of the matter under consideration

should be set forth. Facts should be stated logically and concisely. A decision need
not and should not set forth all the facts that may be involved in the case. Only a
narrative statement of the controlling facts should be made. Controlling facts are facts
which, when added together, enable the judge to come to some factual conclusion
that affects the outcome of the case. The writer has to be selective; the RD must
know which facts are material to his readers and their understanding of the decision.
There must be no misstatement of facts. An improper factual recitation can result in
irreversible miscarriage of justice.
Example:
"The ____________________ applicant ____________________________.
____________________ is landholding of __________________________.
The area was covered under CARP through the issuance of NOC dated
___________________ which was received on ________________ by
_______________. The application retention was filed on ________________
at the PARO office of ____________________ which is _____ days from
receipt of the NOC. The area applied for is agricultural which is planted with
__________________ and has no tenants."
C.

ISSUE/S

Once these preliminary matters have been covered, the writer must

identify the specific legal or factual issues to be discussed. State the issues
simple enough that even a non-lawyer, can read and understand. Discuss each
issue individually.
Example:
"1.) Whether or not the applicants are qualified to have retention.
2.)
D.

Whether or not the retention application was filed on time."

LAW, RULES AND REGULATIONS AND JURISPRUDENCE

Next, systematically analyze the law, rules and jurisprudence (if there's

any), as it pertain to the facts of the case leading to the conclusions.

Example:
"Under Section 6 of R.A. 6657, ______________________. This is further
clarified by A.O. 7, Series of 2011, which states
_______________________________. The Supreme Court decided in the
case of _______________________________ (G.R. ___________ date) that
___________."
E.

DECISION

Having covered each issue, the RD should summarize the dispositions

by bringing together the conclusions into a decision.

Example:
"From the records of the case, the applicants are qualified to have retention
because they own an aggregate landholding of ________. The application was
filed within the 30-day reglamentary period pursuant to
___________________________. The retention area is the contiguous portion
of the subject land with the following technical description _______________
and area of ________________________."