PHILIPPINES: Farmers evicted from their land without due process
In March and April 2010, Adelaido Caminade, a sheriff attached to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) in Davao City, carried out the eviction and demolition of the homes of 50 families. Nineteen are farmer beneficiaries who had been awarded the Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) in 1991 by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR).
The CLOA covers 39.794 of the total 42.9314 hectares of land located in Santo Niño village of Tugbok District, Davao City. In 1991, the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), a government agency responsible in implementing land reform, had subjected the property to Compulsory Acquisition (CA).
Under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform law, 1988, once the property was subjected to a CA, the government could repossess the land. The land owner in this case, the Philippine Banking Corporation (Philbanking), had opposed the CA and appealed for the exemption of their property under the land reform; however, they filed their opposition with the regular court, not with the DAR.
Regular courts have no jurisdiction over cases involving land dispute and implementing the land reform program.
It was only on August 1998 that two persons, Loreto Nicolas and Olimpio Cruz, officially registered their opposition to the DAR in Davao City regarding the recovering of their property for redistribution. They claim to be the lawful owners by virtue of the Deed of Assignment executed by the Philippine Banking Corporation on March 28 1994, who had designated them as assignees and successors. They demanded the cancellation of CLOA that the farmers were holding.
Furthermore, they argued that the contested land should not have been slated for redistribution because it was not classified as agricultural land. Under the law, landholdings that are not classified as agricultural land are exempted from land reform distribution. Also, they claim that the contested area has been classified as Urban/Urbanizing Zone under the approved Comprehensive Zoning Map of the City of Davao.
In May 1999, the DAR issued a decision in favor of Nicolas and Cruz. The famers immediately filed an appeal on June 30 1999 to the appellate board of the DARAB in Quezon City, Metro Manila, asking the latter to reverse their decision. Under the law, the DAR's decision could not be executed until the case is decided with finality by the court. Any legal action involving the re-disposition of the land should have been put on hold.
However, despite the farmer's pending appeal, Nicolas and Cruz, allegedly in connivance with the Registry of Deeds in Davao City were able to cancel the two land titles the farmers were holding. The property was divided into six land titles under the names of Nicolas and Cruz. They then sold one of them to another party, Marciano and Judith Tapiador who are husband and wife. In 2005, the legal counsel of the farmers took legal action against Nicolas, Cruz and the Tapiador couple.
After a lengthy court battle and numerous appeals, the Court of Appeals and subsequently the Supreme Court had rendered its decision regarding the lawful owners of the contested land. Firstly, on October 2004, the Court of Appeals held in favor of Nicolas and Cruz as to the ownership of the land. In its decision, however, it ruled that the farmers had the right to:
Maintain the private respondents members of the ARBA and Farmers Association of Davao-KMPI in their peaceful possession and cultivation over their respective landholdings in this case if they and/or predecessors-in-interest were already tenants over the same prior to June 15,1988 and
The decision had also been affirmed by the Supreme Court in its judgment promulgated on October 6 2008.
After the Supreme Court’s decision, the DARAB in Davao City issued a writ of execution on March 2010, over a year after the decision, for the demolition of the houses claiming that their appeal in court had already been denied. The farmers filed a motion for reconsideration with the DARAB to prevent them from executing the writ of demolition.
Under the law, unless the Supreme Court decides with finality in a case, any further legal action must be put on hold. In this instance, the execution of orders/decision of the court, as the case itself was subject to appeal. Thus, the sheriff in pushing through the evictions and demolishing the houses, fruit trees and properties deprived the fundamental rights of the farmers such as housing and food, and is illegal.
Source:
- 572 reads
