Agrarian reform vital to rural development

In the case of Madarang and Bartolome v. Spouses Morales, “[p]etitioners argue that their former counsel’s failure to file a notice of appeal within the reglementary period was ‘a mistake and an excusable negligence due to [their former counsel’s] age.’ This argument stereotypes and demeans senior citizens… [and] asks this court to assume that a person with advanced age is prone to incompetence… [which] cannot be done” (G.R. 199283, June 9, 2014).

“Since petitioners filed their notice of appeal only on August 11, 2010 (or beyond the deadline of July 9, 2010), the trial court correctly denied the notice of appeal… There is… no showing that the negligence could have been prevented through ordinary diligence and prudence… [hence], petitioners are bound by their counsel’s negligence”(G.R. 199283, June 9, 2014).

“Jurisprudence provides that fraud, as a ground for a petition for relief, refers to extrinsic or collateral fraud which, in turn, has been defined as fraud that prevented the unsuccessful party from fully and fairly presenting his case or defense and from having an adversarial trial of the issue, as when the lawyer connives to defeat or corruptly sells out his client’s interest” (Santos v. Santos, G.R. 214593, July 17, 2019 citing Lasala v. National Food Authority).

“[I]n cases of gross and palpable negligence of counsel and of extrinsic fraud, the Court must step in and accord relief to a client who suffered thereby. [F]or the extrinsic fraud to justify a petition for relief from judgment, it must be fraud which the prevailing party caused to prevent the losing party from being heard on his action or defense… [the] fraud concerns not the judgment itself but the manner in which it was obtained” (G.R. 214593, July 17, 2019).

“If the incompetence, ignorance or inexperience of counsel is so great and the error committed as a result thereof is so serious that the client, who otherwise has a good cause, is prejudiced and denied his day in court, the litigation may be reopened to give the client another chance to present his case” (G.R.

(G.R. 207433, December 05, 2018).

“As pointed out by the PNB, the RTC’s February 23, 2010 Order was, in effect, entered on May 3, 2012, when this Court’s February 22, 2012 Resolution in G.R. No. 199846 was entered in the Book of Entries of Judgments…

[I]t is clear that Lasam failed to comply with the 60-day period… when she filed her petition for relief on January 22, 2013, or almost three years from the time she acquired knowledge of the order sought to be set aside” (G.R. 207433, December 05, 2018).

“Likewise, she failed to comply with the six-month period provided in the same Rule when she filed her petition for relief more than eight months from the date of entry of the order sought to be set aside… Since strict compliance with the relevant periods was not observed, the RTC correctly dismissed Lasam’s petition” (G.R. 207433, December 05, 2018).

A petition for relief from judgment must be “filed within 60 days after petitioner learns of the judgment, final order, or other proceeding to be set aside, and not more than six months after such judgment or final order was entered, or such proceeding was taken; and must be accompanied with affidavits, showing the fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence…”

(Section 3, Rule 38, Rules of Civil Procedure).

“It should be noted that the 60-day period from knowledge of the decision, and the 6-month period from entry of judgment, are both unextendible and uninterruptible… A petition… filed beyond the reglementary period [must be] dismissed outright… because [it]… is an exception to the public policy of immutability of final judgments” (G.R. 199283, June 9, 2014).

For example, if the petitioner “learns” of the final and executory judgment on July 15, 2023, he has 60 days from July 15, 2023 or until September 14, 2023 to file the petition for relief from judgment. However, the 60 days is within a bigger time period of six months from the entry of judgment.

In case a petition for relief is denied by the trial court and such a denial is questioned in the appellate court, the latter must “determine not only the existence of any of the grounds relied upon whether it be fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence, but also and primarily the merit of the petitioner’s cause of action or defense, as the case may be” (G.R. 214593, July 17, 2019).

“If the appellate court finds that one of the grounds exists and, what is of decisive importance, that the petitioner has a good cause of action or defense, it will reverse the denial or dismissal, set aside the judgment in the main case and remand the case to the lower court for a new trial in accordance with Section 7 of Rule 38” (G.R. 214593, July 17, 2019).

MAKE no mistake about it: The Department of Agrarian Reform will continue to work against the conversion of agricultural lands into other uses, such as subdivisions.

This assurance was given by DAR

Undersecretary Luis Pagulayan in a recent Saturday News Forum in Quezon City where he discussed the key features of the New Agrarian Emancipation Act.

According to USec Pagulayan, the department will monitor arable tracts of land in the country and keep them from being converted into other purposes than agriculture.

“We’re talking here of land that can be tapped for agricultural development. Arable land that can be planted to crops, we will guard against converting these to other uses,” he emphasized.

“The Department will continue the agrarian reform program which is mandated under the 1987 Constitution. Article 13 of Section 4 of the fundamental law says it is a policy of the State to make the landless farmer and landless regular farm worker owners of the land they till,” Pangulayan explained. The DAR official pointed out that under Republic Act 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), Congress will continue to allocate funds to agencies implementing agrarian reform.

Pagulayan said the main components of agrarian reform— agrarian justice delivery, land tenure improvement and provision of adequate support services to agrarian reform beneficiaries (ARBs)—will continue even after the remaining hectares of land have been distributed to landless farmers.

He emphasized: “In my view, the agrarian reform program implementation will remain the same: to make landless farmers owners of the land, coupled with adequate support services and credit facilities…The agrarian reform program is closely tied to the goals of food sufficiency and food security, even national security. “We cannot separate them from one another, as they are interlinked. DAR seeks the economic empowerment of our farmers as this will boost agricultural productivity and rural development.”

Having worked as a writer for DA in the late 1990s to mid-2000s, we are familiar with the mandate of the agency and its significant role in the government’s food security and poverty reduction programs.

CARP puts the farmers, who make up the vast majority of the rural population, right at the center of development. Farmers should no longer be passive recipients of government help, but active participants in their own development. They should no longer be held in perpetual bondage to the soil, but empowered to utilize the bounty of the land to improve their lives. population, especially the poor and the underprivileged, to take responsibility for their own development

More than an instrument for social and economic emancipation, CARP is an indispensable tool to expand the limits of human freedom for the millions of Filipino farmers.

The agrarian reform program has three key objectives: equity, capability, and sustainability.

One, it establishes equity by democratizing control over the country’s lands, incomes and opportunities to a large section of the population and enabling them to directly participate in nation-building.

Two, it builds the capability of farmerbeneficiaries to manage reformed lands productively by giving them the support services they need.

And three, it promotes sustainability by incorporating the ecosystem and stakeholder approaches to land use and management.

Through CARP, government, working in close partnership with the business sector and civil society organizations, can transform rural society and economy into an integral and vital component of equitable and sustainable national development.

To meet the three key objectives of equity, capability and sustainability, the government closely integrates land tenure improvement with program beneficiaries development.

This means that farmers will not be left to their own devices after they get land they can truly call their own. The basic approach is to help them manage the land so it becomes more productive.

The first step, however, is land distribution. Government has yet to complete land