MFA demands disturbance compensation, privileges
Broadsheet Issue Vol. XL No. 1
By Archieval Mariano, Ann Lea Santiago and Jesson Lagman
BulSU versus Farmers.
Unwilling to lose their livelihood coming from the undeveloped property of Bulacan State University (BulSU), the Malolos Farmers Association (MFA) ‘purposely’ barred the land filling of first 2,000 square meters in the 25-hectare land of the university last July 16.
MFA claimed the land and demanded that BulSU should give ‘disturbance’ monetary compensation and other privileges such as scholarships and portion of the land for them to vacate the place that will be used as parking lot and venue for Physical Education classes of the university.
“Kung walang pera, lupa na lang at ‘yong ‘wag na kaming maalis dito,” said Victor dela Cruz, one of the farmers in the 25-hectare land and member of MFA.
Yet, BulSU Administration asserted the ownership rights for the 25 hectares and stated that the university have all the documents and legal claims for the said property.
“Kung gusto nila, hayaan nilang magtambak tayo tapos magdemanda sila, idemanda nila ang BulSU. Why do I have to worry when I have all the documents that the property is ours,” dared BulSU President Mariano de Jesus.
The controversial piece
The land was originally privately owned until it was expropriated by Philippine information Agency (PIA) in 1969. Expropriation is defined as the taking of private property for public use or in the public interest.
A dispute on the said land first arose when the heirs of Luis Santos, a land owner of 76, 589 square meters in the 55 hectares filed a manifestation seeking payment for the land on 1984.
Bulacan Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled on 1984 that PIA should pay the full payment of the expropriated property. Despite the court ruling, the heirs of Luis Santos remained unpaid not until when former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada issued Proclamation number 22 in 1998 where the transfer of 25 hectares in the 55-hectare land of PIA to Bulacan State University was decreed.
According to the proclamation, 20 hectares of the land area would be utilized for the expansion of BulSU and the other 5 hectares would be used exclusively for the propagation of Philippine carabao to be head by the university.
“No’ng binigay ‘yan, hindi pa namin alam ang gagawin kasi hindi naman tayo agricultural university, pero in the near future, gagawin natin ‘yan,” narrated De Jesus.
A legal battle ensued between PIA and the Santos heirs. The Bulacan RTC ruled in favor of the Santos’ heirs on March 1, 2000, ordered the return of the property to the heirs of the late Luis Santos and the supposed transfer of the portion of the realty to BulSU pursuant to Estrada’s proclamation 22.
PIA brought the matter up to the Court of Appeals but was denied. The matter was eventually brought to the Supreme Court (SC). The heirs questioned the transfer of a portion of the land by PIA to BulSU while the said property was still in dispute.
SC ruled in favor of PIA. The decision of Bulacan RTC dated March 1, 2000 was nullified. The land is still expropriated to PIA and the unpaid amount shall be paid with the fixed value when the land was expropriated in 1979. Due to the SC ruling, BulSU’s 25 hectares remained in the university’s hands but unlike this settled issue, the disagreement between the farmers and the academe is yet to be resolved.
“Hindi p’wedeng this incident would stop me. Kung ano man ang plano natin d’yan [sa 25 hectares] ituloy natin. Hindi ako dapat matakot d’on sa banta ng magsasaka kasi kung matatakot ako, walang mangyayari sa atin,” De Jesus pointed out.
Long-standing claim
Insisting that they are ‘tenants’, the farmers believe that the land should be divided according to the agreement between the landlord and the tenant. BulSU made it clear that the university is not a landlord and the University just allowed them to farm the land to make a living for their families.
“Hindi naman kasi tayo landlord, kaya hindi natin sila tenants, ‘yong lupang ‘yan government property kaya hindi natin maaring ibigay sa kanila,” said De Jesus.
De Jesus also clarified that for a decade, BulSU had let the farmers cultivate the land without asking for any ‘buwis’ or tax a tenant of land pays to the land owner. However, there was a verbal agreement that the farmers must vacate whenever the university asks for it.
Moreover, MFA insisted that even though the land has been expropriated by the government, they still have rights to be properly recognized and to be rightfully considered.
“Iyong karapatan ng mga masasaka ang ipinaglalaban namin,” added Dela Cruz, also an MFA member.
Based on Dela Cruz’ statement, there was an instance wherein the Certificate of Land Transfer was about to be handed to them but then, it did not happen because the land has been expropriated. The farmers insisted that they must be given a just and disturbance compensation that was stated in the Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order series of 1999.
The law declared that established tenants may seek disturbance compensation from the landowner either cash or in kind. If in cash, it should be not less that the gross average of five years’ total earnings the farmers received from the land, and if in kind, it may consist of free housing, home lots, employment and other benefits agreed upon both parties.
“Dito kasi, mapulitika, napulitika kami,” exclaimed Dela Cruz.
Also, Asuncion ‘Ason’ Velsa, whose land will be included in the first 2,000 square meters of land that BulSU will use, demanded for compensation. Pacesetter tried to get the side of Velsa’s family but they refused to comment on the issue.
Despite all the arguments and the issues, BulSU administration stated that they just wanted to make the farmers understand that the 25-hectare land does not belong to them. This notion was agreed by one of the farmers, Nestor Dejilla, and even stated that they have to surrender the land to BulSU.
“Opinyon lang, bakit sila papalag sa pagkuha ng BulSU e hindi naman sila nagbubuwis d’yan. Hindi naman sa amin ‘yan. Ang tagal na nilang pinakinabangan e gusto pa nila [to claim the land],” shared Dejilla.
Government mediation
“Iyong karapatan namin bilang magsasaka binabalewala ng BulSU. Kaya namin hinarang ‘yong pagtatambak kasi may hiningi kami na dialogue sa MARO (Municipal Agrarian Reform Office) para ipaalam na may nagsasaka dito, na may tenant,” explained Dela Cruz.
One week after the barred landfilling, a dialogue was conducted in the presence of MARO to fix the dispute between BulSU and the farmers. The university was represented by Vice President for Research and Extension Dr. Danilo Hilario and BulSU Legal Counsel Felicidad Ico and the other party was embodied by seven farmers and MFA members that will be affected in the land issue.
The discussion covered the farmers’ demands, particularly the disturbance compensation, scholarship for college and high school, housing, job opportunities inside the university and a portion of land and a black and white agreement with BulSU. But Hilario explained that the academe could only grant scholarship for college and job opportunity as compensation for the farmers.
“It is feasible that we could give scholarship but money, we cannot. Ang daming naipapasok na estudyante, nilalakad nga lang ang iba, sila pa kaya? May scholarship tayo dito, p’wede natin silang bigyan ng scholarship. Nothing more, nothing less,” said Vice President for Planning, Research and Extension Danilo Hilario.
Hilario also explained that the budget of BulSU is authorized by the Congress and is audited by Commission of Audit. He said that the two bodies would never allow giving money to the farmers because there is no legal basis for ‘disturbance compensation’ claim.
Meanwhile, MARO questioned if the said farmers are part of an SC ruling that lists the legal tenants of the said property. According to the said office, only legal tenants in any land can claim disturbance compensation when an agricultural land will be converted into other means.
“Kung hindi recognized tenant ang mga farmers do’n, kung ang pananaw ng Supreme Court na hindi recognized tenant susundin natin ang batas. Mahirap sabihin ngunit [hindi possible] 'yong salitang disturbance compensation,” said DAR Provincial Office representative Atty. Joseph Sagampud Jr.
Atty. Carlo Jolette Fajardo, the Presiding Officer emphasized that BulSU is not bound by any agreement with the farmers because BulSU is not the original land owner of the 25-hectare property. Thus, the one responsible for any disturbance compensation is the original land owner.
“Kung meron man tayong dapat hingan ng disturbance compensation ay hindi sa BulSU kasi ang BulSU ay recipient [ng donation]. Merong in between ang mga kasama [ng magsasaka], ang mga nagmamay-ari ng lupa, sila ang nabigyan ng compensation do’n sa expropriation,” said Fajardo.
At the end of the mediation, the farmers and BulSU have yet to reach a resolution. Hilario suggested Ason, the farmer whose land will be affected by the initial landfilling, to meet him directly on his office at BulSU for a proper agreement.
Moreover, De Jesus assured that because BulSU resorted to a dialogue, the farmers are given importance and are treated with respect. “The fact na nakikipag-dialogue tayo, they should understand na we are giving them importance. Nire-recognize natin sila bilang tao, hindi bilang magsasaka ng BSU.”
On the other hand, a black and white agreement prepared by MARO will serve as the final resolution to the dispute on the land.
“Gagawa sila ng papeles na sasakahin nila [‘yong the rest of the 25 hectares] for the next five years, after five years whether they like it or not they have to vacate property,” ended de Jesus.
Broadsheet Issue Vol. XL No. 1
By Archieval Mariano, Ann Lea Santiago and Jesson Lagman
BulSU versus Farmers.
Unwilling to lose their livelihood coming from the undeveloped property of Bulacan State University (BulSU), the Malolos Farmers Association (MFA) ‘purposely’ barred the land filling of first 2,000 square meters in the 25-hectare land of the university last July 16.
MFA claimed the land and demanded that BulSU should give ‘disturbance’ monetary compensation and other privileges such as scholarships and portion of the land for them to vacate the place that will be used as parking lot and venue for Physical Education classes of the university.
“Kung walang pera, lupa na lang at ‘yong ‘wag na kaming maalis dito,” said Victor dela Cruz, one of the farmers in the 25-hectare land and member of MFA.
Yet, BulSU Administration asserted the ownership rights for the 25 hectares and stated that the university have all the documents and legal claims for the said property.
“Kung gusto nila, hayaan nilang magtambak tayo tapos magdemanda sila, idemanda nila ang BulSU. Why do I have to worry when I have all the documents that the property is ours,” dared BulSU President Mariano de Jesus.
The controversial piece
The land was originally privately owned until it was expropriated by Philippine information Agency (PIA) in 1969. Expropriation is defined as the taking of private property for public use or in the public interest.
A dispute on the said land first arose when the heirs of Luis Santos, a land owner of 76, 589 square meters in the 55 hectares filed a manifestation seeking payment for the land on 1984.
Bulacan Regional Trial Court (RTC) ruled on 1984 that PIA should pay the full payment of the expropriated property. Despite the court ruling, the heirs of Luis Santos remained unpaid not until when former President Joseph Ejercito Estrada issued Proclamation number 22 in 1998 where the transfer of 25 hectares in the 55-hectare land of PIA to Bulacan State University was decreed.
According to the proclamation, 20 hectares of the land area would be utilized for the expansion of BulSU and the other 5 hectares would be used exclusively for the propagation of Philippine carabao to be head by the university.
“No’ng binigay ‘yan, hindi pa namin alam ang gagawin kasi hindi naman tayo agricultural university, pero in the near future, gagawin natin ‘yan,” narrated De Jesus.
A legal battle ensued between PIA and the Santos heirs. The Bulacan RTC ruled in favor of the Santos’ heirs on March 1, 2000, ordered the return of the property to the heirs of the late Luis Santos and the supposed transfer of the portion of the realty to BulSU pursuant to Estrada’s proclamation 22.
PIA brought the matter up to the Court of Appeals but was denied. The matter was eventually brought to the Supreme Court (SC). The heirs questioned the transfer of a portion of the land by PIA to BulSU while the said property was still in dispute.
SC ruled in favor of PIA. The decision of Bulacan RTC dated March 1, 2000 was nullified. The land is still expropriated to PIA and the unpaid amount shall be paid with the fixed value when the land was expropriated in 1979. Due to the SC ruling, BulSU’s 25 hectares remained in the university’s hands but unlike this settled issue, the disagreement between the farmers and the academe is yet to be resolved.
“Hindi p’wedeng this incident would stop me. Kung ano man ang plano natin d’yan [sa 25 hectares] ituloy natin. Hindi ako dapat matakot d’on sa banta ng magsasaka kasi kung matatakot ako, walang mangyayari sa atin,” De Jesus pointed out.
Long-standing claim
Insisting that they are ‘tenants’, the farmers believe that the land should be divided according to the agreement between the landlord and the tenant. BulSU made it clear that the university is not a landlord and the University just allowed them to farm the land to make a living for their families.
“Hindi naman kasi tayo landlord, kaya hindi natin sila tenants, ‘yong lupang ‘yan government property kaya hindi natin maaring ibigay sa kanila,” said De Jesus.
De Jesus also clarified that for a decade, BulSU had let the farmers cultivate the land without asking for any ‘buwis’ or tax a tenant of land pays to the land owner. However, there was a verbal agreement that the farmers must vacate whenever the university asks for it.
Moreover, MFA insisted that even though the land has been expropriated by the government, they still have rights to be properly recognized and to be rightfully considered.
“Iyong karapatan ng mga masasaka ang ipinaglalaban namin,” added Dela Cruz, also an MFA member.
Based on Dela Cruz’ statement, there was an instance wherein the Certificate of Land Transfer was about to be handed to them but then, it did not happen because the land has been expropriated. The farmers insisted that they must be given a just and disturbance compensation that was stated in the Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order series of 1999.
The law declared that established tenants may seek disturbance compensation from the landowner either cash or in kind. If in cash, it should be not less that the gross average of five years’ total earnings the farmers received from the land, and if in kind, it may consist of free housing, home lots, employment and other benefits agreed upon both parties.
“Dito kasi, mapulitika, napulitika kami,” exclaimed Dela Cruz.
Also, Asuncion ‘Ason’ Velsa, whose land will be included in the first 2,000 square meters of land that BulSU will use, demanded for compensation. Pacesetter tried to get the side of Velsa’s family but they refused to comment on the issue.
Despite all the arguments and the issues, BulSU administration stated that they just wanted to make the farmers understand that the 25-hectare land does not belong to them. This notion was agreed by one of the farmers, Nestor Dejilla, and even stated that they have to surrender the land to BulSU.
“Opinyon lang, bakit sila papalag sa pagkuha ng BulSU e hindi naman sila nagbubuwis d’yan. Hindi naman sa amin ‘yan. Ang tagal na nilang pinakinabangan e gusto pa nila [to claim the land],” shared Dejilla.
Government mediation
“Iyong karapatan namin bilang magsasaka binabalewala ng BulSU. Kaya namin hinarang ‘yong pagtatambak kasi may hiningi kami na dialogue sa MARO (Municipal Agrarian Reform Office) para ipaalam na may nagsasaka dito, na may tenant,” explained Dela Cruz.
One week after the barred landfilling, a dialogue was conducted in the presence of MARO to fix the dispute between BulSU and the farmers. The university was represented by Vice President for Research and Extension Dr. Danilo Hilario and BulSU Legal Counsel Felicidad Ico and the other party was embodied by seven farmers and MFA members that will be affected in the land issue.
The discussion covered the farmers’ demands, particularly the disturbance compensation, scholarship for college and high school, housing, job opportunities inside the university and a portion of land and a black and white agreement with BulSU. But Hilario explained that the academe could only grant scholarship for college and job opportunity as compensation for the farmers.
“It is feasible that we could give scholarship but money, we cannot. Ang daming naipapasok na estudyante, nilalakad nga lang ang iba, sila pa kaya? May scholarship tayo dito, p’wede natin silang bigyan ng scholarship. Nothing more, nothing less,” said Vice President for Planning, Research and Extension Danilo Hilario.
Hilario also explained that the budget of BulSU is authorized by the Congress and is audited by Commission of Audit. He said that the two bodies would never allow giving money to the farmers because there is no legal basis for ‘disturbance compensation’ claim.
Meanwhile, MARO questioned if the said farmers are part of an SC ruling that lists the legal tenants of the said property. According to the said office, only legal tenants in any land can claim disturbance compensation when an agricultural land will be converted into other means.
“Kung hindi recognized tenant ang mga farmers do’n, kung ang pananaw ng Supreme Court na hindi recognized tenant susundin natin ang batas. Mahirap sabihin ngunit [hindi possible] 'yong salitang disturbance compensation,” said DAR Provincial Office representative Atty. Joseph Sagampud Jr.
Atty. Carlo Jolette Fajardo, the Presiding Officer emphasized that BulSU is not bound by any agreement with the farmers because BulSU is not the original land owner of the 25-hectare property. Thus, the one responsible for any disturbance compensation is the original land owner.
“Kung meron man tayong dapat hingan ng disturbance compensation ay hindi sa BulSU kasi ang BulSU ay recipient [ng donation]. Merong in between ang mga kasama [ng magsasaka], ang mga nagmamay-ari ng lupa, sila ang nabigyan ng compensation do’n sa expropriation,” said Fajardo.
At the end of the mediation, the farmers and BulSU have yet to reach a resolution. Hilario suggested Ason, the farmer whose land will be affected by the initial landfilling, to meet him directly on his office at BulSU for a proper agreement.
Moreover, De Jesus assured that because BulSU resorted to a dialogue, the farmers are given importance and are treated with respect. “The fact na nakikipag-dialogue tayo, they should understand na we are giving them importance. Nire-recognize natin sila bilang tao, hindi bilang magsasaka ng BSU.”
On the other hand, a black and white agreement prepared by MARO will serve as the final resolution to the dispute on the land.
“Gagawa sila ng papeles na sasakahin nila [‘yong the rest of the 25 hectares] for the next five years, after five years whether they like it or not they have to vacate property,” ended de Jesus.