PHILIPPINES: Farmers evicted from their land without due process 

The Asian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) has received information regarding the lack of due process in the eviction of fifty families, nineteen of whom were farmer beneficiaries under the land reform program in Davao City. The eviction and demolition of their homes was executed by a sheriff of the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), a quasi-judicial body which hears cases involving land reform. This action was taken despite a pending appeal by the farmers to the same office against the execution of the demolition.

CASE NARRATIVE: (According to information received from the Task Force Detainees of the Philippines (TFDP)-Mindanao)

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.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION:

The affected families consisted of 250 individuals in their own houses. The area had several fruit trees, some 15 to 20 years old, which the farmers had planted. These were cut down during the demolition process (photo 1). The cutting of the fruits trees deprived the farmers of a source of income. The value of the houses destroyed was estimated at 5 million pesos (USD 107,410).

After the eviction, thirty-nine of the affected families had to build makeshift tents along the road in front of their village hall (photo 2). The City Social Services and Development Office (CSWDO),on two occasions, distributed relief goods of rice, sardines and noodles, after visiting the affected families. However, the families still lack the basic needs of sufficient food, proper housing and clothing. Moreover, they are continuously exposed to the risks of hunger and illness due to their primitive living conditions.

Similar to (AHRC-HAC-006-2010), this case, wherein 28 families had been forcibly evicted the demolition was also illegal and the use of force was disproportionate. Use of excessive force is a clear violation of domestic law and international human rights treaties which the State is obliged to uphold. Often, forced eviction is followed by small amounts of aid given by the government to the victims, with the intention of avoiding responsibility for the injustice of the situation.

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights General Comment n7 (GC), has provided guidelines for those who are affected by eviction orders so that they would have access to legal and administrative remedies and procedures. In addition, they should be granted adequate compensation for any property damaged by the eviction with the government taking appropriate measures to ensure that they are offered adequate alternative housing.

The right to land ensured under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) is a right of peasants enshrined in Article XIII of Constitution of the Philippines. A study conducted in 2007 revealed that the government failed to implement the CARP to ensure that the peasants are assured the right to food and land. This report published in 2007 by the German Technical Assistance revealed how administrative mismanagement and lack of adequate resources account for the government’s failure to implement CARP and guarantee this right.

SUGGESTED ACTION:
Please join us in asking the government to provide immediate relief to the victims and to investigate this case of eviction and demolition.

Please be informed that the AHRC has written a separate letter to the UN Special Rapporteurs on the Right to Food and on the Right of Adequate Housing.

To support this case, please click here: SEND APPEAL LETTER