Press Release
November 6, 2014

MIRIAM: DAR SHOULD GET BINAY 'PROPERTY'

Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago, a former agrarian reform secretary, said that the alleged hacienda belonging either to vice-president Jejomar Binay or his friend Antonio Tiu indicates illegality by its size alone.

"Whether the hacienda is 145 or 350 hectares, it is in violation of the agrarian reform law, which limits land ownership to only five hectares," she said. "The legality of the existence of an hacienda which, by definition, is a huge tract of land, is deeply suspicious, and may have involved the crimes of falsification of public documents, and of illegal conversion of agricultural land," she said.

Santiago held a presscon just before she spoke at the Trinity University of Asia yesterday (Thursday, 6 November).

"The size of the hacienda alone indicates non-compliance with the intent of the agrarian reform law, which was to break up haciendas and sell them to the farmers. Normally, nobody in Rosario, Batangas where the hacienda is located, should own more than five hectares of land," Santiago said.

Tiu has claimed ownership of the hacienda, by invoking an alleged one-page memorandum of agreement - not notarized - between himself and the alleged owner Laureano Gregorio.

However, Santiago said that the DAR has no record that Gregorio is a landowner in that area. "The alleged original landowner is not a landowner in the DAR records. If so, then he could only have been a farmer. But again, the DAR records show that it has never issued any document to Gregorio as a farmer," Santiago said.

Under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the DAR has to issue a CLOA (Certificate of Land Ownership Award) or EP (Emancipation Patent) before a person can claim ownership of agricultural land.

"If Gregorio was not an owner or a farmer-beneficiary, presumably he is a poseur or a fraud. And Tiu is lying when he claims that he bought the land from this poseur. Thus, Tiu is liable for contempt for telling fairy tales," the senator said.

Santiago said that even assuming Gregorio is a landowner or a farmer-beneficiary, he could not have sold the property within ten years from registration without DAR approval.

She added that neither could Gregorio lease the property because it requires prior clearance from the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC).

The only exception for sale of agricultural land under agrarian reform is that land was converted in its classification from agricultural to commercial or residential land. But this needs DAR approval, and the DAR has no conversion application on record filed by Gregorio.

"When I was agrarian reform secretary, the most scandalous source of corruption in the DAR was the rampant illegal conversion of agricultural land to residential or commercial land. Hence, after reading about the humongous size of the land, my eyebrows rose up to my hairline," the senator said.

Santiago also pointed out that according to records DAR has approved the conversion of only 87 hectares in Rosario town.

"How can an hacienda of 145 or 350 hectares be consolidated in Rosario, when only 87 hectares have been approved for conversion? Originally, land in Rosario was agricultural. How could it have been converted for an alleged agri-tourism business? Under the agrarian reform program, this mess stinks," Santiago said.

The senator urged the Senate blue ribbon subcommittee to investigate both DAR officials and other persons for failure to place the alleged Tiu property under agrarian reform.

She also urged an investigation of DAR officials and other persons responsible for what appears to be the conversion of the classification of land from agricultural to commercial in Rosario, Batangas.

STATEMENTS:

1. The legality of the existence of an hacienda - whether 145 or 350 hectares - under R.A. No. 6657 (CARL), aka agrarian reform law is deeply suspicious, and may have involved the crimes of falsification of public documents, and of illegal conversion of agricultural land.

As a former agrarian reform secretary, I am very concerned about the size of the property. The size of the hacienda alone indicates non-compliance with the intent of the agrarian reform law.

The law in effect confiscated agricultural land from big landowners, and subdivided them among farmer-beneficiaries. The law as implemented forced a landowner to sell his land at a low price, and to retain a small piece of land not more than five hectares.

It appears that the town of Rosario, Batangas is agricultural in nature. If so, the town was covered by the agrarian reform program, and generally nobody there should own more than five hectares of land.

The DAR is required to obtain the geodetic maps of Rosario. But apparently, the area subject to the agrarian reform program is about 632 hectares. If so, the alleged Binay property covers more than half of the land placed under agrarian reform.

That is not possible, because under the CARP, the land cannot be sold within ten years from the registration of the Emancipation Patent (EP) or the Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) with the registry of deeds. Further, DAR clearance is required.

Thus, the 350-hectare farm could not be legally sold by the farmers. Neither could it have been leased by the farmers because a lease needs a clearance issued by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council.

The rule is that haciendas are outlawed. The only exception is that the agricultural land was converted, with DAR approval, into commercial land, presumably under the claim of the agri-tourism business. But the DAR central office reportedly has no file on the conversion of the property.

When I was agrarian reform secretary, the most scandalous source of corruption in the DAR was the rampant illegal conversion of agricultural land. Hence, after reading about the humongous size of the land, my eyebrows rose up to my hairline.

Worse, DAR records show that it has only approved some 87 hectares in Rosario for conversion. That area is so much less than the 145 or 350 hectares subject of the Senate probe. It indicates that the alleged hacienda is based on agricultural land without DAR approval.

This mess stinks. Antonio Tiu claims that he bought the land from Laureano Gregorio under a MOA entered into between Gregorio and Tiu's Sunchamp. But the DAR records show that it never issued any CLOA or EP to Gregorio. The DAR records also show that Gregorio is not a landowner of any kind in the area covered by CARP. Why am I not surprised?

Accordingly, I humbly urge the Senate blue ribbon subcommittee to investigate the DAR officials and other persons responsible for failure to place Rosario town under the mandate to acquire and distribute agricultural land. Further, I humbly urge the subcommittee to investigate the DAR officials and other persons responsible for what appears to be the conversion of the classification of the land from agricultural to commercial. Normally, the hacienda should now belong to small farmers who have received Certificates of Land Ownership Awards (CLOAS).

2. The Raissa Robles testimony on the Batangas property is admissible in evidence as admission against interest.

In the 2009 case of Unchuan v. Lozada, the Supreme Court ruled: "These admissions are admissible, even if they are hearsay. Thus, a man's act, conduct, and declaration, wherever made, if voluntary, are admissible against him, for the reason that it is fair to presume they correspond with the truth, and it is his fault if they do not."

In the 2013 later case of Spouses Hojas v. Philippine Amanah Bank, the Supreme Court also held: "Through estoppel, an admission or representation is rendered conclusive beyond the person making it, and cannot be denied or disproved as against the person relying on it."

Thus, to summarize, the blog by Raissa Robles stating that in a 2010 interview Binay admitted ownership of the Batangas property is an admission against interest that is admissible in court, even if it is hearsay. 3. The Instagram post by Joanna Binay is also admissible in evidence, as admission against interest.

The Instagram post is admissible in evidence against Binay as admission against interest. This is explained in a Supreme Court ruling in the same case of Unchuan v. Lozada that I previously mentioned. On this point, the Supreme Court held that "admissions against interest are those made by a party to a litigation, or by one in privity with, or identified in legal interest with, such party and are admissible whether or not the declarant is available as a witness." 4. The MOA, which is not notarized, allegedly transferred the Batangas property from Laureano Gregorio to Antonio Tiu. This MOA is also admissible in evidence, although it is not a public document.

Tiu claimed that he bought from Gregorio a 150-hectare property apparently forming part of the 350-hectare farm owned by the vice-president and reportedly valued at P1.2 B. In the 2009 case of Heirs of Gonzalez vs. Heirs of Perez, the Supreme Court pointed out that certain acts and contracts must appear in a public document.

If the document is not public - meaning to say it is not notarized - it would still be a valid agreement between the parties. Even if the contract of sale is not notarized, the Supreme Court ruled: "The failure to observe the proper form prescribed by Article 1358, does not render the acts or contracts enumerated therein invalid."

Even a verbal contract of sale of real estate produces legal effect between the parties. Under the Civil Code, the MOA is unenforceable, unless it is ratified.

News Latest News Feed