Introduction

In the Philippines, agricultural tenancy relationships are governed by a robust legal framework designed to protect the rights of both landowners and lessees, with a strong emphasis on agrarian reform principles. The ejection of agricultural lessees—commonly referred to as tenant farmers—is not a straightforward process and is strictly regulated to prevent abuse and ensure food security and social justice. This is primarily overseen by the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), which administers the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) under Republic Act No. 6657 (as amended by Republic Act No. 9700) and related laws such as Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code). Ejection can only occur on limited grounds, and the process involves administrative and quasi-judicial proceedings to safeguard tenants' security of tenure.

This article provides an exhaustive overview of the legal grounds for ejecting agricultural lessees, the step-by-step DAR process, associated fees, and practical advice on avoiding unauthorized intermediaries known as "fixers." It draws from established Philippine agrarian laws, DAR administrative orders, and jurisprudence to offer a complete reference for landowners, lessees, legal practitioners, and stakeholders.

Legal Framework Governing Agricultural Tenancy and Ejection

Agricultural tenancy in the Philippines is rooted in the principle of "land for the landless," where lessees enjoy security of tenure as long as they comply with their obligations. Key statutes include:

Republic Act No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, as amended): Establishes the CARP and mandates that agricultural lessees cannot be ejected except for just cause. It covers lands devoted to rice, corn, and other crops under leasehold tenancy.
Republic Act No. 3844 (Agricultural Land Reform Code): Defines tenancy relationships and outlines grounds for termination.
Republic Act No. 1199 (Agricultural Tenancy Act of 1954, as amended): Provides foundational rules on share tenancy and leasehold, including ejection procedures.
DAR Administrative Orders (AOs): Such as DAR AO No. 02, Series of 2009 (Rules on Agrarian Law Implementation Cases), and DAR AO No. 07, Series of 2011 (Revised Rules for DARAB Cases), which detail procedural aspects.
Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) Rules: The DARAB acts as a quasi-judicial body handling agrarian disputes, including ejection cases.

Jurisprudence from the Supreme Court, such as in Cabrera v. Court of Agrarian Relations (G.R. No. L-28058, 1970) and Estolas v. Mabalot (G.R. No. 133706, 2002), reinforces that ejection must be proven by substantial evidence and cannot be used to circumvent agrarian reform.

Tenancy relationships may be share tenancy (where produce is shared) or leasehold (fixed rental), but ejection rules apply similarly. Importantly, lands under CARP coverage require DAR clearance for any transfer or termination of tenancy.

Grounds for Ejecting Agricultural Lessees

Ejection is permissible only on specific, enumerated grounds under Section 36 of RA 3844 and Section 22 of RA 1199. These are exhaustive and must be strictly interpreted to protect tenants. Common grounds include:

Non-Payment of Lease Rentals: Failure to pay agreed rentals for at least two consecutive years (or three years in some cases under jurisprudence), provided the non-payment is willful and not due to force majeure like natural disasters.
Misuse or Diversion of the Land: Using the land for purposes other than agricultural production, such as converting it to residential or commercial use without DAR approval.
Failure to Cultivate the Land: Abandonment or neglect leading to non-productivity, but this must be proven as intentional and not temporary.
Subleasing Without Consent: The lessee sublets the land without the landowner's written approval.
Voluntary Surrender: The lessee voluntarily relinquishes the land in writing, but this must be free from coercion and verified by DAR.
Personal Cultivation by Landowner or Heirs: Allowed only if the landowner or direct heirs intend to personally cultivate the land, subject to conditions like providing the tenant with a home lot and disturbance compensation.
Expiration of Leasehold Contract: If a fixed-term contract exists, but most tenancies are indefinite under law.
Other Causes: Such as the lessee's conviction for a crime involving moral turpitude affecting the tenancy, or failure to adopt proven farm practices.

Importantly, ejection cannot be based on mere whim, retaliation, or to facilitate land conversion. If the land is under CARP, additional requirements like exemption or conversion clearance from DAR apply. Violations can lead to reinstatement of the tenant and damages.

The DAR Process for Ejecting Agricultural Lessees

The process is administrative and adjudicatory, handled primarily by DAR's regional offices and the DARAB. It emphasizes mediation and due process. Below is a step-by-step outline:

Step 1: Pre-Ejection Requirements and Informal Resolution

Notice to Lessee: The landowner must serve a written notice to the lessee specifying the ground for ejection and giving at least 30 days to rectify (e.g., pay arrears) or respond. This notice must be registered with the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO).
Mediation at Barangay Level: Under the Katarungang Pambarangay Law (PD 1508), disputes may first go to the Lupong Tagapamayapa for conciliation. If unresolved, a certificate to file action is issued.
DAR Intervention: The landowner files a complaint or petition with the MARO for preliminary investigation. The MARO conducts a fact-finding inquiry, interviews parties, and attempts mediation.

Step 2: Filing the Formal Petition

If mediation fails, the landowner files a Petition for Ejectment with the Provincial Agrarian Reform Adjudicator (PARAD) under the DARAB.
Required Documents: Proof of ownership, lease agreement, notice to lessee, evidence of ground (e.g., affidavits, photos), and payment of filing fees.
The petition must be verified and served to the lessee via personal service or substituted service.

Step 3: Adjudication Proceedings

Answer and Pre-Trial: The lessee has 15 days to file an answer. A pre-trial conference follows to simplify issues, stipulate facts, and explore settlement.
Hearing: Conducted like a court trial, with presentation of evidence, witnesses, and cross-examination. The PARAD may conduct ocular inspections of the land.
Decision: The PARAD renders a decision within 30 days after submission. It may order ejection, reinstatement, or damages.
Execution: If ejection is granted, a writ of execution is issued after the decision becomes final (15 days appeal period).

Step 4: Appeals

Appeal to the DARAB proper within 15 days.
Further appeal to the Court of Appeals via Rule 43 petition, then to the Supreme Court if necessary.
Pending appeal, execution may be stayed unless the landowner posts a bond.

The entire process can take 6 months to several years, depending on complexity and appeals. During proceedings, the lessee retains possession unless a preliminary injunction is issued.

Fees Associated with the Ejection Process

Fees in DAR proceedings are kept minimal to ensure accessibility, as agrarian cases are exempt from certain court fees under RA 6657. Key costs include:

Filing Fees: For DARAB cases, P500 to P1,000 depending on the region's schedule (e.g., P700 for petitions involving lands up to 5 hectares). No docket fees for indigent parties.
Service and Summon Fees: P100–P300 per service.
Transcript and Certification Fees: P20 per page for transcripts; P50–P100 for certifications.
Appeal Fees: P1,000 for DARAB appeals; higher for Court of Appeals (around P3,000–P5,000 including legal fees).
Bond for Stay of Execution: If required, 1–2 years' worth of lease rentals or equivalent value.
Other Costs: Ocular inspection fees (P500–P1,000), expert witness fees (variable), and lawyer's fees (not mandatory but typically P10,000–P50,000 per case).
Disturbance Compensation: If ejection is granted for personal cultivation, the landowner must pay the lessee equivalent to 5 years' harvest or provide alternative land.

Indigent litigants can avail of free legal aid from DAR's Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance (BALA) or the Public Attorney's Office (PAO). No value-added tax applies to these fees.

How to Avoid Fixers in the DAR Process

Fixers are unauthorized individuals who promise to expedite or influence DAR proceedings for a fee, often leading to scams, delays, or illegal outcomes. They exploit bureaucratic complexities but violate anti-graft laws like RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act). To safeguard against them:

Deal Directly with Official Channels: Submit documents personally or through authorized representatives at DAR offices (MARO, PARAD, DARAB). Verify personnel via ID badges and official receipts.
Use Online Portals and Hotlines: DAR's website (www.dar.gov.ph) offers e-filing options, case status tracking, and a hotline (e.g., 8928-3747) for inquiries. Report suspicious activities to the DAR Action Center.
Seek Free Legal Assistance: Consult BALA lawyers or accredited NGOs like the Philippine Agrarian Reform Council for guidance without cost.
Verify Information: Cross-check fees and requirements from official DAR issuances, not verbal promises. Insist on written acknowledgments for all submissions.
Report Fixers: Use the Presidential Complaint Center (8888) or DAR's anti-corruption unit. Penalties for fixers include imprisonment and fines.
Educate Yourself: Attend DAR seminars on agrarian laws or consult barangay officials for initial advice.
Avoid Middlemen: Refuse offers from unsolicited agents loitering near DAR offices. Legitimate processes do not require "facilitation fees."

By adhering to official procedures, parties can ensure transparency and avoid exploitation.

Conclusion

Ejecting agricultural lessees in the Philippines is a tightly regulated process under DAR oversight, balancing landowner rights with tenant protections. It requires clear grounds, due process, and minimal fees to promote equity. Stakeholders must navigate this carefully to comply with the law and avoid pitfalls like fixers. For specific cases, consulting DAR directly or legal experts is advisable to apply these principles effectively.