DAR represented by Secretary Jose Mari Ponce vs. Delia Sutton, et. al.

G.R. No. 162! "ctober 1#, 2$

Sutton and her siblings inherited a parcel of land in Masbate devoted exclusively to cow
and calf breeding. Pursuant to the agrarian reform program at the time, they made a
voluntary offer to sell their holding to DAR to avail of the incentives in !"#.
$n !"", a new law, %AR&, too' effect, which included farms used for raising livestoc'
under its coverage. $n light of the %u& 'ar(s rulin), the Suttons filed a formal re(uest
to withdraw their )*S as their land was outside the coverage of %AR&. +he DAR
ignored their re(uest.
$n !!, the DAR issued A* !-!!,, which provides that only lands used for raising
livestoc', poultry and swine are outside the coverage of %AR&. And in !!., the DAR
ordered a part of the Suttons/ landholdings to be segregated and placed under
%ompulsory Ac(uisition.
$SS012 %onstitutionality of the assailed A*
31&D2 0nconstitutional.
Administrative agencies are endowed with powers legislative in nature, i.e.,the power to
ma'e rules and regulations. +hey have been granted by %ongress with the authority to
issue rules to regulate the implementation of a law entrusted to them. Delegated rule-
ma'ing has become a practical necessity in modern governance due to the increasing
complexity and variety of public functions. 3owever, while administrative rules and
regulations have the force and effect of law, they are not immune from 4udicial review
+hey may be properly challenged before the courts to ensure that they do not violate
the %onstitution and no grave abuse of administrative discretion is committed by the
administrative body concerned.
*o be valid, ad(inistrative rules and re)ulations must be issued by authority of a
law and(ust not contravene t+e provisions o, t+e -onstitution. Nor can it be used
to enlar)e t+e po.er o, t+e ad(inistrative a)ency beyond t+e scope
intended. -onstitutional and statutory provisions control .it+ respect to .+at
rules and re)ulations (ay be pro(ul)ated by ad(inistrative a)encies and t+e
scope o, t+eir re)ulations.
+he raising of livestoc', swine and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. $t is an
industrial, not an agricultural, activity. A great portion of the investment in this enterprise
is in the form of industrial fixed assets.
&ands devoted to raising of livestoc', poultry and swine have been classified as
industrial, not agricultural, lands and thus exempt from agrarian reform. Petitioner DAR
argues that, in issuing the impugned A.*., it was see'ing to address the reports it has
received that some unscrupulous landowners have been converting their agricultural
lands to livestoc' farms to avoid their coverage by the agrarian reform. Again, we find
neither merit nor logic in this contention. *+e undesirable scenario .+ic+ petitioner
see/s to prevent .it+ t+e issuance o, t+e A.". clearly does not apply in t+is
case. Respondents/ family ac(uired their landholdings as early as !5". +hey have
long been in the business of breeding cattle in Masbate which is popularly 'nown as the
cattle-breeding capital of the Philippines. Petitioner DAR does not dispute this fact.
$ndeed, there is no evidence on record that respondents have 4ust recently engaged in
or converted to the business of breeding cattle after the enactment of the %AR& that
may lead one to suspect that respondents intended to evade its coverage. $t must be
stressed that what the %AR& prohibits is the conversion o, a)ricultural lands ,or non0
Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr. 1 | P a g e
a)ricultural purposes after the effectivity of the %AR&. *+ere +as been no c+an)e
o, business interest in t+e case o, respondents.
Kitem Duque Kadatuan Jr. 2 | P a g e