Professional Documents
Culture Documents
ISSUE:
1. Whether or not there was a violation of the equal protection
clause.
2. Whether or not there is a violation of due process.
3. Whether or not just compensation, under the agrarian reform
program, must be in terms of cash.
HELD:
1. No. The Association had not shown any proof that they
belong to a different class exempt from the agrarian reform
program. Under the law, classification has been defined as the
grouping of persons or things similar to each other in certain
particulars and different from each other in these same
I.
II.
THE FACTS
THE ISSUES
(1) Is the operative fact doctrine available in this
case?
(2) Is Sec. 31 of RA 6657 unconstitutional?
(3) Cant the Court order that DARs compulsory
acquisition of Hacienda Lusita cover the
full 6,443 hectares allegedly covered by RA
6657
and
previously
held
by
Tarlac
Development Corporation (Tadeco), and not
just the 4,915.75 hectares covered by HLIs
SDP?
(4) Is the date of the taking (for purposes of
determining the just compensation payable to
HLI) November 21, 1989, when PARC
approved HLIs SDP?
(5) Has the 10-year period prohibition on the
transfer of awarded lands under RA 6657
lapsed on May 10, 1999 (since Hacienda
Luisita were placed under CARP coverage
through the SDOA scheme on May 11, 1989),
and thus the qualified FWBs should now be
allowed to sell their land interests in Hacienda
doctrine
is
NO,
Sec.
31
unconstitutional.
of
RA
6657
NOT
[For
the
purpose
of
determining
just
compensation, the date of taking is November 21,
1989 (the date when PARC approved HLIs SDP) since
this is the time that the FWBs were considered to own
and possess the agricultural lands in Hacienda Luisita.
To be precise, these lands became subject of the
agrarian reform coverage through the stock distribution
scheme only upon the approval of the SDP, that is, on
November 21, 1989. Such approval is akin to a notice of
coverage
ordinarily
issued
under
compulsory
acquisition. On the contention of the minority (Justice
Sereno) that the date of the notice of coverage [after
PARCs revocation of the SDP], that is, January 2, 2006,
is determinative of the just compensation that HLI is
entitled to receive, the Court majority noted that none
of the cases cited to justify this position involved the
stock distribution scheme. Thus, said cases do not
6.
(FULL TEXT)
GABINO ALITA, JESUS JULIAN, JR., JESUS
JULIAN, SR., PEDRO RICALDE, VICENTE
RICALDE and ROLANDO SALAMAR,
petitioners, vs. THE HONORABLE COURT
OF APPEALS, ENRIQUE M. REYES, PAZ M.
REYES and FE M. REYES, respondents.
Bureau of Agrarian Legal Assistance for petitioners.
Leonardo N . Zulueta for Enrique Reyes, et al.
Adolfo S. Azcuna for private respondents.
SYLLABUS
1.AGRARIAN REFORM LAW; PRES. DECREE NO. 27; DOES
NOT COVER LANDS OBTAINED THROUGH A HOMESTEAD
PATENT. The pivotal issue is whether or not lands
obtained through homestead patent are covered by the
Agrarian Reform under P.D. 27. The question certainly
calls for a negative answer. We agree with the
petitioners in saying that P.D. 27 decreeing the
emancipation of tenants from the bondage of the soil
and transferring to them ownership of the land they till
is a sweeping social legislation, a remedial measure
promulgated pursuant to the social justice precepts of
the Constitution. However, such contention cannot be
invoked to defeat the very purpose of the enactment of
the Public Land Act or Commonwealth Act No. 141.
DECISION
PARAS, J p:
Before Us is a petition seeking the reversal of the
decision rendered by the respondent Court of Appeals
** on March 3, 1987 affirming the judgment of the court
a quo dated April 29, 1986, the dispositive portion of
the trial court's decision reading as follows;
"WHEREFORE, the decision rendered by
this Court on November 5, 1982 is hereby
reconsidered and a new judgment is
hereby rendered:
"1.Declaring that Presidential Decree No.
27 is inapplicable to lands obtained thru
the homestead law;
"2.Declaring that the four registered coowners will cultivate and operate the
farmholding themselves as owners
thereof; and
"3.Ejecting from the land the so-called
tenants, namely; Gabino Alita, Jesus
Julian, Sr., Jesus Julian, Jr., Pedro Ricalde,
Vicente Ricalde and Rolando Salamar, as
the owners would want to cultivate the
farmholding themselves.
"No pronouncement as to costs.
SO ORDERED." (p. 31, Rollo)
SO ORDERED.
Melencio-Herrera, Padilla, Sarmiento and Regalado, JJ.,
concur.
Footnotes
**Penned by Justice Jorge R. Coquia and concurred in
by Justices Josue N. Bellosillo and Venancio D.
Aldecoa, Jr. of the Fourth Division.
Facts:
Natalia is the owner of 3 contiguous parcels of land with
an area of 120.9793 hectares, 1.3205 hectares and
2.7080 hectares or a total of 125.0078 hectares, which
are covered by TCT No. 31527. Presidential
Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312 hectares of land
as townsite areas to absorb the population overspill in
the metropolis which were designated as the Lungsod
Silangan Townsite. The Natalia properties are situated
within the areas proclaimed as townsite reservation.
Since private landowners were allowed to develop their
properties into low-cost housing subdivisions with the
reservation, petitioner EDIC as developer of Natalia
applied for and was granted preliminary approval and
location clearances by the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission, which Natalia thereafter
became Antipolo Hills Subdivision. On June 15 1988, Ra
6657 went to effect. Respondent issed a Notice of
Coverage on the undeveloped portions of Antipolo Hills
Subdivision. Natalia and EDIC immediately registered its
objection to the notice of coverage and requested the
cancellation of the Notice of Coverage.
Issue:
Whether or not lands not classified for agricultural use,
as approved by the Housing and Land Use Regulatory
Board and its agencies prior to June 15, 1988 covered
by RA 6657.
Ruling:
No, Sec. 4 of RA 6657 provides that CARL shall cover,
regardless of tenurial arrangement and commodity
produced, all public and private agricultural lands. And
agricultural lands is referred to as land devoted to
agricultural activity and not classified as mineral, forst,
residential, commercial or industrial land. Thus, the
underdeveloped portions of the Antipolo Hills
Subdivision cannot be considered as agricultural lands
for this land was intended for residential use. They
ceased to be agricultural land by virtue of the
Presidential Proclamation No. 1637.
Facts:
of
agricultural
land
and
declared
as
unconstitutional certain provisions of the CARL
insofar as they included livestock farms in the
coverage of agrarian reform. In view of this,
respondents filed with petitioner DAR a formal
request to withdraw their VOS as their
landholding was devoted exclusively to cattleraising and thus exempted from the coverage of
the CARL.
On December 21, 1992, the Municipal Agrarian
Reform Officer of Aroroy, Masbate, inspected
respondents' land and found that it was devoted
solely to cattle-raising and breeding. He
recommended to the DAR Secretary that it be
exempted from the coverage of the CARL.
On April 27, 1993, respondents reiterated to
petitioner DAR the withdrawal of their VOS and
requested the return of the supporting papers
they
submitted
in
connection
therewith.
Petitioner ignored such request.
On December 27, 1993, DAR issued A.O. No. 9,
series of 1993, which provided that only portions
of private agricultural lands used for the raising
of livestock, poultry and swine as of June 15,
1988 shall be excluded from the coverage of the
CARL. In determining the area of land to be
excluded, the A.O. fixed the following retention
limits, viz.: 1:1 animal-land ratio and a ratio of
1.7815 hectares for livestock infrastructure for
every 21 heads of cattle shall likewise be
excluded from the operations of the CARL.
On February 4, 1994, respondents wrote the DAR
Secretary and advised him to consider as final
Issue:
Held:
Agrarian Law
Agrarian Reform; exclusion and exemption from
coverage. The deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional
Commission show a clear intent to exclude, inter alia, all
landsexclusively devoted to livestock, swine and
poultry-raising from the coverage of the Comprehensive
Agrarian Reform Program. Petitioners admission that,
since 2001, it leased another ranch for its own livestock
is fatal to its cause. The SC, in this case, accorded
respect to the CAs observation that the assailed MARO
reports and the Investigating Teams Report do not
actually contradict one another, finding that the 43
cows, while owned by petitioner, were actually pastured
outside the subject property.Milestone Farms, Inc. v.
Office of the President,
its order for the segregation of 400 hectares of the CMU land
was without legal authority.
We do not believe that the quasi-judicial function of
the DARAB carries with it greater authority than ordinary
courts to make an award beyond what was demanded by the
complainants/petitioners, even in an agrarian dispute. Where
the quasi-judicial body finds that the complainants/petitioners
are not entitled to the rights they are demanding, it is an
erroneous interpretation of authority for that quasi-judicial
body to order private property to be awarded to future
beneficiaries. The order segregation 400 hectares of the CMU
land was issued on a finding that the complainants are not
entitled as beneficiaries, and on an erroneous assumption
that the CMU land which is excluded or exempted under the
law is subject to the coverage of the CARP. Going beyond
what was asked by the complainants who were not
entitled to the relief prayed the complainants who
were not entitled to the relief prayed for, constitutes a
grave abuse of discretion because it implies such
capricious and whimsical exercise of judgment as is
equivalent to lack of jurisdiction.
The education of the youth and agrarian reform are
admittedly among the highest priorities in the government
socio-economic programs. In this case, neither need give way
to the other. Certainly, there must still be vast tracts of
agricultural land in Mindanao outside the CMU land
reservation which can be made available to landless
peasants, assuming the claimants here, or some of them, can
qualify as CARP beneficiaries. To our mind, the taking of the
CMU land which had been segregated for educational
purposes for distribution to yet uncertain beneficiaries is a
gross misinterpretation of the authority and jurisdiction
granted by law to the DARAB.
It is the opinion of the Court that the evidence is
sufficient to sustain a finding of grave abuse of discretion by
respondents Court of Appeals and DAR Adjudication Board.
Declaring the decision of the DARAB dated September 4,
DAR v. DECS
Petition for review on certiorari to set aside decision of CA
which denied petitioners motion for reconsideration
-Lot No.2509 and Lot No. 817-D consists of an aggregate
ISSUES:
(c)
-DAR: the lands subject are not exempt from the CARP
coverage because the same are not actually, directly and
exclusively used as school sites or campuses, as they are in fact
leased to Anglo Agricultural Corporation. Further, to be exempt
from the coverage, it is the land per se, not the income derived
that must be actually, directly and exclusively used for
educational purposes.
HELD: I. We agree with the petitioner DAR that they are not
exempted.
Section 10 of R.A. No. 6657 enumerates the types of lands
which are exempted from the coverage of CARP as well as the
purposes of their exemption:
c)
Lands actually, directly and exclusively used and found to
be necessary for national defense, school sites and campuses,
including experimental farm stations operated by public or
private schools for educational purposes, , shall be exempt
from the coverage of this Act.
xxx
xxx
xxx
In order to be exempt from the coverage: 1) the land must be
actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to be
necessary; and 2) the purpose is for school sites and campuses,
including experimental farm stations operated by public or
private schools for educational purposes.
The importance of the phrase actually, directly, and
exclusively used and found to be necessary cannot be
understated. The words of the law are clear and
unambiguous. The plain meaning rule or verba legis is
applicable. Where the words of a statute are clear, plain and free
from ambiguity, it must be given its literal meaning and applied
without attempted interpretation.
II. We disagree with the Court of Appeals finding that they were
not qualified beneficiaries.
The identification of actual and potential beneficiaries under
CARP is vested in the Secretary of Agrarian Reform pursuant to
Section 15, R.A. No. 6657:
SECTION 15.
Registration of Beneficiaries. The
DAR in coordination with the Barangay Agrarian Reform
Committee (BARC) as organized in this Act, shall register all
agricultural lessees, tenants and farmworkers who are qualified
to be beneficiaries of the CARP. These potential beneficiaries
with the assistance of the BARC and the DAR shall provide the
following data:
(a)
names and members of their immediate farm
household;
(b)
owners or administrators of the lands they
work on and the length of tenurial relationship;
(c)
location and area of the land they work;
(d)
crops planted; and
(e)
their share in the harvest or amount of rental
paid or wages received.
A copy of the registry or list of all potential CARP beneficiaries
in the barangay shall be posted in the barangay hall, school or
other public buildings in the barangay where it shall be open to
inspection by the public at all reasonable hours.
In the case at bar, the BARC certified that the farmers were
potential CARP beneficiaries of the subject properties. Further,
on November 23, 1994, the Secretary of Agrarian Reform
through the Municipal Agrarian Reform Office (MARO) issued
a Notice of Coverage placing the subject properties under