IVY B.

LUBIANO, LAW 2 - Section A Row 2, Column 5 2013 AGRARIAN LAW CASE DIGESTS

July 6,

CASE NO. 1 HACIENDA LUISITA INC. V. DAR, ET. AL., G.R. NO. 171101, Nov. 22, 2011 A. CASE FACTS

This case is for the resolution of the motion for reconsideration filed by Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI), and five (5) motions for reconsideration filed by respondents (DAR and representatives of farmworker-beneficiaries(FWB) organizations), on the stock distribution made by HLI to the FWBs, particularly its application of Section 31 of R.A. 6657, on Corporate Landowners; as well as the conversion of a portion of lands covered by the CARP, to industrial and other purposes. B. 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) ISSUES Whether or not the operative fact doctrine is applicable to this case, particularly to Section 31 of R.A. 6657 (The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law). Whether or not Section 31 of R.A. 6657 is constitutional. Whether or not the extent of these lands subject to CARP are included in the coverage of compulsory acquisition, and up to what extent. Whether or not HLI is entitled to just compensation for its lands subject to CARP, and how much. Whether or not the sale to third parties of a portion of said lands is valid. Whether or not HLI violated the provisions of R.A. 6657. Who should be given control over the agricultural lands in question.

IVY B. LUBIANO, LAW 2 - Section A Row 2, Column 5 2013 AGRARIAN LAW CASE DIGESTS

July 6,

C. 1)

RULINGS The court ruled that the operative fact doctrine is applicable to this case because it is beneficial to the farmworker-beneficiaries concerned to retain the benefits and homelots they received under the stock distribution plan, while giving them the option to choose to remain as HLI stockholders or not. The court ruled that it is not compelled to rule on the constitutionality of Section 31 of R.A. 6657, and it also ruled in the negative when it determined that there was no grave violation of the constitution by the said statute, as alleged by petitioners. The court also ruled that as to the extent of coverage of CARP to the lands of HLI, the maximum area covered of 4,915.75 hectares instead of 6,443 hectares was valid because the difference represents roads, irrigation canals and other portions of the land owned in common by the farmworker-beneficiaries, which could not be awarded to each individual FWB. The court ruled that HLI is entitled to just compensation from DAR for the lands in question, without being required to pay rent to the FWBs for the use of the land. The court ruled that in compliance to the 10-year prohibition within which the lands may not be alienated by the beneficiaries, sale to third persons is not valid, and that the lands may only be validly transferred by the FWBs to their heirs, fellow-beneficiaries, or the government. The court also ruled that HLI violated the provisions of R.A. 6657 on the stock distribution program when it included other beneficiaries who came in after 1989 to be part of those 6,296 originally qualified in 1989 to receive the shares of stock, because it resulted to the watering down of the value of the shares, thereby defeating the purpose of the law which is to uplift the economic condition of the farmers. Hence, the court revoked the approval of the stock distribution program. Control over the agricultural lands, according to the court, should be with the farmers, and in this regard, the DAR shall verify the identities of the original FWBs so that the control will be vested in the rightful beneficiaries or their legitimate heirs.

2)

3)

4) 5)

6)

7)

IVY B. LUBIANO, LAW 2 - Section A Row 2, Column 5 2013 AGRARIAN LAW CASE DIGESTS

July 6,

CASE NO. 2 PLOPENIOs V. DAR and LBP, G.R. NO. 161090 & 161092, July 4, 2012 A. CASE FACTS

Petitioner-spouses Romeo and Rosielinda Plopenio owned 11.8643 hectares of coconut land in Caramoan, Camarines Sur, while petitioner Eduardo Plopenio also owns 22.8349 hectares of coconut land in the same town. In DARAB case no. V-LV-040-CS-00, the land of their brother Gavino, which was also located in Caramoan, was valued at P51,125.60 per hectare. On this basis, the petitioners offered their entire landholdings to DAR for acquisition and distribution pursuant to R.A. 6657. But the Land Bank of the Philippines sent a Notice of Valuation and Adjudication valuing the land of petitioner-spouses Romeo and Rosielinda at P23,485.00 per hectare and that of petitioner Eduardo at P22,856.62 per hectare. Dissatisfied with the offer, the petitioners rejected the Notice of Valuation and referred the matter to the PARAD, which affirmed the valuation of the LBP. Further, the PARAD rejected the motion for reconsideration which the petitioners have filed. The petitioners then filed separate petitions with the Special Agrarian Court RTC on January 6, 2003, or 16 days from the receipt of Notice of Valuation, which is beyond the 15 days allowed by law to file an appeal. B. 1) 2) ISSUES Whether or not the separate petitions filed by petitioners with the Special Agrarian Court RTC were made in the proper venue. Whether or not the petitions submitted on the 16th day from the receipt of the Notice of Valuation and Adjudication were with merit.

IVY B. LUBIANO, LAW 2 - Section A Row 2, Column 5 2013 AGRARIAN LAW CASE DIGESTS

July 6,

C. 1)

RULINGS The court ruled that under Section 20 of R.A. 6657, on Appeals, the proper venue where an appeal on the notices and decisions of the DAR should be with the Court of Appeals, regardless of whether questions of fact or questions of law were raised. The court also ruled that under Section 12 of the 1994 DARAB rules, petitioners already let 14 days lapse before they filed their motion for reconsideration with the PARAD, therefore having available only 1 day more to file petition with the Special Agrarian Court RTC, for the same action. Hence, regarding the petitioners motions that were filed on January 6, 2003, (which was 16 days from December 21, 2002--the date of their receipt of the Notice of Valuation and Adjudication), the court ruled that the petitions were filed out of time. In view of this, the Court denied the petitions for review and approved the decision of the SAC RTC in Civil Case Nos. 2003-007 and 2003-004 on the values given by the LBP in their Notice of Valuation and Adjudication.

2)