Inciso, Bliz Desery G.

II-A

HACIENDA LUISITA, INC. vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council

(PARC), et al., G.R. No. 171101, July 5, 2011

Facts:
The Tarlac Development Corporation (Tadeco) acquired Hacienda Luisita
and the Azucarera de Tarlac in 1958 from the Spanish owner of the Tabbacalera.
The Central Bank and the GSIS were the once who financed the said acquisition.
The condition which was agreed upon is that the lots comprising the Hacienda be
subdivided by the applicant-corporation and sold at cost to the tenants, should there
be any, and whenever conditions should exist warranting such action under the
provisions of the Land Tenure Act. This condition was not followed by the
administration of the said hacienda.

The Government filed at RTC Manila, filed a case against TADECO for it to
surrender to DAR, so the land will be distributed to farmers in 1980. The said court
ruled in opposition to Tadeco which was apealled by TADECO to CA and was
latter on dismissed.

In 1988, TADECO bought shares of HLI in exchange of the Hacienda Land.

The total shares were 400,000,000 with par value of P400, 000, 000.00, where
P150, 000, 000.00 00 shares were for the farmers and P250, 000,000.00 were for
the stockholders, which gives rise to a Stock Distribution Option Agreement
(SDOA) and was approved by the DAR.

Conversion of 500 hectares of HLI agricultural land to industrial land in

1995. Another 500 hectares of land was transferred to Centeniary Holdings, and
latter on transferred it to Luisita Industrial Park, Corp. (LIPCO). After the transfer
of land it was also expropriated for use of SCTEX of about 80.5I hectares of it.

Organization of farmers, who called themselves as by Alyansa ng mga

Manggagawang Bukid ng Hacienda Luisita (AMBALA) filed case at DAR for
either renegotiation of SDOA or its revocation on the bases that they not given the
fair share that they desrve and their lives did not improve. The DAR recommended
to PARC that the provision order approving the SDO be revoked.
PARC revoked the SDO and ordered the compulsory acquisition of the
hacienda for the distribution to farmers in 2005. Later on, the Supreme Court
issued Temporary Restraining Oder upon petition of the HLI in 2006.

Issue:
1. Whether or not the PARC ha the jurisdiction over the case.
2. Whether or not the landholdings are subject to compulsory arbitration after
its approval has been implemented would impair the contractual obligations
under the SDOA?
Ruling:
1. PARC has the jurisdiction over the case. PARC has the power to revoke it
by the Doctrine of Necessary Implication, otherwise, PARC would be a
toothless agency. Under Sec. 31 of R.A. No.6657, as implemented DAO 10,
the authority to approve the plan for stock distribution of the corporate
landowner belongs to PARC. Likewise, PARC also has the power to revoke
the SDP which it previously approved.

2. When SDOA was executed, there was already a law authorizing interference
when appropriate. Such law is deemed read in the contract. In that, there is
no impingement of the impairment clause.
The non-impairment clause under Section 10, Article II of the
Constitution is limited in the application to laws about to be enacted that
would in any way derogate from existing acts or contracts by enlarging,
abridging, or in any manner changing the intention of the parties thereto.