Agrarian Law and Social Legislation

1. The administrative action initially taken by landowner Quisumbing to evade

coverage under the agrarian reform program is the writ of prohibition with
preliminary injunction which ordered the DAR, PARO, MARO, LBP and their
authorized representatives to desist from pursuing any activity or activities
concerning the subject land until further orders issued by DARAB.
It is a writ or order directing a subordinate or an individual to stop
doing something the law prohibits, is required to perform, or is restrained
from performing, a particular act. In this case the DARAB is ordering the DAR,
PARO, MARO, LBP and others to stop their activities related to such subject
until further order.
2. The Sumilao Case reached the SC when the former owner of the land asked
the SC to nullify the Dec. 18, 2007 order of the Office if the President
cancelling the conversion of the property from agricultural to agro-industrial
use.
NQSRMDC asked the Court to issue a restraining order against the
Palace directive, they also stressed that the SC had also earlier ruled in favor
of the propertys conversion from agricultural to agro-industrial.
They also alleged that said the Palace order for the cancellation of the
decision issued by Ermita was a case of grave abuse of discretion amounting
to lack or excess of jurisdiction and that proceedings being undertaken by
the Office of the President on the matter unduly prejudiced them.
3. The Supreme Courts rulings in Fortich vs Corona, GR No 131457, on
24 April 1998:
The assailed Win-Win Resolution which substantially modified the
Decision of March 29, 1996 after it has attained finality, is utterly void. Such
void resolution, as aptly stressed by Justice Thomas A. Street in a 1918 case,
is a lawless thing, which can be treated as an outlaw and slain at sight, or
ignored wherever and whenever it exhibits its head.
Wherefore, the present petition is hereby GRANTED. The challenged
Resolution dated November 7, 1997, issued by the Office of the President in
OP Case No. 96-C-6424, is hereby NULLIFIED and SET ASIDE. The Motion For
Leave To Intervene filed by alleged farmer-beneficiaries is hereby DENIED.
17 November 1998:

The Court express their grave concern with the manner some sectors
of society have been trying to influence this Court into resolving this case on
the basis of considerations other than the applicable law, rules and settled
jurisprudence and the evidence on record. We wish to emphasize that
withstanding the previous adverse comments by some columnists in the print
media, the assailed Decision was arrived at in the pursuit of justice and the
rule of law.
Finally, for those who refuse to understand, no explanation is possible,
but for those who understand, no explanation is necessary.
Wherefore, the separate motions for reconsideration of the April 24,
1998 Decision of this Court, filed by the respondents and the applicants for
intervention, are hereby DENIED with FINALITY.
19 August 1999:
The Win-Win Resolution itself states that the qualified beneficiaries
have yet to be carefully and meticulously determined by the Department of
Agrarian Reform.[11] Absent any definitive finding of the Department of
Agrarian Reform, intervenors cannot as yet be deemed vested with sufficient
interest in the controversy as to be qualified to intervene in this
case. Likewise, the issuance of the CLOA's to them does not grant them the
requisite standing in view of the nullity of the Win-Win Resolution. No legal
rights can emanate from a resolution that is null and void.
Wherefore, based on the foregoing, the following incidents, namely:
intervenors Motion For Reconsideration With Motion To Refer The Matter To
The Court En Banc, dated December 3, 1998; respondents Motion For
Reconsideration Of The Resolution Dated November 17, 1998 And For Referral
Of The Case To This Honorable Court En Banc (With Urgent Prayer For
Issuance Of A Restraining Order), dated December 2, 1998; and intervenors
Urgent Omnibus Motion For The Supreme Court Sitting En Banc To Annul The
Second Divisions Resolution Dated 27 January 1999 And Immediately Resolve
The 28 May 1998 Motion For Reconsideration Filed By The Intervenors, dated
March 2, 1999; are all DENIED with FINALITY. No further motion, pleading, or
paper will be entertained in this case.
4. The 144 hectares of property, said under the MOA, between the Sumilao
Farmers and San Miguel Corp., 55 hectares within the subject area was given
to the Sumilao farmers by deed of donation while the remaining 94 hectares
will be distributed to the farmers through a Voluntary Offer To Sell under the
CARP. The Sumilao farmers will receive the land through a newly-organized
cooperative Panaghiusa sa mga Mag-uumang Nakigbisog alang sa Yuta sa

Sumilao (PANAW-SUMILAO) which brings together members of MAPALAD

and SALFA.