Hacienda Luisita, Inc (HLI) v.

Presidential Agrarian Reform Council

(PARC)

Facts:
The petitioners present for resolution several issues concerning the 2011
Decision were the Court ordered, among others, that the lands subject of
Hacienda Luisita Incorporated (HLI) stock distribution plan (SDP) be placed
under compulsory coverage on mandated land acquisition scheme of the
CARP and declared that the original 6,296 qualified farmworker beneficiaries
(FWBs) shall have the option to remain as stockholders of HLI.

Issues:

I. Whether or not the Court properly determined the coverage of

compulsory acquisition.

II. Whether or not the subject agricultural lands may be sold to third parties
though they have not been fully paid.

III. Whether or not the ruling that the qualified FWBs should be given an
option to remain as stockholders of HLI is valid.

Held:

I. No. ARM argues that this Court ignored certain material facts
when it limited the maximum area to be covered to 4,915.75
hectares, whereas the area that should, at the least, be covered
is 6,443 hectares, which is the agricultural land allegedly
covered by RA 6657 and previously held by Tarlac Development
Corporation (Tadeco). But what is put in issue before the Court is the
propriety of the revocation of the SDP, which only involves 4,915.75 has.
of agricultural land and not 6,443 has., then We are constrained to rule
only as regards the 4,915.75 has. of agricultural land.

II. In Our July 5, 2011 Decision, We stated that "HLI shall be paid
just compensation for the remaining agricultural land that will be
transferred to DAR for land distribution to the FWBs." We also
ruled that the date of the "taking" is November 21, 1989, when PARC
approved HLIs SDP per PARC Resolution No. 89-12-2.

We maintain that the date of "taking" is November 21, 1989, the date
when PARC approved HLIs SDP per PARC Resolution No. 89-12-2, in view
of the fact that 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, November
21, 1989. Thus, such approval is akin to a notice of coverage ordinarily
issued under compulsory acquisition.
III. HLI violated provisions under the SDP. Contrary to the assertions of
AMBALA and FARM, nowhere in the SDP, RA 6657 and DAO 10 can it be
inferred that improving the economic status of the FWBs is among the
legal obligations of HLI under the SDP or is an imperative imposition by
RA 6657 and DAO 10, a violation of which would justify discarding the
stock distribution option.

We realize that the FWBs will never have control over these
agricultural lands for as long as they remain as stockholders
of HLI. In line with Our finding that control over agricultural lands
must always be in the hands of the farmers, We reconsider our ruling
that the qualified FWBs should be given an option to remain as
stockholders of HLI, inasmuch as these qualified FWBs will never gain
control given the present proportion of shareholdings in HLI.

Moreover, bearing in mind that with the revocation of the approval of

the SDP, HLI will no longer be operating under SDP and will only be
treated as an ordinary private corporation; the FWBs who remain as
stockholders of HLI will be treated as ordinary stockholders and will
no longer be under the protective mantle of RA 6657.

In addition to the foregoing, in view of the operative fact

doctrine, all the benefits and homelots received by all the
FWBs shall be respected with no obligation to refund or
return them, since, as We have mentioned in our July 5, 2011
Decision, "the benefits x x x were received by the FWBs as
farmhands in the agricultural enterprise of HLI and other
fringe benefits were granted to them pursuant to the existing
collective bargaining agreement with Tadeco.