Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Of
The
Agrarian
Facts:
This is a petition for prohibition with prayer
for restraining order and/or preliminary and
permanent injunction against the Honorable
Secretary of the Department of Agrarian
Reform.
Held:
Supreme
Court:
PREMISES
CONSIDERED, the instant petition is hereby
GRANTED. Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of
R.A. No. 6657 insofar as the inclusion of the
raising of livestock, poultry and swine in its
coverage as well as the Implementing Rules
and Guidelines promulgated in accordance
therewith, are hereby DECLARED null and
void for being unconstitutional and the writ of
preliminary injunction issued is hereby MADE
permanent.
Ratio Decidendi:
The transcripts of the
deliberations
of
the
Constitutional
Commission of 1986 on the meaning of the
word "agricultural," clearly show that it was
never the intention of the framers of the
Constitution to include livestock and poultry
industry
in
the
coverage
of
the
constitutionally-mandated agrarian reform
program of the Government.
Separate Opinion concurring (Justice
Sarmiento):
There is merit in the contention of
the petitioner that substantial distinctions
exist between land directed purely to
cultivation and harvesting of fruits or crops
and land exclusively used for livestock,
poultry and swine raising, that make real
differences, to wit:
No land is tilled and no crop is
harvested in livestock and poultry
farming. There are no tenants nor
landlords, only employers and
employees. Livestock and poultry
do not sprout from land nor are
they "fruits of the land." Land is not
even a primary resource in this
industry.
The
land
input
is
inconsequential
that
all
the
commercial hog and poultry farms
combined occupy less than one
percent (1%) (0.4% for piggery,
0.2% for poultry) of the 5.45 million
hectares
of
land
supposedly
covered by the CARP. And most
farms utilize only 2 to 5 hectares of
land. In every respect livestock and
poultry production is an industrial
activity.
Its
use
of
an
inconsequential portion of land is a
mere incident of its operation, as in
any other undertaking, business or
otherwise. The fallacy of defining
livestock and poultry production as
an
agricultural
enterprise
is
nowhere more evident when one
considers that at least 95% of total
investment in these farms is in the
SocLeg | 2
Crammers Case Digests: SOCIAL LEGISLATION & AGRARIAN REFORM
form of fixed assets which are
industrial in nature. These include
(1) animal housing structures and
facilities complete with drainage,
waterers, blowers, misters and in
some cases even piped-in music;
(2)
feedmills
complete
with
grinders,
mixers,
conveyors,
exhausts, generators, etc.; (3)
extensive warehousing facilities for
feeds and other supplies; (4) antipollution equipment such as biogas and digester plants augmented
by lagoons and concrete ponds; (5)
deepwells, elevated water tanks,
pumphouses
and
accessory
facilities; (6) modern equipment
such
as
sprayers,
pregnancy
testers,
etc.;
(7)
laboratory
facilities complete with expensive
tools and equipment; and a myriad
other
such
technologically
advanced appurtances. How then
can livestock and poultry farmlands
be arable when such are almost
totally
occupied
by
these
structures? The fallacy of equating
the status of livestock and poultry
farmworkers
with
that
of
agricultural tenants surfaces when
one considers contribution to
output. Labor cost of livestock and
poultry farms is no more than 4%
of total operating cost. The 98%
balance represents inputs not
obtained from the land nor
provided by the farmworkers
inputs
such
as
feeds
and
biochemicals (80% of the total
cost), power cost, cost of money
and several others. Moreover,
livestock and poultry farmworkers
are covered by minimum wage law
rather than by tenancy law. They
are entitled to social security
benefits where tenant-farmers are
not. They are paid fixed wages
rather than crop shares. And as in
any other industry, they receive
additional
benefits
such
as
allowances, bonuses, and other
incentives such as free housing
privileges,
light
and
water.
Equating livestock and poultry
farming with other agricultural
activities is also fallacious in the
sense that like the manufacturing
sector, it is a market for, rather
than a source of agricultural
output. At least 60% of the entire
domestic
supply
of
corn
is
SocLeg | 3
Crammers Case Digests: SOCIAL LEGISLATION & AGRARIAN REFORM
Issue/s:
1. Whether the assailed statutes are
valid exercises of police power.
SocLeg | 4
Crammers Case Digests: SOCIAL LEGISLATION & AGRARIAN REFORM
2. Whether the content and manner of
just compensation provided for the
CARP is violative of the Constitution.
3. Whether the CARP and EO 228
contravene a well accepted principle
of eminent domain by divesting the
land owner of his property even
before actual payment to him in full
of just compensation
Held:
1. Yes. The subject and purpose of agrarian
reform have been laid down by the
Constitution itself, which satisfies the
first requirement of the lawful subject.
However, objection is raised to the
manner fixing the just compensation,
which
it
is
claimed
is
judicial
prerogatives. However, there is no
arbitrariness in the provision as the
determination of just compensation by
DAR is only preliminary unless accepted
by all parties concerned. Otherwise, the
courts will still have the right to review
with finality the said determination.
2. No. Although the traditional medium for
payment of just compensation is money
and no other, what is being dealt with
here is not the traditional exercise of the
power and eminent domain. This is a
revolutionary kind of expropriation, which
involves not mere millions of pesos. The
initially intended amount of P50B may
not be enough, and is in fact not even
fully available at the time. The
invalidation of the said section resulted in
the nullification of the entire program.
3. No. EO 228 categorically stated that all
qualified farmer-beneficiaries were
deemed full owners of the land they
acquired under PP 27, after proof of full
payment of just compensation. The CARP
Law, for its part, conditions the transfer
of possession and ownership of the land
to the government on the receipt by the
landowner of the corresponding payment
or the deposit of DAR of the
compensation in cash or LBP bonds with
an accessible bank. Until then, title also
remains with the landowner.
SocLeg | 5
Crammers Case Digests: SOCIAL LEGISLATION & AGRARIAN REFORM
Program by virtue of Memorandum
Circular No. 11, Series of 1978, which
implemented Letter of Instructions No.
474, which placed all tenanted
ricelands with areas of 7 hectares or
less belonging to landowners who own
agricultural lands of more than 7
hectares in aggregate areas under the
Land
Transfer
Program
of
the
government.
Issue/s:
1.
2.
of
Agrarian
Reform,
17 August 1993]
Facts:
On
April
18,
1979,
Presidential
Proclamation No. 1637 set aside 20,312
hectares of land located in Antipolo, San
Mateo and Montalban as townsite areas
to absorb the population overspill within
the areas proclaimed as townsite
reservation.
SocLeg | 6
Crammers Case Digests: SOCIAL LEGISLATION & AGRARIAN REFORM
housing
subdivisions
reservation.
within
the
versus
The Honorable Court Of Appeals,
Credito Asiatic, Inc., et al, respondents.
[Consolidated Cases G.R. No. 142359 & G.R.
No. 142980. May 25, 2004]
petitioners,
Lakeview
Development
Corporation
(LDC) bought a parcel of land, issued it in
the name of its successor, the Credito
Asiatic, Inc. (CAI) and subsequently
subdivided it into two parcels.
LDC/CAI undertook to develop its 75hectare property into a residential and
industrial estate
CAI embarked on the development of the
housing project into 3 phases and
secured a locational clearance for the
project from the Human Settlements
Regulatory Commission (HSRC)
CAI decided to continue with the
development of its Hakone Housing
Project but the project was stymied by a
Complaint for Damages with Prayer for
Temporary
Restraining
Order
and
Preliminary Injunction
The plaintiffs alleged that they had
reached an agreements with the
respondent that they would remain in
peaceful possession of their farmholdings
but notwithstanding such, the defendant
ordered the bulldozing of the property
In answer to the complaint, CAI denied
that it allowed the plaintiffs to possess
and cultivate the landholding with fixed
rentals
Meanwhile, CAI and 6 of the 14 plaintiffs
entered into a compromise agreement
which eventually led to all of the
other plaintiffs
entering
into
an
agreement with CAI
CAI was stymied anew when a Petition for
Compulsory Coverage under Rep. Act No.
6657,
otherwise
known
as
the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law
(CARL) was filed before the DAR by
seventeen (17) individuals who alleged
that they are farmers who have occupied
a parcel of public agricultural land
adjacent to Pasong Bayabas River
According to the petitioners, the said
illegal bulldozing activities would convert
SocLeg | 7
Crammers Case Digests: SOCIAL LEGISLATION & AGRARIAN REFORM
the land from agricultural to nonagricultural land, thereby depriving the
members of the PBFAI of their tenancy
rights over the property. For this reason,
the petitioners prayed that a temporary
restraining order be issued ex-parte to
stop the bulldozing of the property, and
that a preliminary injunction or a status
quo order be later issued to enjoin the
same.
Issue/s:
1. Whether the property subject of the
suit is covered by RA No. 6657, the
Agrarian Reform Law (CARL)
2. Whether the DARAB had original and
appellate
jurisdiction
over the
complaint of the petitioner PBFAI
against the private respondent;
3. Whether the petitioners-members of
the PBFAI have a cause of action
against the private respondent for
possession and cultivation of the
property in suit;
4. Whether the dismissal by the RTC of
the complaint in Civil Case No. BCV87-13 is a bar to the complaint of the
petitioners-members of the PBFAI;
and
5. Whether
the
appellate
court
committed a reversible error in
dismissing the petition for review
in CA-G.R. SP No. 49363.
Held:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
SocLeg | 8
Crammers Case Digests: SOCIAL LEGISLATION & AGRARIAN REFORM
into a residential subdivision; that as
prospective CARP beneficiaries of the
land in question, being former laborers,
actual
occupants
and
permanent
residents of Barangay Pahanocoy, their
rights will be prejudiced by the illegal
conversion of the land into a residential
subdivision.
SocLeg | 9
Crammers Case Digests: SOCIAL LEGISLATION & AGRARIAN REFORM
Held: Yes. The subject landholding was in
fact reclassified as residential before June 15,
1988, the date of effectivity of the CARL. The
Exemption Order of the DAR secretary
pointed out that the parcel had indeed been
reclassified as residential under Resolution
No. 5153-A of the City Council of Bacolod.
This reclassification was later affirmed by the
HSRC. The courts generally accord great
respect, if not finality, to factual findings of
administrative agencies because of their
special knowledge and expertise over
matters falling under their jurisdiction. It
must be stressed at this point that with the
DAR lies the power to determine whether Lot
835-B is non-agricultural and, hence, exempt
from the coverage of the CARL.
There is no law or jurisprudence that
holds that the land classification embodied in
the tax declarations are conclusive and final
nor would proscribe any further inquiry.
Furthermore, the tax declarations are clearly
not the sole basis of the classification of a
land. In fact, DAR Administrative Order No. 6
lists other documents, aside from tax
declarations, that must be submitted when
applying for exemption from CARP. In Halili v.
Court of Appeals, we sustained the trial court
when it ruled that the classification made by
the Land Regulatory Board of the land in
question outweighed the classification stated
in the tax declaration.
Celso
Pagtalunan
&
Paulina
P.
Pagtalunan, petitioners,
versus
Hon. Roque A. Tamayo, Presiding Judge of
the CFI of Bulacan, Branch VI, REPUBLIC OF
THE PHILIPPINES and Turandot, Traviata,
Marcelita, Marlene Pacita, Matthew And
Rosary,
All
Surnamed
Aldaba,
respondents.
[G.R. No. L-54281 March 19, 1990]
Facts:
SocLeg | 10
Crammers Case Digests: SOCIAL LEGISLATION & AGRARIAN REFORM
supplemental motion, holding that to
admit
petitioners'
complaint
in
intervention would be tantamount to
allowing a person to sue the State
without its consent since the claim
for disturbance compensation is a
claim against the State.
Department
of
Agrarian
Reform
represented by Sec. Jose Mari Ponce,
petitioner
versus
SocLeg | 11
Crammers Case Digests: SOCIAL LEGISLATION & AGRARIAN REFORM
Delia Sutton, et al., respondent
[G.R. No. 162070 19 October 2005]
Facts: