Agra finals digests

REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF

AGRARIAN REFORM, through the HON. SECRETARY NASSER C.
PANGANDAMAN Petitioner vs. SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRI-BUSINESS CORP.,
represented by SALVADOR N. LOPEZ, JR., President and General Manager
Respondent

SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRI-BUSINESS CORP., represented by SALVADOR N.

LOPEZ, JR., President and General Manager Petitioner vs. REPUBLIC OF THE
PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM,
through the HON. SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN Respondent

SERENO, J.:

FACTS: Two properties of Salvador N. Lopez Agri-Business Corp. (SNLABC) were

placed under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law CARL).
SNLABC sought exemption of their properties, arguing that due to the ruling in the
Luz Farms case, land devoted to livestock is outside the coverage of the CARL.
Upon ocular inspection, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) found that
one of the parcels of land, the Lopez land, were exempt from CARL coverage. The
other parcel, the Limot land, was not exempt. SNLABC appealed the finding with the
Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. The DAR, however, ruled that both
Lopez and Limot lands were subject to the CARL. SNLABC appealed the decision to
the Court of Appeals, which rendered the assailed decision. The CA affirmed the
findings of the MARO, that the Lopez land was exclusively used for livestock. The
MARO found that the Lopez lands were used for grazing, and that such was its
purpose even before the Luz Farms ruling. It was sufficiently established by
testimonies of the people thereabouts. Despite the presence of coconut trees in the
Lopez lands, it is still used primarily for raising livestock. There are also structures
meant for such a purpose. The Limot lands, on the other hand, were used both for
coconut and rubber plantations. The MARO found that it was only used as an
extension of grazing land, inconsistently at best. Both the DAR and SNLABC
appealed the decision.

ISSUE: Whether or not the Lopez and Limot Lands are under the coverage of CARL

HELD: Both petitions are denied

Civil Law: The DAR argues that the tax declaration of the Lopez lands classify it as
agricultural land. Also, that the SNLABC was incorporated after the implementation
of the CARL shows that there is an attempt to evade CARL coverage. It is, however,
doctrine that tax declarations themselves are not conclusive evidence as to the
classification of land. Also, it is the actual usage of the land, not its classification,
which determines its eligibility for CARL. As for the Lopez lands, it as inherited by
the owner of SNLABC as livestock land. Its use has been for raising livestock even
before the incorporation of SNLABC. Hence, the time of incorporation, and the tax
declaration are irrelevant.

As for the Limot lands, it is not enough that such are used as seasonal extensions of
grazing land. The livestock are not regularly situated in the land in question, but are
only brought there at times for grazing. It is land actually devoted to coconut and
rubber. Hence, it cannot be exempted.

Facts

Eudosia Daez applied for exemption of her 4.1685 hectare riceland in Brgy. Lawa, Meycauayan, Bulacan
being cultivated by the herein respondents. DAR Undersecretary Jose C. Medina denied the application
for exemption upon finding that the subject land is covered under LOI 474, the petitioner's total
properties having exceeded the 7-hectare limit provided by law.

The Secretary of DAR, Benjamin T. Leong, the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court all affirmed the
said Order and disregarded an Affidavit executed by the respondents stating that they are not the
tenants of the land. Their findings was that the Affidavit was merely issued under duress. In the
meantime, Emancipation Patents (EPs) were issued to the respondents.
Undaunted, Daez next filed an application for retention of the same riceland under R.A. No. 6657. DAR
Region III OIC-Director Eugenio B. Bernardo allowed her to retain the subject riceland but denied the
application of her children to retain three (3) hectares each for failure to prove actual tillage or direct
management thereof. This order was set aside by the DAR Secretary Ernesto Garilao but reinstated on
appeal by the Office of the President. The Court of Appeals again reversed this Decision and ordered the
reinstatement of the previous Decision of DAR Secretary Ernesto D. Garilao. Hence, this Appeal.

Issue

Whether or not petitioner can still file a petition for retention of the subject landholdings, despite the
fact that a previous decision denying the petition for exemption had long become final and executory

Held

It is incorrect to posit that an application for exemption and an application for retention are one and the
same thing. Being distinct remedies, finality of judgment in one does not preclude the subsequent
institution of the other. There was, thus, no procedural impediment to the application filed by Eudosia
Daez for the retention of the subject 4.1865 hectare riceland, even after her appeal for exemption of the
same land was denied in a decision that became final and executory.

The right of retention is a constitutionally guaranteed right, which is subject to qualification by the
legislature. It serves to mitigate the effects of compulsory land acquisition by balancing the rights of the
landowner and the tenant by
implementing the doctrine that social justice was not meant to perpetrate an injustice against the
landowner. A retained area as its name denotes, is land which is not supposed to anymore leave the
landowner's dominion, thus, sparing the government from the inconvenience of taking land only to
return it to the landowner afterwards, which would be a pointless process.

The issuance of EPs and CLOAs to beneficiaries does not absolutely bar the landowner from retaining
the area covered thereby. Under Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1994, an EP or CLOA may be
cancelled if the land covered is later found to be part of the landowner's retained area.