HELD:

The law authorizes the seized property to be distributed to charitable institutions and
farmers as may be deemed fit by the officers assigned. The phrase “may see fit” is
generous and dangerous condition. It is open to partiality and abuse. There is no standard,
limitation and reasonable guideline that must be observed for the distribution of the
confiscated carabao and carabeef. The officers have boundless discretion.

Department of Agrarian Reform v Delia Sutton

FACTS:
The respondents own a land devoted exclusively to cow and calf breeding. Pursuant to
the then existing agrarian reform program of the government, respondents made a
voluntary offer to sell their landholdings to the petitioner. R.A. No. 6657 or the
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law was passed. A case was decided ruling that lands
devoted to livestock and poultry raising are not included in the definition of the
agricultural land and declaring some provisions of CARL to be unconstitutional. Because
of this, the petitioner filed a request to withdraw the sale of their land to the petitioner.
The petitioner issued an administrative order, which provided that only portions of the
private agricultural lands used for the raising of livestock, poultry and swine shall be
excluded from the coverage of CARL. The order fixed retention limits. The petitioners
contend that the entire landholdings shall be exempted from CARL.