DAR V.

SUTION

GR. No. 162070 Oct. 16, 2005

FACTS:

Respondents inherited a land in Aroroy Masbate which has been devoted exclusively to cow and calf
breeding.

On Oct. 26, 1987, respondents made a voluntary offer to sell their landholdings to DAR,

On Dec. 4, 1990 the SC en banc ruled in the case of Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR that lands devoted to
livestock and poultry-raising are not included in the definition of agricultural land.

In view of the Luz Farms ruling, respondents filed a formal request with DAR to withdraw their VOS as
their landholding was devoted exclusively to cattle-raising and thus exempted from the coverage of
CARL.

On Dec. 27, 1993, DAR issued A.O. No. 9 series of 1993 which provided that only portions of private
agricultural lands used for raising livestock, poultry and swine shall be excluded from the coverage of
CARL. In determining the area of land to be excluded, the A.O. fixed the refention limits to 1 hectare of
land per 1 head of animal and a ratio of 1.7815 hectares for livestock infrastructure for every 21 heads
of cattle.

On Sept. 14, 1995, applying the retention of limits out-lined in the DAR A.O No. 9, the DAR secretary
partially granted the respondents application for exemption.

ISSUE:

Constitutionality of DAR A.O No. 9, series of 1993, which prescribes a maximum refention limit for
owners of lands devoted to livestock raising.

RULING: The impugned A.O. is invalid as it contravenes the Constitution. The A.O. sought to regulate
livestock farms by including them in the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum
refention limit for their ownership. However, the deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional commission
show a clear intent to exclude, inter-alia, all lands exclusively devoted to livestock, swine and poultry-
raising. The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock, swine and poultry-raising are industrial
activities and do not fall within the definition of “agriculture” or “agricultural activity”.
DAR V. DECS

GR. NO. 158228 March 23, 2004

FACTS:

Responded DECS leased the lands donated by the late Esteban Jalandoni to Anglo Agricultural
Corporation for 10 agricultural crop years, commencing from crop year 1984-1985 to crop year 1993-
1994. The contract of lease was subsequently renewed for another 10 agricultural crop years,
commencing from crop year 1995-1996 to crop year 2004-2005.

On June 10, 1993, Eugenio Alpar and several others, claiming to be permanent and regular farm workers
of the subject lands, filed a petition for CARP coverage with Municipal Agrarian Reform Office of
Escalante.

After investigation, the MARO sent a “Notice of Coverage” to respondent DECS, stating that the subject
lands are now covered by CARP.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the subject properties are exempt from the coverage of RA 6657

RULING:

Sec. 10 of RA No. 6657 clearly shows that, in order to be exempt from the coverage:

1) The land must be “actually, directly, and exclusively used and found to be necessary;” and
2) The purpose is “for school sites and campuses, including experimental farm stations operated by
public or private schools for educational purposes.”
ROXAS & COMPANY, INC. V. DAMBA – NSFW

G.R No. 149548 December 4, 2009

FACTS:

Roxas & Co. filed its application for conversion of its 3 haciendas from agricultural to non-agricultural on
the assumption that the issuance of PP 1520 which declared Nasugbu, Batangas as a tourism zone,
reclassified them to non-agricultural uses. Notwithstanding its pending application, the DAR issued
Certificates of Land Ownership Award to the farmer-beneficiaries in the 3 haciendas.

ISSUE:

Whether or not PP 1520 automatically converted the agricultural lands in Nasugbu to non-agricultural
lands

RULING:

Presidential Proclamation No. 1520 did not automatically convert the agricultural lands in the 3
municipalities, including Nasugbu, to non-agricultural lands. PP 1520 merely recognized the “potential
tourism value” of certain areas within the general area declared as tourism zones. A proclamation that
merely recognizes the potential tourism value of certain areas within the general area declared as
tourist zone clearly does not allocate, reserve, non-agricultural purposes. Neither does said
proclamation direct that otherwise CARPable lands within the zone shall already be used for purposes
other than agriculture.
ANINAO V. ASTURIAS CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES INC.

G.R No. 160420 July 28, 2005

FACTS:

Subject of this case are several parcels of land with a total area of 507 hectares, more or less, which
used to form a larger expanse consisting of 807 hectares situated in Brgys Baha and Talibayog,
Calatagan, Batangas, and formerly owned by Ceferino Ascue. Records show that on various dates in
1989 and 1990, emancipation patents covering the disputed lands were issued to 323 agrarian pursuant
to Operation Land Transfer of PD No. 27.

Sometime in 1995, the heirs of Ascue, with the approval of the RTC handling the settlement of his
estate, sold to Asturias Chemical Industries, Inc. the 807 hectares of land referred to at the outset.

Years later, Asturias wrote a letter to the DAR Region IV Office saying that its Calatagan landholding
could no longer be considered for CARP coverage, it having “already been declared as mineral land
pursuant to a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement between the government and Austrias.”

On Sept. 22, 1999, the DAR Regional Director issued a certificate of exemption over the remaining
284.9323 hectares of land now owned by Austrias. The exemption order was based on the findings of
the joint LVR-DARBARC team that “only 15 hectares, more or less, are planted with crops while the rest,
with an area of 284.9323 hectares are undeveloped, slopes of more than 181, rocky, swampy, and/or
mangrave areas and therefore not suitable for agricultural purposes.”

On Oct. 22, 1999, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Coordinating Committee issued Res. No. 02 urging the
ROD to cancel/consider null and void the land transaction between Ascue and Austrias if proven that it
was concluded in violation of existing laws. This was followed by Res. No. 3, s. of 1999, urging agrarian
reform associations to gather and submit concrete evidence on the alleged selling by agrarian reform
beneficiaries and EP holders of their rights.

ISSUE:

Propriety of the nullification of the coverage under OLT of PD No. 27 of the tracts of land in question.

RULING:

It is basic that the agrarian reform program, be it under the aegis of PD No. 27 or RA 6657, covers only
agricultural lands, meaning “lands devoted to agricultural activity as defined in RA 6657 and not
classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial or industrial land.”

Eps were issued to petitioners as agrarian reform beneficiaries pursuant to the OLT program under PD
No. 27. To come within the coverage of the OLT, there might be showing that the land is devoted to rice
or lease tenancy obtained when PD 27 took effect. If either requisite is absent, the EPs issued may be
cancelled.
The more compelling reason for the propriety of the DAR is assailed nullification action is its
determination that the property in question “had long ceased to be agricultural and converted to
mineral land even before it was placed under OLT coverage.” For lands classified as mineral are exempt
from agrarian reform coverage.