This case has been cited 1 times or more.
|
2007-10-19 |
CHICO-NAZARIO, J. |
||||
| In cases where the fishponds or prawn farms have not been subjected to the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, the consent of the farm workers shall no longer be necessary; however, the provision of Section 32-A hereof on incentives shall apply. (Emphasis supplied.) From the afore-quoted provision, it is crystal clear that fishponds are excluded/exempted from the coverage of the CARL. This Court affirmed such exemption/exclusion in Atlas Fertilizer Corp. v. Secretary, Department of Agrarian Reform.[21] In view of the foregoing, it is beyond doubt that the subject fishpond is indeed now exempted/excluded from the coverage of the CARL. Thus, the contention of the petitioner that the subject fishpond cannot be exempted/excluded from CARL coverage because respondents failed to prove that the fishpond has not yet been distributed and a CLOA has been issued to the beneficiary of the agrarian reform, as required by Section 10 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended by Republic Act No. 7881, is now unavailing. Moreover, this Court notes that the DARAB already made a finding in its Decision that no CLOA had been issued to the petitioner as a beneficiary of the fishpond. Neither was the fishpond voluntarily offered for sale to the petitioner. Section 54 of Republic Act No. 6657, as amended, expressly states that the findings of fact of the DARAB shall be final and conclusive if based on substantial evidence. Since the issue as to whether a CLOA has been issued to the petitioner is a question of fact, and being convinced that the findings of the DARAB on such issue was not based on mere surmises or conjectures, this Court upholds the same. Similarly, in this case, the character of the land was never put in issue as it has long been settled that the 10-hectare lot was indeed used actually, directly and exclusively as fishponds. Hence, it is not necessary for the respondents to file an application for the exemption of the subject fishpond from the coverage of the CARL, contrary to the claim of the petitioner. | |||||