Lawyerly

GR No. 200454

2014-10-22

HOLY TRINITY REALTY v. VICTORIO DELA CRUZ

BERSAMIN, J.

It is not difficult to see why Republic Act No. 6657 requires agricultural activity in order to classify land as agricultural. The spirit of agrarian reform laws is not to distribute lands per se, but to enable the landless to own land for cultivation. This is why the basic qualification laid down for the intended beneficiary is to show the willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible.[54] This requirement conforms with the policy direction set in the 1987 Constitution to the effect that agrarian reform laws shall be founded on the right of the landless farmers and farmworkers to own, directly or collectively, the lands they till.[55] In Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform,[56] we even said that the framers of the Constitution limited agricultural lands to the "arable and suitable agricultural lands."

GR No. 196231

2014-01-28

EMILIO A. GONZALES III v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES

BRION, J.

The Sandiganbayan approved the Agreement on May 4, 2010[26] based on the parties' submitted Joint Motion for Approval.[27]

GR No. 170018

2013-09-23

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. CA

PERLAS-BERNABE, J.

In a letter dated March 2, 1998 to Director Tamin,[27] BATCO requested for the exemption of the subject portion, citing the case of Luz Farms v. DAR Secretary[28] (Luz Farms) and DAR Administrative Order No. (AO) 09, Series of 1993[29] (DAR AO 09-93).[30] On May 6, 1998, BATCO filed before the DAR Regional Office a petition[31] for the exemption of the subject portion from the coverage of the government's Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). It alleged that almost all of the entire subject lands have been devoted to cattle and livestock production since their acquisition in 1987,[32] warranting their exemption from CARP coverage in accordance with the ruling in Luz Farms and the provisions of DAR AO 09-93. It claimed that as of March 15, 1998, there were 150 heads of cattle, 50 heads of swine, and 50 heads of goats in the subject portion.[33] Meanwhile, BATCO's certificates of title over the foregoing were cancelled and new titles were issued in the name of the Republic on July 17, 1998.[34]

GR No. 173829

2013-06-10

VALBUECO v. PROVINCE OF BATAAN

PERALTA, J.

It appearing that the subject lots were placed under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and distributed to qualified beneficiaries under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, petitioner later on filed an Amended Complaint[10] dated September 10, 1998 impleading the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and eight-five (85) individual beneficiaries as additional defendants. Petitioner further alleged that: on December 2, 1994, it wrote a letter to the DAR Secretary through the OIC Regional Director of Region 3, San Fernando, Pampanga, objecting to the operation of the CARP for the reason that the subject properties are pasture lands; that instead of answering said letter, the DAR Secretary unlawfully and unscrupulously awarded the subject properties through the issuance of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 00146060, 00146062, 00146065, and 00146071 in favor of the defendant beneficiaries; and that pursuant to the decision of the Court in Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform,[11] TCT No. CLOA-4464, CLOA-4465, CLOA-4466, CLOA-4467, and CLOA-4468 issued to the beneficiaries should be cancelled for being null and void.

GR No. 182332

2011-02-23

MILESTONE FARMS v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT

NACHURA, J.

On June 10, 1988, a new agrarian reform law, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), took effect, which included the raising of livestock, poultry, and swine in its coverage. However, on December 4, 1990, this Court, sitting en banc, ruled in Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform[6] that agricultural lands devoted to livestock, poultry, and/or swine raising are excluded from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

GR No. 178895

2011-01-10

REPUBLIC v. SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRI-BUSINESS CORP.

SERENO, J.

In Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, [13] the Court declared unconstitutional the CARL provisions [14] that included lands devoted to livestock under the coverage of the CARP. The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning of the word "agricultural" showed that it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to include the livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the constitutionally mandated agrarian reform program of the government. [15] Thus, lands devoted to the raising of livestock, poultry and swine have been classified as industrial, not agricultural, and thus exempt from agrarian reform. [16]

GR No. 154094

2010-03-09

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. PABLO BERENGUER

BERSAMIN, J.

That the Constitutional Commission never intended to include lands used for raising livestock and poultry, and commercial, industrial and residential lands within the coverage of the Agrarian Reform Program of the Government is already settled. In Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform,[12] the Court pointed this out: 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.

GR NO. 169277

2007-02-09

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. VICENTE K. UY

CALLEJO, SR., J.

On December 4, 1990, this Court promulgated its decision in Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform[6] where it declared unconstitutional Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657.[7] The nullified provisions pertain to the inclusion of land used in raising livestock, poultry, and swine in the coverage of the law. The Court likewise nullified the Implementing Rules and Guidelines promulgated in accordance therewith.[8]

GR NO. 149837

2005-08-08

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. ESTATE OF PUREZA HERRERA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Meanwhile, on December 4, 1990, the Court promulgated its decision in Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform,[5] declaring null and void Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657, and, consequently, the Implementing Rules and Guidelines promulgated in accordance therewith.

GR No. 149837

2005-07-08

DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. ESTATE OF PUREZA HERRERA

CALLEJO, SR., J.

Meanwhile, on December 4, 1990, the Court promulgated its decision in Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform,[5] declaring null and void Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657, and, consequently, the Implementing Rules and Guidelines promulgated in accordance therewith.

GR No. 157013

2003-07-10

ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL v. COMELEC

AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.

God as its conscience gives it in the light to probe its meaning and discover its purpose. Personal motives and political considerations are irrelevancies that cannot influence its decisions. Blandishment is as ineffectual as intimidation, for all the awesome power of the Congress and Executive, the Court will not hesitate "to make the hammer fall heavily," where the acts of these departments, or of any official, betray the people's will as expressed in the Constitution . . .[9] The need to consider the constitutional issues raised before the Court is further buttressed by the fact that it is now more than fifteen years since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution requiring Congress to provide a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos

	GR No. 200454 2014-10-22	HOLY TRINITY REALTY v. VICTORIO DELA CRUZ BERSAMIN, J.
It is not difficult to see why Republic Act No. 6657 requires agricultural activity in order to classify land as agricultural. The spirit of agrarian reform laws is not to distribute lands per se, but to enable the landless to own land for cultivation. This is why the basic qualification laid down for the intended beneficiary is to show the willingness, aptitude and ability to cultivate and make the land as productive as possible.[54] This requirement conforms with the policy direction set in the 1987 Constitution to the effect that agrarian reform laws shall be founded on the right of the landless farmers and farmworkers to own, directly or collectively, the lands they till.[55] In Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform,[56] we even said that the framers of the Constitution limited agricultural lands to the "arable and suitable agricultural lands."
	GR No. 196231 2014-01-28	EMILIO A. GONZALES III v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT OF PHILIPPINES BRION, J.
The Sandiganbayan approved the Agreement on May 4, 2010[26] based on the parties' submitted Joint Motion for Approval.[27]
	GR No. 170018 2013-09-23	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. CA PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
In a letter dated March 2, 1998 to Director Tamin,[27] BATCO requested for the exemption of the subject portion, citing the case of Luz Farms v. DAR Secretary[28] (Luz Farms) and DAR Administrative Order No. (AO) 09, Series of 1993[29] (DAR AO 09-93).[30] On May 6, 1998, BATCO filed before the DAR Regional Office a petition[31] for the exemption of the subject portion from the coverage of the government's Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). It alleged that almost all of the entire subject lands have been devoted to cattle and livestock production since their acquisition in 1987,[32] warranting their exemption from CARP coverage in accordance with the ruling in Luz Farms and the provisions of DAR AO 09-93. It claimed that as of March 15, 1998, there were 150 heads of cattle, 50 heads of swine, and 50 heads of goats in the subject portion.[33] Meanwhile, BATCO's certificates of title over the foregoing were cancelled and new titles were issued in the name of the Republic on July 17, 1998.[34]
	GR No. 173829 2013-06-10	VALBUECO v. PROVINCE OF BATAAN PERALTA, J.
It appearing that the subject lots were placed under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) and distributed to qualified beneficiaries under Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, petitioner later on filed an Amended Complaint[10] dated September 10, 1998 impleading the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and eight-five (85) individual beneficiaries as additional defendants. Petitioner further alleged that: on December 2, 1994, it wrote a letter to the DAR Secretary through the OIC Regional Director of Region 3, San Fernando, Pampanga, objecting to the operation of the CARP for the reason that the subject properties are pasture lands; that instead of answering said letter, the DAR Secretary unlawfully and unscrupulously awarded the subject properties through the issuance of Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) No. 00146060, 00146062, 00146065, and 00146071 in favor of the defendant beneficiaries; and that pursuant to the decision of the Court in Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform,[11] TCT No. CLOA-4464, CLOA-4465, CLOA-4466, CLOA-4467, and CLOA-4468 issued to the beneficiaries should be cancelled for being null and void.
	GR No. 182332 2011-02-23	MILESTONE FARMS v. OFFICE OF PRESIDENT NACHURA, J.
On June 10, 1988, a new agrarian reform law, Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), took effect, which included the raising of livestock, poultry, and swine in its coverage. However, on December 4, 1990, this Court, sitting en banc, ruled in Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform[6] that agricultural lands devoted to livestock, poultry, and/or swine raising are excluded from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
	GR No. 178895 2011-01-10	REPUBLIC v. SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRI-BUSINESS CORP. SERENO, J.
In Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, [13] the Court declared unconstitutional the CARL provisions [14] that included lands devoted to livestock under the coverage of the CARP. The transcripts of the deliberations of the Constitutional Commission of 1986 on the meaning of the word "agricultural" showed that it was never the intention of the framers of the Constitution to include the livestock and poultry industry in the coverage of the constitutionally mandated agrarian reform program of the government. [15] Thus, lands devoted to the raising of livestock, poultry and swine have been classified as industrial, not agricultural, and thus exempt from agrarian reform. [16]
	GR No. 154094 2010-03-09	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. PABLO BERENGUER BERSAMIN, J.
That the Constitutional Commission never intended to include lands used for raising livestock and poultry, and commercial, industrial and residential lands within the coverage of the Agrarian Reform Program of the Government is already settled. In Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform,[12] the Court pointed this out: 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.
	GR NO. 169277 2007-02-09	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. VICENTE K. UY CALLEJO, SR., J.
On December 4, 1990, this Court promulgated its decision in Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform[6] where it declared unconstitutional Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657.[7] The nullified provisions pertain to the inclusion of land used in raising livestock, poultry, and swine in the coverage of the law. The Court likewise nullified the Implementing Rules and Guidelines promulgated in accordance therewith.[8]
	GR NO. 149837 2005-08-08	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. ESTATE OF PUREZA HERRERA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Meanwhile, on December 4, 1990, the Court promulgated its decision in Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform,[5] declaring null and void Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657, and, consequently, the Implementing Rules and Guidelines promulgated in accordance therewith.
	GR No. 149837 2005-07-08	DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. ESTATE OF PUREZA HERRERA CALLEJO, SR., J.
Meanwhile, on December 4, 1990, the Court promulgated its decision in Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform,[5] declaring null and void Sections 3(b), 11, 13 and 32 of R.A. No. 6657, and, consequently, the Implementing Rules and Guidelines promulgated in accordance therewith.
	GR No. 157013 2003-07-10	ATTY. ROMULO B. MACALINTAL v. COMELEC AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
God as its conscience gives it in the light to probe its meaning and discover its purpose. Personal motives and political considerations are irrelevancies that cannot influence its decisions. Blandishment is as ineffectual as intimidation, for all the awesome power of the Congress and Executive, the Court will not hesitate "to make the hammer fall heavily," where the acts of these departments, or of any official, betray the people's will as expressed in the Constitution . . .[9] The need to consider the constitutional issues raised before the Court is further buttressed by the fact that it is now more than fifteen years since the ratification of the 1987 Constitution requiring Congress to provide a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos

LUZ FARMS v. SECRETARY OF DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM