G.R. No. 169277, 09 February 2007
Posted by: Roque H. Rios Jr on 19 July 2018
FACTS:
I.
Posted by: Roque H. Rios Jr on 19 July 2018
FACTS:
Dr. Vicente K. Uy, Wellington K. Ong, Jaime Chua, and Daniel Sy, among others, are owners of a 349.9996 hectares parcel of land with Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 160988 located in Barangay Camaflora, Barrio of San Andres, Municipality of San Narciso, Province of Quezon. Sometime in 1993, some 44 farmers who occupied portions of the property filed petitions in the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), seeking to be declared as owners-beneficiaries. Accordingly, DAR issued a Notice of Coverage under the CARP over the property. For Uy's part, respondent, in behalf of the co-owners, filed an Application for Exclusion through the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO), Durante L. Ubeda. Dr. Vicente K. Uy, declared that their property had been exclusively used for livestock-raising for several years prior to June 15, 1988 and should therefore be excluded following the Luz Farms Doctrine. In addition, they requested for the first time, the exclusion of another parcel of land - 22.2639 hectares and covered by TCT No. T-11948.
On May 10, 1995, the Provincial Task Force on Exclusion led by Municipal Agrarian Reform officer (MARO) Belen T. Babalcon conducted an ocular inspection of the property and an actual headcount was carried out that resulted to the recommendation that the areas actually cultivated and occupied by the tenants be covered by CARP and only areas not affected be excluded from CARP coverage. On the other hand, PARO Durante L. Ubeda, upon conducting his own investigation, recommended the exclusion from CARP coverage a total of only 219.50 hectares of which the applicants requested for a reinvestigation. The difference between the said recommendations was based on the varying interpretation of the phrase "regardless of age" found in Section III-B of the Department of Agrarian Reform Administrative Order No.9.
On October 7, 1996, the DAR issued an Order partially granting the application for exclusion. It held that, in accordance with the Luz Farms' ruling and Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 9, private agricultural lands are considered excluded from the CARP if already devoted to livestock, poultry, and swine-raising as of June 15, 1988. According to the DAR, this means that the livestock must have been in the area at the time the law took effect. Since the Certificates of Ownership of Large Cattle were issued only on May 12 to 29, 1995, only those livestock which are seven years of age or more can be presumed to be within the area as of June 15, 1988. Consequently, following the animal to land ratio provided in A.O No. 9 for 134 cattle and 28 horses and carabaos, only 162 hectares should be exempted from CARP coverage. The DAR also ruled that additional exemptions include 12,50 hectares for infrastructure (following the ration of 21 heads for every 1.7815 hectare) and 45 hectares for retention of nine (9) landowners, for a total of 219.50 hectares.
The appellate court rendered judgment affirming the decision of the DAR Order from which respondent and his co-owners filed a motion for reconsideration of the decision, praying that the entire 349.9996 hectares of land be exempted from CARP coverage.
CA rendered an Amended Decision reversing and setting aside its previous decision, the fallo reads:
This time the CA declared that Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 9 Series of 1993, requires that the landholding be devoted to cattle-raising when R.A. No. 6657 took effect. It also pointed out that Section III-B of the A.O. provides that in determining the areas qualified for exclusion, the ratio shall be one head of livestock to one hectare of land, regardless of age. Neither the law nor the A.O. requires that the livestock during inspection should be those that already existed on the landholding on or before June 15, 1988. Consequently, the appellate court declared that in order to determine the area of exclusion, the counting of livestock should be, as stated in the Administrative Order, "regardless of age" during actual inspection. The appellate court concluded that all 434 heads of cattle present in the subject property should have been considered in determining the exempt area used for livestock raising.
DAR filed a motion for reconsideration of the appellate court's amended decision. However, the appellate court was not persuaded and resolved to deny, for lack of merit, the motion for the reconsideration of its amended decision.
The DAR, now the petitioner, filed this instant petition for review.
ISSUES:
I.
Whether or not the second motion for reconsideration filed by respondent tolled the reglementary period to appeal.
II.
Whether or not the phrase "regardless of age" in Section III-B of DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993 should be reckoned from June 15, 1988, or from the date of inspection.
HELD:
I.
Petitioner claims that, under the OP Rules of Procedure, specifically the second paragraph of Section 7, A.O. No. 18, Series of 1987, only one motion for reconsideration is allowed except in meritorious cases. Hence, the period to file the petition for review had already expired fifteen (15) days after the denial of the first motion for reconsideration. Petitioner insists that the filing of the second motion for reconsideration is of no consequence since the OP had already concluded that the case was not exceptionally meritorious to justify additional motions for reconsideration.
II.
In light of the foregoing, the instant petition is partially granted. The Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals exempting the parcel of land under TCT No. T-160988 with an area of 349.9996 hectares from coverage of Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law is affirmed. However, the Amended Decision exempting the 22.2639 hectares landholding covered by TCT No. 11948 which was added on in the application for exclusion shall not be considered and shall accordingly be reversed and set aside.
The arbitrary use of age to determine the number of head of livestock as of June 15, 1988 is based on an unwieldy theory that the business of raising livestock involves a fixed number of head of livestock. At any rate, Mr. Uy's land admittedly has always been devoted to livestock. Therefore, there should be no apprehension that the land was merely converted to circumvent the application of the CARL. Hence, in the absence of collusion or intent to circumvent the law, the number of heads of livestock should be counted as of the date of inspection.
