Department of Agrarian Reform v. Estate of Herrera
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Pureza Herrera owned a 113.7941-hectare landholding. Upon the effectivity of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657 (Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law - CARL), Section 11 thereof subjected private agricultural farms devoted to commercial livestock, poultry, and swine raising to compulsory acquisition after ten years. Herrera filed an application for deferment, claiming her property was used for livestock and coffee harvesting. Subsequently, the Supreme Court in Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform declared Sections 3(b), 11, 13, and 32 of R.A. No. 6657, and its implementing rules, null and void. The DAR issued Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993, providing for the exclusion of lands used for livestock, poultry, and swine raising from CARP coverage as of June 15, 1988. Despite these developments and Herrera's pending application, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) proceeded with notices of coverage and ocular inspections. R.A. No. 7881, approved on February 20, 1995, amended R.A. No. 6657, explicitly excluding private agricultural lands devoted to livestock, poultry, and swine-raising from CARP coverage. Herrera filed an Application for Exclusion/Exemption on August 7, 1995, submitting various documents, but failed to provide a business permit. Despite the pendency of her application, the DAR issued a Certificate of Land Ownership Award (CLOA) on January 18, 1996, in favor of 72 farmer-beneficiaries. Pureza Herrera died, and her estate was substituted as applicant. Her son, Carlos Herrera, filed an Opposition, asserting that the CARP coverage was premature and that the property was exempt based on the Luz Farms ruling and evidence of livestock raising since 1958. The MARO countered that the property was classified as agricultural, Herrera failed to present a business permit, and recent acquisitions of livestock were made by Carlos Herrera. An ocular inspection report noted the presence of livestock and infrastructure. A Legal Officer recommended excluding 100 hectares for livestock raising. However, the Agrarian Reform Regional Officer (ARRO) denied the application for exclusion, ruling that the CARP coverage was not premature, that no application for exclusion/deferment was received by the MARO, and that Herrera failed to adduce substantial evidence of commercial livestock raising, particularly a business permit. The DAR Secretary affirmed the ARRO's order. Procedural History: The Estate of Pureza Herrera appealed the DAR Secretary's order to the Court of Appeals (CA). The CA reversed the orders of the DAR Secretary, exempting the Herrera Livestock Farm from CARP coverage and ordering the recall and cancellation of the CLOA. The DAR Secretary's motion for reconsideration was denied. Hence, the present petition for review before the Supreme Court. The Petition: The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), represented by Secretary Hernani A. Braganza, assails the CA decision, arguing that the CARP coverage was not premature or a pre-judgment, and that the mere presence of livestock is insufficient to establish that livestock raising is conducted by the landowner.
Issue(s)
Whether the coverage of the Herrera Estate under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) was premature and constituted a pre-judgment, given the pendency of the application for exemption. Whether the mere presence of livestock in the area, supported by evidence and historical context, is sufficient to establish that livestock raising is conducted by the landowner for purposes of exemption from CARP coverage.
Ruling
The petition is denied for lack of merit. The Decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of prematurity and pre-judgment: The Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals' ruling that the DAR should have awaited the outcome of Herrera's petition for deferment and application for exemption before proceeding with the placement of the property under CARP coverage. The Court found that the DAR's actions, including the issuance of the CLOA, rendered moot and academic the resolution of the pending applications. The Court noted that even the MARO's counsel acknowledged that the application for exemption posed a prejudicial question to the propriety and legality of the CARP coverage. The DAR's parallel investigations and the DAR Secretary's approval of the ARRO's order, despite the pending application, constituted a prejudgment of the issues. The Court emphasized that while Administrative Order No. 2, Series of 1989, allows MAROs to take steps for compulsory acquisition, it does not grant the DAR license to ignore a landowner's application for deferment and proceed with coverage without violating due process. The Court also pointed out that the DARAB had dismissed summary proceedings for just compensation precisely to await the outcome of the exemption proceedings, recognizing that proceeding otherwise would be a prejudgment. On the sufficiency of evidence for livestock raising: The Supreme Court agreed with the Court of Appeals that the respondent adduced substantial evidence that the subject property had been devoted to livestock raising as early as 1958 and up to the filing of the petition. This evidence included sworn statements from witnesses and the Site Inspection Report from the Department of Agriculture, which confirmed the existence of livestock and recommended the inclusion of the farm in DA programs. The Court also gave persuasive probative weight to the report of the Legal Officer of the Provincial Agrarian Reform Office (PARO), which analyzed various inspection reports and testimonial evidence, concluding that 100 hectares could be excluded for livestock raising. The Court found that the failure to submit business permits and certificates of ownership, as required by Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993, did not negate the credibility of the evidence presented. The Court reasoned that the landowner filed her initial application for deferment before the issuance of Administrative Order No. 9, Series of 1993, and that the certificates of ownership are merely evidence of ownership, not the sole determinant of whether the land is devoted to livestock. The Court also noted that the MARO's witness, Marcelino Edoloverio, corroborated the evidence of livestock presence on the property since 1958, with an increase in numbers over the years.
Main Doctrine
The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) should not proceed with the compulsory acquisition and distribution of a landholding under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) while a landowner's application for exemption or deferment is still pending resolution, as doing so constitutes a violation of due process and a prejudgment of the case. Furthermore, the mere presence of livestock does not automatically disqualify a landholding from exemption if it is primarily devoted to livestock raising.