Department of Agrarian Reform v. Uy
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Vicente K. Uy and his co-owners are the registered owners of a 349.9996-hectare landholding in Quezon Province, covered by TCT No. 160988. In 1993, farmers occupying portions of this land filed petitions with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) seeking to be declared beneficiaries under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). Subsequently, the DAR issued a Notice of Coverage for the property. The respondent, on behalf of the co-owners, applied for exclusion from CARP coverage, asserting that the landholding had been exclusively used for livestock-raising for several years prior to June 15, 1988, citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Luz Farms v. Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform which declared unconstitutional the inclusion of lands used for livestock, poultry, and swine in CARP. Procedural History: The DAR initially issued an Order partially granting the exclusion, exempting only 219.50 hectares. This decision was affirmed by the Office of the President (OP) despite the landowners' appeal. The landowners then elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA), which initially affirmed the OP's decision. However, upon reconsideration, the CA issued an Amended Decision reversing its earlier ruling and declaring the entire 349.9996-hectare landholding exempt from CARP coverage, based on the interpretation that DAR Administrative Order (A.O.) No. 9, Series of 1993, required exclusion regardless of the livestock's age. The DAR filed a motion for reconsideration, which the CA denied. The DAR, as petitioner, now seeks review of the CA's Amended Decision. The Petition: The Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), as petitioner, filed this Petition for Review on Certiorari under Rule 45 of the Revised Rules of Court, assailing the Amended Decision of the Court of Appeals. The DAR contends that the CA erred in granting the respondent's petition, arguing that it was filed out of time due to the OP's denial of a second motion for reconsideration, which the DAR claims was a prohibited pleading. Furthermore, the DAR argues that the CA erred in declaring the entire 349.9996-hectare property exempt from CARP coverage. The core of the DAR's argument is that the phrase "regardless of age" in DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1993, should be reckoned from June 15, 1988, and not from the date of inspection, to prevent circumvention of the CARP and to protect agrarian reform beneficiaries. The DAR also asserts that the landholding was not exclusively devoted to livestock as of June 15, 1988, citing the presence of coconut trees and farmer-beneficiaries.
Issue(s)
Whether the filing of a second motion for reconsideration with the Office of the President tolled the reglementary period to appeal. Whether the phrase "regardless of age" in Section III-B of DAR A.O. No. 9, Series of 1993, should be reckoned from June 15, 1988, or from the date of inspection; and whether lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry, and swine raising are covered by CARP or are exempt as industrial lands. Whether the landholding covered by TCT No. 11948 had been included for CARP coverage or that any investigation had been conducted by the DAR regarding its exemption.
Ruling
The 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 CARP coverage is AFFIRMED. However, the Amended Decision exempting the 22.2639-hectare landholding covered by TCT No. 11948 from CARP coverage is REVERSED and SET ASIDE.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the second motion for reconsideration and reglementary period: The Court held that while DAR Administrative Order No. 18, Series of 1987, generally allows only one motion for reconsideration, a second motion is permissible in exceptionally meritorious cases. The Court found that the OP's denial of the first motion for reconsideration and its subsequent order failed to adequately address the substantive issues, thus justifying the consideration of the second motion. Furthermore, procedural rules are to be liberally construed in administrative proceedings to serve substantial justice, and the respondent did not intend to delay the proceedings. The Court noted that the OP's explanation for denying the second motion based on a rehash of arguments was untenable, as a movant may reiterate arguments to convince the court of its error. On the interpretation of "regardless of age" and the exemption of the landholding: The Court affirmed the CA's amended decision that lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry, and swine raising are classified as industrial lands and are therefore exempt from CARP coverage. This is consistent with the intent of the 1987 Constitutional Commission and subsequent legislative amendments, particularly R.A. No. 7881, which dropped such lands from the definition of "agricultural activity" and "commercial farming" under CARP. The Court reiterated its rulings in Luz Farms and Natalia Realty, Inc. v. DAR, emphasizing that "agricultural land" under R.A. No. 6657 does not include industrial lands. The Court found that the respondent's family had long been in the business of breeding cattle, and there was no evidence of conversion to evade CARP coverage after its enactment. The presence of coconut trees was deemed insignificant and potentially used for shade and fodder, not indicative of agricultural business. On the landholding covered by TCT No. 11948: The Court found that there was no showing in the records that the landholding covered by TCT No. 11948 had been included for CARP coverage or that any investigation had been conducted by the DAR regarding its exemption. The respondent only sought exemption for this parcel in a letter dated August 11, 1995, after the initial reports. Absent any evidence of investigation by the DAR, the Court concluded that there was no basis to exempt this specific landholding from CARP coverage.
Main Doctrine
Lands devoted to commercial livestock, poultry, and swine raising are classified as industrial lands and are therefore exempt from the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP), consistent with the intent of the 1987 Constitution and subsequent legislative amendments.