CASE DIGEST: Central Mindanao University v. The Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board

 



CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT DR. LEONARDO A. CHUA, petitioner, vs. THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADJUDICATION BOARD, THE COURT OF APPEALS AND ALVIN OBRIQUE, REPRESENTING BUKIDNON FREE FRAMERS AGRICULTURAL LABORERS ORGANIZATION (BUFFALO), respondents
G.R. No. 10091                  |              October 22, 1992

FACTS:

Petitioner CMU is an agricultural educational institution owned and run by the State located in Musuan, Bukidnon. In 1984, CMU adopted a livelihood program called “Kilusang Sariling Sikap Program” under which the land resources of the University were leased to its faculty and employees. Under this program, the faculty and staff combine themselves to groups of 5 members each, and CMU provided technical know-how, practical training and all kinds of assistance, to enable each group to cultivate 4-5 hectares of land for the lowland rice project. Each group pays CMU a service fee and also a land use participant’s fee. The contract prohibits participants and their hired workers to establish houses or live in the project are and to use the cultivated land as a collateral for any kind of loan. It was expressly stipulated that no landlord-tenant relationship existed between the CMU and the faculty and/or employees.

Among the participants in this program were Alvin Obrique, Felix Guinanao, Joven Caballero, Nestor Pulao, Danilo Vasquez, Aronio Pelayo and other complainants. Obrique was a Physics Instructor at the CMU while the others were employees in the lowland rice project. The other complainants who were not members of the faculty or non-academic staff of the CMU, were hired workers or laborers of the participants in this program.

On July 1986, Dr. Leonardo Chua discontinued the agri-business project due to losses incurred while carrying on said project. Some CMU personnel, among whom were the complainants, were laid-off when this project was discontinued.

Sometime in 1986, CMU launched a self-help project called CMU-Income Enhancement Program (CMU-IEP) under which the CMU would provide the use of 4-5 hectares of land to a group of 5 CMU employees for 1 calendar year. In turn, each group would to CMU P100 as service fee and P1,000 per hectare as participant’s land rental fee. In addition, 400 kilograms of the produce per year would be turned over or donated to the CMU-IDF. The participants agreed not to allow their hired laborers or members of their family to establish any house or live within the vicinity of the project area and not to use the allocated lot as collateral for a loan. It was expressly provided that no tenant-landlord relationship would exist as a result of the Agreement. Initially the program was extended only to workers and staff members who were still employed by CMU later it was also extended to former workers and employees.

The one-year contracts expired on June 30, 1988. Some contracts were renewed. Those whose contracts were not renewed were served with notices to vacate.

The non-renewal of the contracts, the discontinuance of the rice, corn and sugar cane project, the loss of jobs due to termination or separation from the service and the alleged harassment by school authorities, all contributed to, and precipitated the filing of, the complaint.

On the basis of the above facts, the DARAB found that the private respondents were not tenants and cannot therefore be beneficiaries under the CARP. At the same time, the DARAB ordered the segregation of 400 hectares of suitable, compact and contiguous portions of the CMU land and their inclusion in the CARP for distribution to qualified beneficiaries.

The decision of the Adjudication Board to segregate 400 hectares from the CMU land is primarily based on the alleged fact that the land subject hereof is “not directly, actually and exclusively used for school sites, because the same was leased to Philippine Packing Corporation.

ISSUE:

Whether or not petitioner’s land can be subject to CARP

RULING:

The construction given by the DARAB to Section 10 restricts the land area of the CMU to its present needs or to a land area presently, actively exploited and utilized by the university in carrying out its present educational program with its present student population and academic facility—overlooking the very significant factor of growth of the university in the years to come. By the nature of the CMU, which is a school established to promote agriculture and industry, the need for a vast tract of agricultural land for future programs of expansion is obvious.

The agreement with the Philippine Packing Corporation was not a lease but a Management and Development Agreement, a joint undertaking where use by the Philippine Packing Corporation of the land was part of the CMU research program, with the direct participation of faculty and students. Said contracts with the Philippine Packing Corporation and others of a similar nature were made prior to the enactment of R.A. 6657 and were directly connected to the purpose and objectives of the CMU as an educational institution. As soon as the objectives of the agreement for the joint use of the CMU land were achieved as of June 1988, the CMU adopted a blue print for the exclusive use and utilization of said areas to carry out its own research and agricultural experiments.

The Court opined that the 400 hectares ordered segregated by the DARAB is not covered by the CARP because:

(1)    It is not alienable and disposable land of the public domain;

(2)    The CMU land reservation is not in excess of specific limits as determined by Congress;

(3)    It is private land registered and titled in the name of its lawful owner, the CMU;

(4)    It is exempt from coverage under Section 10 of R.A. 6657 because the lands are actually, directly and exclusively used and found to be necessary for school site and campus, including experimental farm stations for educational purposes, and for establishing seed and seedling research and pilot production centers.

 


Comments