DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM V. SUTTON
GR.
No. 162070 Oct. 16, 2005
FACTS:
Respondents inherited a land in Aroroy
Masbate which has been devoted exclusively to cow and calf breeding.
On Oct. 26, 1987, respondents made a
voluntary offer to sell their landholdings to DAR,
On Dec. 4, 1990 the SC en banc ruled in the
case of Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR that lands devoted to livestock and
poultry-raising are not included in the definition of agricultural land.
In view of the Luz Farms ruling,
respondents filed a formal request with DAR to withdraw their VOS as their
landholding was devoted exclusively to cattle-raising and thus exempted from
the coverage of CARL.
On Dec. 27, 1993, DAR issued A.O. No. 9
series of 1993 which provided that only portions of private agricultural lands
used for raising livestock, poultry and swine shall be excluded from the
coverage of CARL. In determining the area of land to be excluded, the A.O.
fixed the refention limits to 1 hectare of land per 1 head of animal and a
ratio of 1.7815 hectares for livestock infrastructure for every 21 heads of
cattle.
On Sept. 14, 1995, applying the retention
of limits out-lined in the DAR A.O No. 9, the DAR secretary partially granted
the respondents application for exemption.
ISSUE:
Constitutionality of DAR A.O No. 9, series
of 1993, which prescribes a maximum refention limit for owners of lands devoted
to livestock raising.
RULING:
The impugned A.O. is invalid as it
contravenes the Constitution. The A.O. sought to regulate livestock farms by
including them in the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a maximum
refention limit for their ownership. However, the deliberations of the 1987
Constitutional commission show a clear intent to exclude, inter-alia, all lands
exclusively devoted to livestock, swine and poultry-raising. The Court
clarified in the Luz Farms case that livestock, swine and poultry-raising are
industrial activities and do not fall within the definition of “agriculture” or
“agricultural activity”.
Comments
Post a Comment