Case Digest: Republic vs. DAR
G.R. No. 178895/ G.R. No. 179071: January 10, 2011
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, through the HON. SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN Petitioner vs. SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRI-BUSINESS CORP., represented by SALVADOR N. LOPEZ, JR., President and General Manager Respondent
SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRI-BUSINESS CORP., represented by SALVADOR N. LOPEZ, JR., President and General Manager Petitioner vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, through the HON. SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN Respondent
SERENO, J.:
FACTS: Two properties of Salvador N. Lopez Agri-Business Corp. (SNLABC) were placed under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law CARL). SNLABC sought exemption of their properties, arguing that due to the ruling in the Luz Farms case, land devoted to livestock is outside the coverage of the CARL. Upon ocular inspection, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) found that one of the parcels of land, the Lopez land, were exempt from CARL coverage. The other parcel, the Limot land, was not exempt. SNLABC appealed the finding with the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. The DAR, however, ruled that both Lopez and Limot lands were subject to the CARL. SNLABC appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which rendered the assailed decision. The CA affirmed the findings of the MARO, that the Lopez land was exclusively used for livestock. The MARO found that the Lopez lands were used for grazing, and that such was its purpose even before the Luz Farms ruling. It was sufficiently established by testimonies of the people thereabouts. Despite the presence of coconut trees in the Lopez lands, it is still used primarily for raising livestock. There are also structures meant for such a purpose. The Limot lands, on the other hand, were used both for coconut and rubber plantations. The MARO found that it was only used as an extension of grazing land, inconsistently at best. Both the DAR and SNLABC appealed the decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Lopez and Limot Lands are under the coverage of CARL
HELD: Both petitions are denied
Civil Law: The DAR argues that the tax declaration of the Lopez lands classify it as agricultural land. Also, that the SNLABC was incorporated after the implementation of the CARL shows that there is an attempt to evade CARL coverage. It is, however, doctrine that tax declarations themselves are not conclusive evidence as to the classification of land. Also, it is the actual usage of the land, not its classification, which determines its eligibility for CARL. As for the Lopez lands, it as inherited by the owner of SNLABC as livestock land. Its use has been for raising livestock even before the incorporation of SNLABC. Hence, the time of incorporation, and the tax declaration are irrelevant.
As for the Limot lands, it is not enough that such are used as seasonal extensions of grazing land. The livestock are not regularly situated in the land in question, but are only brought there at times for grazing. It is land actually devoted to coconut and rubber. Hence, it cannot be exempted.
REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, through the HON. SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN Petitioner vs. SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRI-BUSINESS CORP., represented by SALVADOR N. LOPEZ, JR., President and General Manager Respondent
SALVADOR N. LOPEZ AGRI-BUSINESS CORP., represented by SALVADOR N. LOPEZ, JR., President and General Manager Petitioner vs. REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES, represented by the DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, through the HON. SECRETARY NASSER C. PANGANDAMAN Respondent
SERENO, J.:
FACTS: Two properties of Salvador N. Lopez Agri-Business Corp. (SNLABC) were placed under the coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law CARL). SNLABC sought exemption of their properties, arguing that due to the ruling in the Luz Farms case, land devoted to livestock is outside the coverage of the CARL. Upon ocular inspection, the Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) found that one of the parcels of land, the Lopez land, were exempt from CARL coverage. The other parcel, the Limot land, was not exempt. SNLABC appealed the finding with the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture. The DAR, however, ruled that both Lopez and Limot lands were subject to the CARL. SNLABC appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals, which rendered the assailed decision. The CA affirmed the findings of the MARO, that the Lopez land was exclusively used for livestock. The MARO found that the Lopez lands were used for grazing, and that such was its purpose even before the Luz Farms ruling. It was sufficiently established by testimonies of the people thereabouts. Despite the presence of coconut trees in the Lopez lands, it is still used primarily for raising livestock. There are also structures meant for such a purpose. The Limot lands, on the other hand, were used both for coconut and rubber plantations. The MARO found that it was only used as an extension of grazing land, inconsistently at best. Both the DAR and SNLABC appealed the decision.
ISSUE: Whether or not the Lopez and Limot Lands are under the coverage of CARL
HELD: Both petitions are denied
Civil Law: The DAR argues that the tax declaration of the Lopez lands classify it as agricultural land. Also, that the SNLABC was incorporated after the implementation of the CARL shows that there is an attempt to evade CARL coverage. It is, however, doctrine that tax declarations themselves are not conclusive evidence as to the classification of land. Also, it is the actual usage of the land, not its classification, which determines its eligibility for CARL. As for the Lopez lands, it as inherited by the owner of SNLABC as livestock land. Its use has been for raising livestock even before the incorporation of SNLABC. Hence, the time of incorporation, and the tax declaration are irrelevant.
As for the Limot lands, it is not enough that such are used as seasonal extensions of grazing land. The livestock are not regularly situated in the land in question, but are only brought there at times for grazing. It is land actually devoted to coconut and rubber. Hence, it cannot be exempted.
