13 Heirs of Arce Vs Dar

Heirs of Arce vs.
Department of Agrarian Reform
G.R. No. 228503, July 25, 2018, 874 SCRA 295
Ponente: Tijam (First Division)
Facts:
As early as the 1950s, the Heirs of Ramon Arce, Sr. (petitioners) were
registered owners of a parcel of land located in Brgy. Macabud, Montalban, Rizal
with an area of 76.39 hectares (ha.), covered by Transfer Certificates of Title Nos.
T-442673, 442674, 442675, and 442676 (referred to as subject lands). The subject
lands were utilized as pasture lands for the petitioners' cattle, i.e., buffaloes,
carabaos and goats (hereinafter referred to as livestock), for milk and dairy
production in the manufacture of Selecta Carabao's Milk and Ice Cream (now
Arce Dairy Ice Cream). The farming method adopted by the petitioners was
known as "feedlot operation" where the animals were confined and fed on a cut-
and-carry basis or zero grazing.

Sometime in 1998, the Philippine Carabao Center-Department of Agriculture
(PCC-DA) recommended that petitioners' livestock be transferred to avoid the
liver fluke infestation in the area. In compliance with PCC-DA's
recommendation, petitioners transferred the older and milking livestock, which
are susceptible to infection, to their feedlot facility located in Novaliches, Quezon
City (Novaliches property). The younger cattle, which are not susceptible to the
fluke infection, remained in the subject lands. Notwithstanding the transfer of
some of their livestock, petitioners continued to plant and grow napier grass in
the subject lands. The napier grass were then cut, carried and used as fodder for
their livestock which were maintained both in the subject lands and in the
Novaliches property. On August 6, 2008, the Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer
(PARO) of Teresa, Rizal issued a Notice of Coverage (NOC) over the subject
lands under the CARP. In response, petitioners sent a letter dated October 17,
2008 tothe PARO of DAR Region IV-A, seeking to exclude and exempt the
subject lands from the NOC considering that it has been utilized for livestock
raising even before the enactment of the CARP. On September 30, 2009, the
petitioners filed a Manifestation to Lift Notice of Coverage with the PARO,
which was treated as a petition and docketed as Case No. A-0400-0250-09 of
DAR Regional Office IV-A with the PARO. This was anchored on the ground
that petitioners were in the business of livestock raising, and were using the
subject lands as pasture lands for their buffaloes which produce the carabao milk
for their ice cream products. The petitioners claimed that the NOC is contrary to
the 1987 Philippine Constitution which provides that livestock farms are not
among those described as agricultural lands subject to land reform. Based on
these findings, DAR Regional Director Antonio G. Evangelista (RD Evangelista)
issued an Order dated December 22, 2009, granting the Petition to Lift Notice of
Coverage. On April 29, 2011, RD Evangelista issued a Certification, stating that
the Order dated December 22, 2009 had become final and executory, considering
that no motion for reconsideration and/or appeal was filed. Meanwhile, Joevin
M. Ucag (Ucag) of DAR Region IV-A submitted an Ocular Inspection Report
dated May 12,2011 to the MARO, stating that "there was no livestock/cattle
found in the area of Macabud, Rodriguez, Rizal”. Subsequently, the Samahan ng
mga Magsasakang Nagkakaisa sa Sitio Calumpit (SAMANACA), through their
leaders, sent letters dated March 2, 2011 and June 14, 2011, to DAR Secretary
Virgilio R. De Los Reyes(Secretary De Los Reyes), seeking to annul RD
Evangelista's Order dated December 22, 2009. The letters were treated as a
Petition to Annul an Invalid Resolution by the Regional Director. On November
8, 2011, petitioners filed their Comment and countered that RD Evangelista's
Order dated December 22, 2009 had become final and executory and that the
subject lands were within the retention limit. Thus, they prayed for the dismissal
of SAMANACA's Letters-Petition. On December 7, 2012, DAR Secretary De Los
Reyes issued an Order, denying petitioners' Petition for Exclusion from CARP
Coverage. The DAR ruled, among others, that while it is true that the subject
lands had been livestock farm prior to the CARP's enactment, the petitioners
failed to prove that the said lands are actually, directly, exclusively and
continuously used for livestock activity up to the present. According to the DAR,
there were no longer cattle and livestock facilities within the subject lands.
Eventually, petitioners filed an Appeal Memorandum with the Office of the
President (OP), which ruled that petitioners' subject lands were exempted from
the coverage of CARP. The DAR filed a Petition for Review with the CA, which
ruled for DAR.
Issue:
Whether or not SAMANACA's Motion for Leave (for Intervention and for Admission of
Comment) can be given due course.
Ruling:
NO. SAMANACA's allegation that its members have a substantial interest in the
outcome of the present case, since they have been identified to be the qualified beneficiaries
of the subject lands is not sufficient The records show that the members of SAMANACA
were never in possession of the subject lands nor were they, at one time or another, tenants,
farmers, or tillers thereon. Likewise, SAMANACA failed to substantiate their claim that
they have been identified as qualified beneficiaries of the subject lands under the CARP. No
shred of evidence was ever submitted to prove this claim. Clearly, SAMANACA's
assertions do not amount to a direct and immediate legal interest, so much so that they will
either gain or lose by the direct legal operation of the court's judgment. At most, their
interest, if any, is characterized as inchoate, contingent and expectant – which
could not have justified intervention

13 Heirs of Arce Vs Dar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

13 Heirs of Arce Vs Dar

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

13 Heirs of Arce Vs Dar

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heirs of Arce vs.

Department of Agrarian Reform

G.R. No. 228503, July 25, 2018, 874 SCRA 295

Ponente: Tijam (First Division)

You might also like