Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
* contention that “when a land is declared exempt from the CARP on the
MILESTONE FARMS, INC., petitioner, vs. OFFICE ground that it is not agricultural as of the time the CARL took effect, the
OF THE PRESIDENT, respondent. use and disposition of that land is entirely and forever beyond DAR’s
Civil Procedure; Appeals; The Court of Appeals (CA) under Section jurisdiction” is dangerous, suggestive of self-regulation. Precisely, it is
3, Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil Procedure can in the interest of justice, the DAR Secretary who is vested with such jurisdiction and authority to
entertain and resolve factual issues; A deviation from a rigid enforcement
of the rules may thus be allowed to attain the prime objective of _______________
dispensing justice for dispensation of justice is the core reason for the
* SECOND DIVISION.
existence of courts.—While it is true that an issue which was neither
218
alleged in the complaint nor raised during the trial cannot be raised for
2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
the first time on appeal as it would be offensive to the basic rules of fair
18
play, justice, and due process, the same is not without exception, such as
Milestone Farms, Inc. vs. Office of the President
this case. The CA, under Section 3, Rule 43 of the Rules of Civil
exempt and/or exclude a property from CARP coverage based on
Procedure, can, in the interest of justice, entertain and resolve factual
the factual circumstances of each case and in accordance with law and
issues. After all, technical and procedural rules are intended to help
applicable jurisprudence.
secure, and not suppress, substantial justice. A deviation from a rigid
PETITION for review on certiorari of an amended
enforcement of the rules may thus be allowed to attain the prime
decision and a resolution of the Court of Appeals.
objective of dispensing justice, for dispensation of justice is the core
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.
reason for the existence of courts.
Tan & Concepcion Law Offices for petitioner.
Agrarian Reform Law; Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program
Rodolfo Jocson, Jr. for SAPLAG.
(CARP); Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary; Jurisdiction; It
Office of the Solicitor General for respondent.
is the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) Secretary who is vested with
NACHURA, J.:
such jurisdiction and authority to exempt and/or exclude a property from
Before this Court is a Petition for Review
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage based on the
on Certiorari1under Rule 45 of the Rules of Civil
factual circumstances of each case and in accordance with law and
Procedure, seeking the reversal of the Court of Appeals
applicable jurisprudence.—We cannot, without going against the law,
(CA) Amended Decision2dated October 4, 2006 and its
arbitrarily strip the DAR Secretary of his legal mandate to exercise
Resolution3 dated March 27, 2008.
jurisdiction and authority over all ALI cases. To succumb to petitioner’s
The Facts raising of said cattle, pigs, and other livestock as may
be authorized by law.5
Petitioner Milestone Farms, Inc. (petitioner) was On June 10, 1988, a new agrarian reform law,
incorporated with the Securities and Exchange Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6657, otherwise known as the
Commission on January 8, 1960.4 Among its pertinent Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL), took
secondary purposes are: (1) to engage in the raising of effect, which included the raising of livestock, poultry,
cattle, pigs, and other livestock; to acquire lands by and swine in its coverage. However, on December 4,
purchase or lease, which may be needed for this 1990, this Court, sitting en banc, ruled in Luz Farms v.
purpose; and to sell and otherwise dispose of said Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform6 that
cattle, pigs, and other livestock and their produce agricultural lands devoted to livestock, poultry, and/or
when advisable and beneficial to the corporation; (2) to swine raising are excluded from the Comprehensive
breed, raise, Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).
Thus, in May 1993, petitioner applied for the
_______________
exemption/
exclusion of its 316.0422-hectare property, covered by
1 Rollo, pp. 67-98.
Transfer Certificate of Title Nos. (T-410434) M-15750,
2 Penned by Associate Justice Noel G. Tijam, with Associate Justices Jose L.
(T-486101) M-7307, (T-486102) M-7308, (T-274129) M-
Sabio, Jr. and Japar B. Dimaampao, concurring; Id. at pp. 26-45.
15751, (T-486103) M-7309, (T-486104) M-7310, (T-
3 Id., at pp. 47-63.
332694) M-15755, (T-486105) M-7311, (T-486106) M-
4 CA Rollo, p. 103.
7312, M-8791, (T-486107) M-7313, (T-486108) M-7314,
219
VOL. 644, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 219 M-8796, (T-486109) M-7315, (T-486110) M-9508, and
Milestone Farms, Inc. vs. Office of the President M-6013, and located in Pinugay, Baras, Rizal, from the
coverage of the CARL, pursuant to the aforementioned
and sell poultry; to purchase or acquire and sell, or
ruling of this Court in Luz Farms.
otherwise dispose of the supplies, stocks, equipment,
Meanwhile, on December 27, 1993, the Department
accessories, appurtenances, products, and by-products
of Agrarian Reform (DAR) issued Administrative
of said business; and (3) to import cattle, pigs, and
Order No. 9, Series of 1993 (DAR A.O. No. 9), setting
other livestock, and animal food necessary for the
forth rules and regulations to govern the exclusion of
agricultural lands used for livestock, poultry, and (10) hectares planted to sweet corn and the five (5) hectares devoted to
swine raising from CARP coverage. Thus, on January fishpond could be considered supportive to livestock production.”
10, 1994, petitioner re-documented its application The LUCEC, thus, recommended the exemption of
pursuant to DAR A.O. No. 9.7 petitioner’s 316.0422-hectare property from the
coverage of CARP. Adopting the LUCEC’s findings and
_______________ recommendation, DAR Regional Director Percival
Dalugdug (Director Dalugdug) issued an Order dated
5 Id., at pp. 105-109.
June 27, 1994, exempting petitioner’s 316.0422-
6 G.R. No. 86889, December 4, 1990, 192 SCRA 51.
hectare property from CARP.8
7 CA Rollo, p. 102.
The Southern Pinugay Farmers Multi-Purpose
220
Cooperative, Inc. (Pinugay Farmers), represented by
220 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
Timiano Balajadia, Sr. (Balajadia), moved for the
Milestone Farms, Inc. vs. Office of the President
reconsideration of the said Order, but the same was
Acting on the said application, the DAR’s Land Use denied by Director Dalugdug in his Order dated
Conversion and Exemption Committee (LUCEC) of November 24, 1994.9 Subsequently, the Pinugay
Region IV conducted an ocular inspection on Farmers filed a letter-appeal with the DAR Secretary.
petitioner’s property and arrived at the following Correlatively, on June 4, 1994, petitioner filed a
findings: complaint for Forcible Entry against Balajadia and
“[T]he actual land utilization for livestock, swine and poultry is 258.8422
company before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court
hectares; the area which served as infrastructure is 42.0000 hectares; ten
(MCTC) of Teresa-Baras, Rizal,
(10) hectares are planted to corn and the remaining five (5) hectares are
devoted to fish culture; that the livestock population are 371 heads of _______________
cow, 20 heads of horses, 5,678 heads of swine and 788 heads of cocks;
that the area being applied for exclusion is far below the required or ideal 8 Id., at pp. 620-621.
area which is 563 hectares for the total livestock population; that the 9 Id., at pp. 624-626.
approximate area not directly used for livestock purposes with an area of 221
15 hectares, more or less, is likewise far below the allowable 10% VOL. 644, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 221
variance; and, though not directly used for livestock purposes, the ten Milestone Farms, Inc. vs. Office of the President
docketed as Civil Case No. 781-T.10 The MCTC ruled in _______________
favor of petitioner, but the decision was later reversed
by the Regional Trial Court, Branch 80, of Tanay, 10 Id., at p. 901.
Rizal. Ultimately, the case reached the CA, which, in 11 Docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 43678, penned by Associate Justice Portia
its Decision11 dated October 8, 1999, reinstated the Aliño-Hormachuelos, with Associate Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero and
MCTC’s ruling, ordering Balajadia and all defendants Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, concurring; Id., at pp. 916-929.
TCT Nos. M-6013, M-8796, and M-8791. In its 13 Entitled “An Act Amending Certain Provisions of Republic Act No. 6657,
Resolution12 dated July 31, 2000, the CA held that the Entitled ‘An Act Instituting A Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program to
defendants therein failed to timely file a motion for Promote Social Justice and Industrialization, Providing the Mechanism for its
reconsideration, given the fact that their counsel of Implementation, and for Other Purposes.’ ”
declaring the entire 316.0422 hectares exempt from the coverage of the
23 Rollo, pp. 23-24.
Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is
24 CA Rollo, pp. 1281-1291.
hereby REINSTATED without prejudice to the outcome of the
25 Id., at pp. 1099-1108.
continuing review and verification proceedings which the Department of
226
Agrarian Reform, through the proper Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer,
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
may undertake pursuant to Policy Statement (D) of DAR Administrative
Milestone Farms, Inc. vs. Office of the President
Order No. 9, Series of 1993.
Farmers,26 and the SAPLAG.27 The farmer-groups all
SO ORDERED.”23
Meanwhile, six months earlier, or on November 4, claimed that the CA should have accorded respect to
2004, without the knowledge of the CA—as the parties the factual findings of the OP. Moreover, the farmer-
did not inform the appellate court—then DAR groups unanimously intimated that petitioner already
Secretary Rene C. Villa (Secretary Villa) issued DAR converted and developed a portion of the property into
Conversion Order No. CON-0410-001624 (Conversion a leisure-residential-commercial estate known as the
Order), granting petitioner’s application to convert Palo Alto Leisure and Sports Complex (Palo Alto).
portions of the 316.0422-hectare property from Subsequently, in a Supplement to the Motion for
agricultural to residential and golf courses use. The Reconsideration on Newly Secured Evidence pursuant
portions converted—with a total area of 153.3049 to DAR Administrative Order No. 9, Series of
hectares—were covered by TCT Nos. M-15755 (T- 199328(Supplement) dated June 15, 2005, the Espinas
332694), M-15751 (T-274129), and M-15750 (T- group submitted the following as evidence:
410434). With this Conversion Order, the area of the 1) Conversion Order29 dated November 4, 2004,
issued by Secretary Villa, converting portions of the
property from agricultural to residential and golf the subject property; and that the same was not in the
courses use, with a total area of 153.3049 hectares; possession and/or control of petitioner; and
thus, the Espinas group prayed that the remaining 3) Certification31 dated June 8, 2005, issued by both
162.7373 hectares (subject property) be covered by the MARO Elma and MARO Celi, manifesting that the
CARP; subject property was in the possession and cultivation
2) Letter30 dated June 7, 2005 of both incoming of actual occupants and tillers, and that, upon
Municipal Agrarian Reform Officer (MARO) Bismark inspection, petitioner maintained no livestock farm
M. Elma (MARO Elma) and outgoing MARO Cesar C. thereon.
Celi (MARO Celi) of Baras, Rizal, addressed to Four months later, the Espinas group and the DAR
Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) II of Rizal, filed their respective Manifestations.32 In its
Felixberto Q. Kagahastian, (MARO Report), informing Manifestation dated November 29, 2005, the DAR
the latter, among others, that Palo Alto was already confirmed that the subject property was no longer
under development and the lots therein were being devoted to cattle raising. Hence, in its
offered for sale; that there were actual tillers on the Resolution dated December 21, 2005, the CA directed
33
subject property; that there were agricultural petitioner to file its comment on the Supplement and
improvements thereon, including an irrigation system the aforementioned Manifestations. Employing the
and road projects funded by the Government; that services of a new counsel, petitioner filed a Motion to
there was no existing livestock farm on Admit Rejoinder,34 and prayed that the MARO Report
be disregarded and expunged from the records for lack
_______________ of factual and legal basis.
With the CA now made aware of these
26 Id., at pp. 1110-1112.
developments, particularly Secretary Villa’s
27 Id., at pp. 1117-1125.
Conversion Order of November 4, 2004, the appellate
28 Id., at pp. 1174-1180.
court had to acknowledge that the property subject of
29 Supra note 24.
the controversy would now be limited to the remaining
30 CA Rollo, pp. 1184-1185.
162.7373 hectares. In the same token, the Espinas
227
group prayed that this remaining area be covered by
VOL. 644, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 227
the CARP.35
Milestone Farms, Inc. vs. Office of the President
On October 4, 2006, the CA amended its earlier for its cattle, only reinforced the DAR’s finding that
Decision. It held that its April 29, 2005 Decision was there was indeed no existing livestock farm on the
theoretically not final because DAR A.O. No. 9 subject property. While petitioner claimed that it was
required the MARO to make a continuing review and merely forced to do so to prevent further slaughtering
verification of the subject property. While the CA was of its cattle allegedly committed by the occupants, the
cognizant of our ruling in Department of CA found the claim unsubstantiated. Furthermore, the
CA opined that petitioner should have asserted its
_______________ rights when the irrigation and road projects were
introduced by the Government within its property.
31 Id., at p. 1186.
Finally, the CA accorded the findings of MARO Elma
32 Id., at pp. 1321-1324 and 1330-1332.
and MARO Celi the presumption of regularity in the
33 Id., at pp. 1359-1360.
performance of official functions in the absence of
34 Id., at pp. 1406-1409 and 1410-1416.
evidence proving misconduct and/or dishonesty when
35 Supra note 28, at 1180.
they inspected the subject property and rendered their
228
report. Thus, the CA disposed:
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
“WHEREFORE, this Court’s Decision dated April 29, 2005 is hereby
Milestone Farms, Inc. vs. Office of the President
amended in that the exemption of the subject landholding from the
Agrarian Reform v. Sutton,36 wherein we declared DAR
coverage of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program is hereby
A.O. No. 9 as unconstitutional, it still resolved to lift
lifted, and the 162.7373 hectare-agricultural portion thereof is hereby
the exemption of the subject property from the CARP,
declared covered by the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program.
not on the basis of DAR A.O. No. 9, but on the strength
SO ORDERED.”39
of evidence such as the MARO Report and
Certification, and the Katunayan37 issued by _______________
the Punong Barangay, Alfredo Ruba (Chairman Ruba),
of Pinugay, Baras, Rizal, showing that the subject 36 510 Phil. 177; 473 SCRA 392 (2005).
property was no longer operated as a livestock farm. 37 CA Rollo, p. 1353.
Moreover, the CA held that the lease 38 Id., at pp. 1464-1467.
agreements, which petitioner submitted to prove that
38 39 Supra note 2, at 45.
it was compelled to lease a ranch as temporary shelter 229
VOL. 644, FEBRUARY 23, 2011 229 owned by petitioner were seen in the area adjacent to
Milestone Farms, Inc. vs. Office of the President Palo Alto; that Josefino confirmed to the Investigating
Unperturbed, petitioner filed a Motion for Team that he takes care of 18 heads of cattle owned by
Reconsideration.40 On January 8, 2007, MARO Elma, petitioner; that the said Investigating Team saw 9
in compliance with the Memorandum of DAR Regional heads of cattle in the Palo Alto area, 2 of which bore
Director Dominador B. Andres, tendered another “MFI” marks; and that the 9 heads of cattle appear to
Report41reiterating that, upon inspection of the subject have matched the Certificates of Ownership of Large
property, together with petitioner’s counsel-turned Cattle submitted by petitioner.
witness, Atty. Grace Eloisa J. Que (Atty. Que), PARO
Danilo M. Obarse, Chairman Ruba, and several _______________
After all, technical and procedural rules are intended SEC. 3. Where to appeal.–An appeal under this Rule may be taken to the Court of
to help secure, and not suppress, substantial justice. A Appeals within the period and in the manner herein provided, whether the appeal involves
deviation from a rigid enforcement of the rules may questions of fact, of law, or mixed questions of fact and law.
thus be allowed to attain the prime objective of 57 Phil. Coconut Authority v. Corona International, Inc., 395 Phil. 742, 750; 341 SCRA
dispensing justice, for dispensation of justice is the 519, 526 (2000), citing Acme Shoe, Rubber and Plastic Corp. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No.
core reason for the existence of courts.57 Moreover, 103576, August 22, 1996, 260 SCRA 714, 719.
petitioner cannot validly claim that it was deprived of 58 Zacarias v. National Police Commission, G.R. No. 119847, October 24, 2003, 414
due process because the CA afforded it all the SCRA 387, 393.
opportunity to be heard.58 The CA even directed 238
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED findings of the MARO, which were confirmed by the
Milestone Farms, Inc. vs. Office of the President DAR, that the property was entirely devoted to
prescribing a maximum retention limit for their ownership. However, the livestock farming. However, in A.Z. Arnaiz Realty,
deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission show a clear intent Inc., represented by Carmen Z. Arnaiz v. Office of the
to exclude, inter alia, all lands exclusively devoted to livestock, President; Department of Agrarian Reform; Regional
swine and poultry-raising. The Court clarified in the Luz Farms case Director, DAR Region V, Legaspi City; Provincial
that livestock, swine and poultry-raising are industrial activities and do Agrarian Reform Officer, DAR Provincial Office,
not fall within the definition of “agriculture” or “agricultural activity.” Masbate, Masbate; and Municipal Agrarian Reform
The raising of livestock, swine and poultry is different from crop or tree Officer, DAR Municipal Office,
farming. It is an industrial, not an agricultural, activity. A great portion
of the investment in this enterprise is in the form of industrial fixed _______________