Scribd
Upload
79 views2 pages

Livestock Land Exemption in Agrarian Reform

The Supreme Court ruled that DAR AO No. 9, which prescribed a maximum land retention limit for owners of lands devoted to livestock raising, is unconstitutional. The Court had previously clarified that livestock, swine and poultry raising are industrial, not agricultural, activities and are therefore exempt from agrarian reform coverage. As DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms exempted by the Constitution, it exceeded its authority in issuing the assailed administrative order. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision declaring the AO void for contradicting the intent to exclude livestock farms from land reform.

Uploaded by

KingNoeBadong
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
79 views2 pages

Livestock Land Exemption in Agrarian Reform

The Supreme Court ruled that DAR AO No. 9, which prescribed a maximum land retention limit for owners of lands devoted to livestock raising, is unconstitutional. The Court had previously clarified that livestock, swine and poultry raising are industrial, not agricultural, activities and are therefore exempt from agrarian reform coverage. As DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms exempted by the Constitution, it exceeded its authority in issuing the assailed administrative order. The Court affirmed the Court of Appeals decision declaring the AO void for contradicting the intent to exclude livestock farms from land reform.

Uploaded by

KingNoeBadong
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

CAPTION DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM, represented by SECRETARY

JOSE MARI B. PONCE (OIC), petitioner, vs. DELIA T. SUTTON, ELLA


T. SUTTON-SOLIMAN and HARRY T. SUTTON, respondents.

G.R. No. 162070


October 19, 2005
Puno, J. (En Banc)

BADGE PETITION for review on certiorari of the decision and


resolution of the Court of Appeals.

Exception; Livestock, Swine, Poultry-raising,


SYLLABI Agrarian Reform Law; The Supreme Court clarified in the Luz Farms v.
Secretary of DAR, 192 SCRA 51 (1990) that livestock, swine and poultry-
raising are industrial activities and do not fall within the definition of
“agriculture” or “agricultural activity.”

FACTS This case involved a land in Aroroy,Masbate inherited by respondents


which has been devoted exclusively to cow and calf breeding. On 1987,
pursuant to the then existing agrarian reform program of the government,
respondents made a voluntary offer to sell (VOS) their landholdings to
petitioner DAR to avail of certain incentives under the law.

RA 6657, took effect which covered farms used for raising livestock,
poultry and swine. Subsequently, the Court in Luz Farms v. Secretary of
DAR that “lands devoted to livestock and poultry-raising are not included
in the definition of agricultural land. Thus, declaring certain provisions of
the CARL insofar as they included livestock farms in the coverage of
agrarian reform. Unconstitutional.

Citing Luz Farms ruling, respondents requested to withdraw their VOS as


their landholding was devoted exclusively to cattle-raising and thus
exempted from the coverage of the CARL. However, DAR issued A.O.
No. 9, series of 1993, which provided that only portions of private
agricultural lands used for the raising of livestock, poultry and swine as of
June 15, 1988 shall be excluded from the coverage of the CARL.

Respondents contented that their entire landholding is exempted from


the CARL. DAR Secretary Garilao issued an Order partially granting the
application of respondents for exemption from the coverage of CARL.
Petitioner ordered the rest of respondents’ landholding to be segregated
and placed under Compulsory Acquisition. Respondents moved for
reconsideration which was denied. They filed a notice of appeal with the
Office of the President which affirmed the said order because it does not
run counter to the Luz Farms case as the A.O. provided the guidelines to
determine whether a certain parcel of land is being used for cattle-
raising. Respondent filed an appeal which the CA favored. It declared the
said AO, void for being contrary to the intent of the 1987 Constitutional
Commission to exclude livestock farms from the land reform program of
the government. Hence, this petition.
ISSUE WON DAR A.O. No. 9, series of 1993 prescribing a maximum retention
limit for owners of lands devoted to livestock raising is constitutional
RULING NO. 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." The raising of livestock, swine
and poultry is different from crop or tree farming. It is an industrial, not an
agricultural, activity.

Clearly, petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms which


have been exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian
reform. It has exceeded its power in issuing the assailed A.O.
FALLO IN VIEW WHEREOF, the petition is DISMISSED. The assailed Decision
and Resolution of the Court of Appeals, dated September 19, 2003 and
February 4, 2004, respectively, are AFFIRMED. No pronouncement as to
costs.

You might also like