Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • DAR v. Sutton, G.R. No. 162070, October 19, 2005, 473 SCRA 392

    Uploaded by

    Susie Soto
    95 views2 pages
    This case involved a piece of land that had been exclusively used for cattle breeding and raising since 1948. The landowners requested to withdraw their previous offer to sell the land to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) since it was exempt from agrarian reform as a livestock farm. However, DAR Administrative Order No. 9 included livestock farms under agrarian reform coverage if they met certain land and herd size limits. The Supreme Court ruled DAR AO No. 9 was unconstitutional because the constitution intended to exempt all land exclusively used for livestock, and that DAR exceeded its authority in regulating exempt livestock farms. The court found the land was not agricultural and fully exempt from agrarian reform.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    4. DAR v. Sutton, G.R. No. 162070, October 19, 2005, 473 SCRA 392

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This case involved a piece of land that had been exclusively used for cattle breeding and raising since 1948. The landowners requested to withdraw their previous offer to sell the land to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) since it was exempt from agrarian reform as a livestock farm. However, DAR Administrative Order No. 9 included livestock farms under agrarian reform coverage if they met certain land and herd size limits. The Supreme Court ruled DAR AO No. 9 was unconstitutional because the constitution intended to exempt all land exclusively used for livestock, and that DAR exceeded its authority in regulating exempt livestock farms. The court found the land was not agricultural and fully exempt from agrarian reform.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    95 views2 pages

    DAR v. Sutton, G.R. No. 162070, October 19, 2005, 473 SCRA 392

    Uploaded by

    Susie Soto
    This case involved a piece of land that had been exclusively used for cattle breeding and raising since 1948. The landowners requested to withdraw their previous offer to sell the land to the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) since it was exempt from agrarian reform as a livestock farm. However, DAR Administrative Order No. 9 included livestock farms under agrarian reform coverage if they met certain land and herd size limits. The Supreme Court ruled DAR AO No. 9 was unconstitutional because the constitution intended to exempt all land exclusively used for livestock, and that DAR exceeded its authority in regulating exempt livestock farms. The court found the land was not agricultural and fully exempt from agrarian reform.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    Department of Agrarian Reform v. Sutton (G.R. No.

    162070, 19 October 2005)

    Puno, J.

    Doctrines:

    a.) DAR Administrative Order No. 9 is unconstitutional because it includes lands devoted to
    raising livestock, poultry and swine as part of the coverage of CARL, which contravenes the intent
    of the Constitution of exempting from coverage those lands not classified to be agricultural.

    b.) An entire landholding should be exempted from CARL coverage when it is exclusively devoted
    to cattle-raising. No conditions, such as the imposition of retention limits, in order to include a
    portion of such land to compulsory acquisition under CARL shall be valid.

    Facts:

    The respondents (Sutton) inherited a piece of land, situated in Aroroy, Masbate. The said land has
    been owned by their family since 1948 and has been solely and exclusively devoted to cow and calf
    breeding since then. In October 1987, respondents made a voluntary offer to sell (VOS) the lot to
    petitioner (DAR) in order to acquire incentives under the existing agrarian program.
    Subsequently, RA 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law took effect, wherein farms
    that are used for raising livestock, poultry, and swine are included in its scope or coverage.

    Pursuant to the ruling in Luz Farms v. Secretary of DAR – wherein it was established that lands
    devoted to livestock and poultry-raising are not included in the definition of an agricultural land,
    thus are exempted from the coverage of agrarian reform – respondents filed a request to withdraw
    their VOS as they contend that their land was devoted exclusively to cattle raising and breeding,
    thus exempt from coverage.

    Petitioner DAR ignored such request, and instead issued Administrative Order No. 9, series of
    1993 which provides that only a portion of agricultural lands devoted to raising of livestock,
    poultry, and swine as of June 15, 1988 are excluded from the coverage of CARL. In short, retention
    limits (i.e. 1:1 animal-land ratio; and the exemption from coverage of 1.7815 hectares livestock
    infrastructure for every 21 heads of cattle) were imposed. They claimed to have made this issuance
    pursuant to reports that some landowners have been converting their agricultural farms to
    livestock farms to be exempted from the coverage of agrarian reform.

    In partially granting the request of the respondents, DAR applied the retention limits to the said
    land wherein a portion for grazing purposes and infrastructure were segregated, while the
    remaining portions had to be put under Compulsory Acquisition.

    The Office of the President ruled that DAR AO No.9 is harmonious to the ruling in the Luz Farms
    case; however, on appeal, the Court of Appeals ruled in favor of respondents Sutton’s contention.
    Thus, this case was instituted by petitioner DAR to appeal CA’s ruling.

    Issues:

    (1) Whether the property of respondents Sutton is considered an agricultural land, therefore
    subject to the compulsory acquisition of CARL and;
    (2) Whether DAR AO No. 9 is unconstitutional.

    Ruling:

    (1) No, the property of the respondents is not agricultural.

    The Case of Luz Farms highlighted that livestock, swine and poultry-raising are industrial
    activities and do not fall within the definition of "agriculture" or "agricultural activity," thus are
    exempt from agrarian reform. In short, petitioner DAR has no power to regulate livestock farms
    which have been exempted by the Constitution from the coverage of agrarian reform.

    Similarly, in the case of Natalia Realty Inc v. DAR, it was stressed that although Sec. 4 of RA 6657
    provides that the CARL shall cover all public and private agricultural lands, the term agricultural
    lands does not include lands classified as mineral, forest, residential, commercial, and industrial;
    thus, are likewise exempted from agrarian reform coverage.

    (2) Yes, the DAR AO No. 9 is invalid for being in contravention to the Constitution for it sought to
    regulate livestock farms by including them in the coverage of agrarian reform and prescribing a
    maximum retention limit for their ownership, in effect, enlarging the coverage of agrarian reform.
    Deliberations of the 1987 Constitutional Commission show a clear intent to exclude all lands
    exclusively devoted to livestock, swine and poultry-raising (emphasis supplied).

    Thus, the assailed DAR AO went beyond the scope intended by the 1987 Constitution.

    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.

    In order to align the provisions of agrarian law with that of the intent of the 1987 Constitution,
    Congress thus passed RA 7881 to amend provisions on “agricultural activity” and “commercial
    farming” in RA 6657 by dropping from its coverage lands that are devoted to commercial livestock,
    poultry and swine-raising.

    You might also like