Title
Supreme Court
Diamond Farms, Inc. vs. Diamond Farm Workers Multi-Purpose Cooperative
Case
G.R. No. 192999
Decision Date
Jul 23, 2012
Diamond Farms contested CARP land distribution; Court ruled beneficiaries lawfully entitled to possession and production shares, denying petitioner’s claims.

Case Digest (G.R. No. 179594)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Property
    • Diamond Farms, Inc. (Petitioner) is a corporation engaged in commercial banana farming; owned 1,023.8574 hectares in Carmen, Davao.
    • Of this, 958.8574 hectares were deferred under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP). After deferment was lifted on February 14, 1995, 698.8897 ha were awarded to Diamond Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose Cooperative, while petitioner retained 277.44 ha, including 109.625 ha.
  • CARP Proceedings and Title Transfers
    • November 3, 1992: DAR approved a Production and Profit Sharing (PPS) Scheme under Section 32, Republic Act No. 6657 (CARL).
    • November 23, 1999: Petitioner’s TCTs on the 109.625 ha were cancelled; new TCTs (Nos. T-154155 to T-154160) issued in the Republic’s name.
    • August 5, 2000: DAR identified 278 CARP beneficiaries; October 26, 2000: six Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) issued in their favor.
  • Lower Court Proceedings
    • July 2, 2002: Petitioner sued respondents (Diamond Farm Workers MPC, individual workers, and 100 John Does) for unlawful occupation of 74.3393 ha, damages, and attorney’s fees.
    • Respondents counterclaimed for recognition of their rights as CARP beneficiaries and for production/profit share, alleging petitioner’s refusal since 1995.
    • Regional Adjudicator and DARAB denied petitioner’s complaints, granted respondents’ counterclaims; Court of Appeals affirmed with deletion of lease-rental awards. Petitioner then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issues:

  • Are respondents guilty of unlawful occupation and liable for damages and attorney’s fees?
  • Should petitioner turn over possession of the subject land and respect respondents’ possession?
  • Was the award of production share and interest proper under Section 32, CARL?
  • Does petitioner’s challenge to non‐payment of just compensation constitute a collateral attack on the Republic’s titles, and is such issue properly before this Court?

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.