Case Digest (G.R. No. 192999)
Facts:
Diamond Farms, Inc. v. Diamond Farm Workers Multi-Purpose Cooperative, G.R. No. 192999, July 23, 2012, Supreme Court First Division, Villarama, Jr., J., writing for the Court. Petitioner Diamond Farms, Inc. (petitioner) is a commercial banana grower that owned 1,023.8574 hectares in Carmen, Davao; a large portion (958.8574 ha) had been previously deferred from CARP coverage. After the deferment was lifted (February 14, 1995) and following DAR approval of a Production and Profit Sharing (PPS) Scheme (Nov. 3, 1992), 698.8897 hectares were awarded to the Diamond Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Multi-Purpose Cooperative while petitioner retained management and control over 277.44 hectares, including a 109.625-hectare tract (the 109-hectare land).On November 23, 1999 petitioner’s titles over parcels within the 109-hectare land were cancelled and Transfer Certificates of Title (TCTs) were issued in the name of the Republic of the Philippines. On August 5, 2000 the DAR identified 278 CARP beneficiaries for the 109-hectare land; on October 26, 2000 the DAR issued six Certificates of Land Ownership Award (CLOAs) in favor of those beneficiaries. Petitioner continued to operate and manage the land and paid wages to farm workers, several of whom were members of respondent Diamond Farm Workers Multi-Purpose Cooperative (respondents).
On July 2, 2002 petitioner filed a complaint for unlawful occupation, damages and attorneys’ fees alleging respondents forcibly occupied a 74.3393-hectare portion of the 109-hectare land (the 74-hectare land) and prevented harvesting and farm operations; petitioner sought ejectment, recovery of lost income and damages. Respondents answered, admitted petitioner’s prior title-holding and production levels, contended the 109-hectare land had been acquired by the government and CLOAs issued, and filed compulsory counterclaims seeking recognition of their CARP rights and production/profit shares. During administrative proceedings petitioner deposited P2.51 million as computation of production/profit share; the Regional Adjudicator ruled petitioner had lost ownership when the government acquired the land and denied petitioner’s complaint while granting respondents’ counterclaims.
Petitioner appealed to the Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB), which in a December 11, 2006 Decision denied petitioner’s appeal, ordered petitioner to turn over possession to the beneficiaries, and awarded production-and-profit-share amounts, lease rentals and interest (the DARAB decision). The DARAB motion for reconsideration was denied. Petitioner appealed to the Court of Appeals which, in a Decision dated December 17, 2009, affirmed the DARAB but deleted the award of lease rentals and interest; petitioner’s motion f...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Are respondents guilty of unlawful occupation and liable to petitioner for damages and attorneys’ fees?
- Should petitioner be ordered to turn over possession of the 109-hectare land and respect respondents’ possession?
- Is petitioner’s assertion that it has not received just compensation a proper issue in this case or merely a collateral attack on the Republic’s titles?
- Was the DARAB/CA award of production and profit shar...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)