Case Digest (G.R. No. 171101)
Facts:
Hacienda Luisita, Incorporated v. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council, G.R. No. 171101, April 24, 2012, the Supreme Court En Banc, Velasco Jr., J., writing for the Court.This case arises from the long-running agrarian dispute over Hacienda Luisita. The government filed suit in 1980 against Tarlac Development Corporation (TADECO) in the Manila RTC to secure the hacienda for distribution to farmworkers; after litigation the Court of Appeals dismissed the action in 1988 on condition that TADECO obtain PARC approval of a Stock Distribution Plan (SDP). TADECO organized Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI) and sought PARC approval of an SDP, which PARC granted on November 21, 1989 (PARC Res. No. 89-12-2). Under the SDP/HLI scheme, farmworker-beneficiaries (FWBs) received shares and some homelots but remained minority stockholders.
PARC later revoked its approval by Resolution No. 2005-32-01 (Dec. 22, 2005) and confirmed the recall by PARC Res. No. 2006-34-01 (May 3, 2006), after which DAR issued a Notice of Coverage (Jan. 2, 2006) placing the agricultural portion under compulsory acquisition. HLI sought relief in the Supreme Court; in its July 5, 2011 Decision the Court denied HLI’s petition and affirmed the PARC resolutions but initially gave the original 6,296 qualified FWBs the option to remain as HLI stockholders. After motions for reconsideration the Court, by its November 22, 2011 Resolution, recalled that option while preserving FWBs’ possession of homelots and other benefits without refund obligations; the Court also directed DAR and the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to determine just compensation, subject to SAC review.
HLI and several private respondents (Mallari, et al.) filed further motions to clarify and reconsider the November 22, 2011 Resolution. AMBALA filed opposition. The present Resolution (Apr. 24, 2012) addresses those second motions: the Court denied the motions but further modified prior rulings by ordering the government, through DAR, to pay HLI just compensation for the 240-sq.m. homelots distributed to the FWBs, reiterated November 21, 1989 as the date of taking for the agricultural lands (by an 8–6 vote),...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- May the Court entertain a second motion for reconsideration of its November 22, 2011 Resolution?
- What is the proper date of taking for purposes of determining just compensation for the agricultural lands at issue?
- Was it proper to revoke the FWBs’ option to remain as stockholders of HLI?
- Should proceeds from the sale of converted parcels (500 ha and 80.51 ha SCTEX lot) be returned to the qualified FWBs?
- Who should receive just compensation for th...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)