Case Summary (G.R. No. 170623)
Procedural History
The procedural history began with a petition for exclusion submitted to the DAR on April 25, 1994, regarding three parcels of land with a total area of approximately 843.3990 hectares. The DAR Regional Director denied this petition on January 24, 1995, leading to subsequent appeals by the petitioner, including a motion for reconsideration and an appeal to the Secretary of Agrarian Reform. The Secretary dismissed the appeal on October 23, 1996. The petitioner further pursued relief from the Office of the President and subsequently the Court of Appeals, achieving no favorable outcomes and leading to the ultimate assessment of the case by the Supreme Court.
Legal Basis for Exclusion
The petitioner based its argument for exclusion on the premise that the lands had slopes exceeding 18% and maintained no tenancy. However, the DAR and the Office of the President found that the lands were not primarily used for cattle ranching, disputing claims made by the petitioner regarding the land's topography and use.
Findings of the DAR
The findings resulting from the DAR's investigation included the following key points: (1) The subject parcels were found not to be directly, actually, and exclusively used for pasture, and the documentation submitted by the petitioner did not convincingly support its claims of cattle ranching. (2) It was confirmed that portions of the land were cultivated for crops such as corn and coconuts, contradicting the petitioner's assertions of exclusive use for livestock. (3) Additionally, it was shown that significant portions of the land were occupied by farmers who had been cultivating the area since May 1992, further challenging the claim of non-tenancy.
Assessment of Due Process
In the legal proceedings, the issue of due process arose as the petitioner claimed a lack of opportunity to present its case fully. However, the courts affirmed that the administrative procedures followed by DAR met the standard of due process, which allows for decisions based on written submissions rather than necessitating formal hearings. The courts concluded that the petitioner had ample opportunities to present its arguments through various appeal mechanisms and reconsideration motions.
Evaluation of the Land’s Use
The Court further examined how the lands were utilized, noting that despite petitioner's claims of exclusive cattle ranching, the lands had been predominantly cultivated for crops and were actively farmed by local tenants. This evidence contradicted the assertion that the lands should fall under CARP exclusion criteria pertaining to livestock raising and unsuitable slopes.
Affirmation of Findings
The Court's final ruling emphasized that the technical evaluations conducted by the DAR were supported by substantial evidence and that the finality of the rulin
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 170623)
Procedural Background
- This case is a petition for review on certiorari filed by A.Z. Arnaiz Realty, Inc., represented by Carmen Z. Arnaiz, challenging the Decision of the Court of Appeals (CA) dated August 11, 2005, in CA-G.R. SP No. 73687.
- The petition seeks to assail the resolution dated November 24, 2005, which denied the petitioner’s Motion for Reconsideration.
- The core issue revolves around the denial of the petitioner’s request for exclusion from the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) coverage for specific parcels of land.
Factual Antecedents
- The petitioner filed a petition for exclusion from CARP on April 25, 1994, regarding three parcels of land identified by Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) Nos. T-3543, T-6929, and T-3542, totaling approximately 843.3990 hectares located in Barangay Asid, Sinalugan, Masbate.
- The grounds for exclusion cited by the petitioner include:
- Longstanding devotion of the land to cattle-ranching.
- Absence of tenants on the land.
- Existence of slopes exceeding 18%.
- The DAR Regional Director denied the petition on January 24, 1995, citing multiple reasons, including the land’s actual use and ownership issues.
Key Findings of the DAR
- The DAR concluded that:
- The properties were not exclusively used for pasture.
- There was insufficient evidence of the petitioner’s intent to maintain the area for cattle ranching.
- The landholder had sold their entire herd of cattle prior to the petition.
- The purported peace and order problems related to NPA rebels did not substantiate the cessation of agricultural activity on the land.