Title
Department of Agrarian Reform vs. Lapanday Foods Corp.
Case
G.R. No. 247339
Decision Date
Mar 13, 2023
Land dispute between agrarian reform beneficiaries and Lapanday over contract enforcement; DAR intervention denied as case deemed civil, not agrarian.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 172892)

Applicable Law

The case primarily engages with the provisions of Republic Act No. 6657, also known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law, which defines agrarian disputes and establishes the jurisdiction of the Department of Agrarian Reform over matters relating to agrarian law.

Background of the Dispute

The dispute originated when Hijo Plantation, Inc. offered its 450.3958-hectare property under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program in 1995, which was subsequently awarded to a cooperative of agrarian reform beneficiaries, namely, the Hijo Cooperative. The cooperative entered into several agribusiness agreements with Hijo Plantation, later transferred to Lapanday Foods Corporation. Over time, disagreement arose within the cooperative, leading to a faction creating Madaum Agrarian Reform Beneficiaries Association, Inc. (Madaum Association), which then contested the agreements, resulting in conflicting claims over the bananas produced on the land.

Actions Taken and Judicial Proceedings

Lapanday filed actions for specific performance against the Hijo Cooperative when disagreements emerged regarding the sale of the cooperative's bananas. The Regional Trial Court (RTC) issued a compromise agreement to which both parties adhered until disputes rekindled with the emergence of the Madaum Association. The latter sought intervention from the DAR, arguing that their agrarian rights were infringed upon when the alias writ of execution was enforced, leading to conflicts over their entitlements to the land.

Arguments from the Petitioner

The DAR contended that the enforcement of the alias writ constituted an agrarian dispute since it disrupted the tenurial rights of the Madaum Association members. The DAR claimed jurisdiction under its authority to resolve agrarian disputes stemming from the agreements made between the Hijo Cooperative and Lapanday.

Arguments from the Respondents

In response, Lapanday argued that the issues were strictly contractual in nature, pertaining to the specific performance of obligations under the compromise agreement, thereby falling within the jurisdiction of the RTC rather than the DAR. They emphasized that there were no ongoing tenurial arrangements applicable to the dispute, asserting that the compromise agreement had become final and executory.

Court of Appeals Decision

The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the RTC, stating that the controversy arose from the agribusiness venture agreements and not from an agrarian dispute. The court underscored that the DAR's cease-and-desist order did not convert a contractual matter into an agrarian dispute and rejected the argument that the mediation mechanisms established by the Department should govern the proceedings.

Supreme Court Ruling

Upon petition for review to the Supreme Court, the Court affirmed the lower courts' findings. It ruled that the essence of the case was not inherently agrarian as it deal

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.