Title
Hacienda Luisita, Inc. vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council
Case
G.R. No. 171101
Decision Date
Jul 5, 2011
Hacienda Luisita's SDP revoked; SC upheld compulsory land distribution to farmers, ensuring agrarian reform compliance and social justice.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 171101)

Statutory Framework

1987 Constitution, Art. XIII, Sec. 4 – mandates land redistribution to landless farmers (“to own directly or collectively the lands they till”) Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL, R.A. 6657, 1988): two compliance modes for corporate landowners –
• Land-transfer option: actual transfer of land to qualified agrarian beneficiaries
• Stock-distribution option (Sec. 31): issuance of corporate shares pro rata to land value, subject to conditions and PARC approval DAR Administrative Order No. 10-1988: implementing rules for stock distribution plans (equal shares, 3-month implementation, audit, board representation, etc.)

Spin-Off and Stock Distribution Agreement

August 1988: HLI formed; 22 Mar 1989 TADECO transferred 4,915.75 ha + assets (net value ₱355.53 M) to HLI for ₱355.53 M in shares May 11 1989: HLI, TADECO and 5,898 farmworkers (93% of workforce) signed Stock Distribution Option Agreement (SDOA) – key features:
• 33.296% of HLI’s 355.53 M shares (≈118.39 M shares) for FWBs
• Distribution over 30 years based on “man-days” worked, at no cost
• 3% annual gross-sales share bonus, on top of wages
• Annual irrevocable voting proxy for FWB board representation
• Free 240 sqm homelots to FWBs’ families October 1989: DAR referendum ratified SDOA (5,117 vs. 132) Nov 21 1989: PARC approved HLI’s stock distribution plan (SDP) via Resolution No. 89-12-2

SDP Implementation and Land Conversion

1989–2005: HLI claims it delivered – 59 M shares free; ₱3 B in wages/fringes; ₱150 M production share; ₱37.5 M from sale of converted lands; homelots
1995–96: HLI applied for and DAR granted conversion of 500 ha to non-agricultural use, with FWB support
1996–98: Petitioner HLI transferred 200 ha to Luisita Realty (₱250 M + ₱250 M); 300 ha to Centennary (for 12 M Centennary shares), then sold to LIPCO (₱750 M); LIPCO mortgaged, then dacion en pago to RCBC (₱431.7 M) 2004–05: BCDA took 80.51 ha for SCTEX (₱80 M)

DAR Review and PARC Revocation

2003: Supervisory Group and AMBALA file petitions for renegotiation/revocation of SDOA
2005: DAR Task Force finds HLI violated CARL/AO 10 by –
• Using “man-days” instead of equal minimum shares
• Spreading share distribution over 30 years (vs. 3-month rule)
• Allowing conversion of agricultural land
• Failing to pay full 3% share and distribute homelots
Dec 22 2005: PARC Resolution No. 2005-32-01 revokes SDP approval; orders compulsory CARP coverage of HLI lands May 3 2006: PARC denies HLI reconsideration; DAR issues Notice of Coverage (incl. converted lands)

Supreme Court Proceedings

Jan 2006: HLI files certiorari petition and TRO (granted June 2006) 2007–10: FARM, LIPCO, RCBC intervene; parties submit pleadings; oral arguments (Aug 2010); failed mediation; memoranda filed

Main Issues for Decision

  1. Standing of farmworker groups and third-party buyers (LIPCO/RCBC)
  2. SDP’s validity under CARL & AO 10 (man-days method, 30-year term, land fragmentation)
  3. PARC’s authority to revoke SDP approval
  4. Legal and factual grounds to recall SDP
  5. Rights of LIPCO/RCBC as innocent purchasers for value

Ruling Overview

• SDP and SDOA judged void ab initio – immediate and equal share allocation denied by man-days rule; 30-year term violated AO 10’s 3-month implementation requirement; lands were fragmented (conversion of 500 ha) • PARC entitled to revoke its previous approval (necessary implication of “power to approve” includes “power to revoke”) • All HLI agricultural lands (4,915.75 ha) subject to compulsory CARP coverage and direct land redistribution to original 6,296 FWBs • Exclusions:
– Converted 300 ha sold to LIPCO/RCBC
– 80.51 ha expropriated for SCTEX
– 200 ha transferred to Luisita Realty (unless DAR upholds transfer) • LIPCO/RCBC’s titles are upheld – they were innocent purchasers for value of validly converted lands • HLI & TADECO are entitled to just compensation – fair market value at time of taking; offset by benefits FWBs received • No interest on compensation (lack of real loss of actual possess

    ...continue reading

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.