Case Summary (G.R. No. 171101)
Issues Raised for Reconsideration
The parties contested four principal matters: (1) the proper date of taking for just compensation; (2) the propriety of revoking FWBs’ option to retain HLI shares; (3) entitlement to proceeds of sales of disposed lands (500 ha converted lot and 80.51 ha SCTEX lot); and (4) payment of just compensation for homelots distributed to FWBs.
Prohibition of Second Motion for Reconsideration
Citing Rule 52, Sec 2 and Internal Rules Sec 3, the Court ruled that these motions constitute a prohibited second motion for reconsideration, having re-litigated issues already denied in the November 22, 2011 resolution.
Basis of Agrarian Reform Taking and Constitutional Mandate
Under the 1987 Constitution (Art XIII, Sec 4) and RA 6657, agricultural lands covered by CARP may be acquired via stock distribution option (SDO) or compulsory coverage. SDO submission and PARC approval effectuate CARP coverage and trigger the taking conditioned on payment of just compensation.
Date of Taking for Just Compensation
The Court affirmed that the date of taking is November 21, 1989—the date PARC approved HLI’s Stock Distribution Plan—treating that act as akin to a notice of coverage under compulsory acquisition. A later 2006 notice does not alter the reckoning period.
Determination of Just Compensation and Referral to DAR and Landbank
The Court maintained its directive for the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) and Land Bank of the Philippines to preliminarily determine just compensation based on the November 1989 valuation, subject to final judicial review by the special agrarian court (SAC) in the RTC.
Option of Farmworkers to Remain Stockholders
By unanimous vote, the Court reaffirmed revocation of FWBs’ option to remain HLI stockholders, finding they could never attain control under the existing share distribution ratio, contrary to the constitutional policy favoring farmer control.
Proceeds from Sale of Converted and SCTEX Lands
The Court unanimously upheld that sales proceeds from the 500 ha converted lot and 80.51 ha SCTEX lot—once part of CARP-coverable land—must be returned to the qualified FWBs (less 3% share, taxes and transfer expenses), despite corporate title to such proceeds.
Homelots and Payment of Just Compens
...continue readingCase Syllabus (G.R. No. 171101)
Procedural History
- Petition for certiorari and prohibition filed by Hacienda Luisita, Inc. (HLI), joined by Luisita Industrial Park Corporation and Rizal Commercial Banking Corporation as intervenors
- July 5, 2011 Decision denying HLI’s petition and affirming PARC Resolutions No. 2005-32-01 and No. 2006-34-01, with modification granting FWBs option to remain HLI stockholders
- Separate motions for reconsideration by HLI (Dec. 16, 2011) and Mallari et al. (Dec. 9, 2011)
- November 22, 2011 Resolution recalling option granted to FWBs and reaffirming respect for benefits and homelots already received
- April 24, 2012 En Banc Resolution denying second motions with qualification, further modifying prior rulings on homelot compensation
Issues Presented
- Proper date of “taking” for calculation of just compensation
- Propriety of revoking FWBs’ option to remain as HLI stockholders
- Right to proceeds from sale of 500-hectare converted land and 80.51-hectare SCTEX land
- Just compensation for homelots distributed to FWBs
Petitioner’s Arguments (HLI)
- The Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) is an alternative to compulsory coverage, so the FWBs did not own or possess the land upon PARC approval in 1989
- SDP approval cannot substitute for a notice of coverage under compulsory acquisition; only January 2, 2006 notice may qualify as taking
- “Taking” occurs when owner is actually dispossessed; insistence on 1989 as taking date deprives HLI of due process
- HLI should earn interest on any just compensation award
- Reversal of option to remain as stockholders disregards the FWBs’ contractual right, not required by Constitution or CARL to control agricultural land, and beneficial to FWBs
- Proceeds from sale of converted and SCTEX lots belong to the corporation; returning them to FWBs violates corporate separateness and the Corporation Code
Private Respondents’ Arguments (Mallari et al.)
- CARL does not mandate that FWBs under stock distribution retain majority shareholding in the corporation
- Immediate land distribution, rather than continued stock option, best serves farmers’ welfare
- Operative–fact doctrine should protect FWBs who relied on PARC’s initial SDP approval from subsequent nullification
- Those opting for land should return benefits under the SDOA to HLI to support remaining stockholders
- Taking date for just compensation should be when HLI lost control, with government payment turned over to HLI for corporate operatio