Title
Hacienda Luisita, Inc. vs. Presidential Agrarian Reform Council
Case
G.R. No. 171101
Decision Date
Dec 9, 2020
HLI sought just compensation for land under CARP after SDP revocation. Audit found no distributable balance for FWBs; Court upheld ARF use, Torrens titles, and HLI's entitlement to compensation.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 171101)

Background and Previous Decisions

The core issue revolves around the distribution of agricultural land and just compensation following a long legal dispute concerning HLI’s Stock Distribution Option Agreement. The initial decision in this case was rendered on July 5, 2011, where the court revoked the Stock Distribution Plan (SDP) of HLI and mandated the distribution of agricultural land among FWBs. Subsequent resolutions could clarify various components of the earlier ruling, particularly concerning the determination of just compensation owed to HLI.

Motion for Payment of Just Compensation

HLI filed a motion on March 30, 2015, seeking just compensation for lands transferred under the agrarian reform program. The procedural intricacies surrounding this motion involved various requests by PARC and DAR for proper documentation, specifically certified copies of transfer documents between HLI and the FWBs.

Essential Issues Raised

  1. FWBs’ 3% Share in Land Proceeds: The court was tasked with evaluating the legitimate corporate expenses claimed by HLI against proceeds from land transfers, which had been part of earlier audit requirements.
  2. HLI’s Entitlement to Just Compensation: The court needed to adjudicate whether HLI was entitled to compensation for homelots awarded to FWBs in light of the ruling which stated that FWBs received ownership without obligation to refund.

Selection of External Auditor

The audit process for determining the net distributable share of profits to the FWBs was critical. Due to disputes over the choice of auditors, the Court intervened to appoint a Special Audit Panel tasked with assessing corporate expenses. Disputes surrounding the auditor's methodology eventually led to HLI’s arguments regarding the legitimacy of the expenses being contested.

Findings of the Audit Panel

As per the audit findings by the Special Audit Panel, the legitimate corporate expenses reported far exceeded the proceeds from the sale of land intended for sharing with the FWBs. The assessment resulted in the conclusion that there were no unspent funds available for further distribution to the FWBs.

Respondents’ Motion for Reconsideration

Respondents Mallari and Andaya challenged the findings, positing that not all legitimate corporate expenses warranted approval and that HLI had not thoroughly compensated FWBs for their shares of the proceeds. They emphasized lack of documented proof for certain expenses listed.

Court’s Ruling on Just Compensation and ARF Utilization

The court reaffirmed HLI's entitlement to just compensation for the agricultural land transferred under the agrarian reform program, clarified that compensation must arise from the Agrarian Reform Fund, and emphasized that the date of compensation computation should align with the point of "taking" noted as November 21, 1989.

Conclusion on HLI’s Title Certification Issues

The court noted discrepancies among the titles and the certifica

...continue reading

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