THIRD DIVISION
|
THE HEIRS OF AURELIO REYES, Petitioners, - versus – HON. ERNESTO
D. GARILAO, as the Secretary of the
Department of Agrarian Reform, and EXEQUIEL ROMAN, BASILIO NUÑEZ, ONOFRE
LAVARIAS, GAVINO BUENSUCESO, CENON MANUEL, ALFONSO RODRIGO, TEOFILO ICO,
ALFREDO LAVARIAS, MIGUEL RIVERA, ROMULO ALFONSO, LYDIA TOLENTINO, EDILBERTO
EUGENIO, BEATA VDA. DE DUNGCA, WILFREDO MILANIO, ANDRES RAMOS, RUDY
POLICARPIO, PELAGIA PULMONEZ, ALBERTO DE LEON, LAURO REYES, FELICIO GUEVARRA,
EMILIO GARCIA, JR., TERESITA GUEVARRA, GUILLERMO GUEVARRA, JOSE ESTRILLA,
FEDERICO ALFONSO, JOSE MEDINA, BENITO OCAMPO, ERNESTO TOLENTINO, FERNANDO
TOLENTINO, RUPERTO BRILLANTE, MARGARITO BUENSUCESO, PRIMITIVO MAYUYO, GENARO
ROMAN, DEOGRACIAS ROMAN, LUIS TOLENTINO, ELIGIO VERGARA, CARLOS RAMOS, PABLO
ALFONSO, SERAFIN MEDINA, CARMEN VDA. DE YUSI, ALEJANDRO BALAN, and EMETERIO
DUNCA, Respondents. |
G.R. No. 136466 Present:
CHICO-NAZARIO, velasco, jr., nachura, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: November 25, 2009
|
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x D E C I S
I O N PERALTA, J.: |
|
Before this Court is a Petition for Review on Certiorari,[1]
under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, assailing the April 16, 1997 Decision[2]
and December 2, 1998 Resolution[3] of
the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP 42847.
The facts of the case:
Petitioners are the registered
co-owners of a parcel of land known as Lot No. 166 of the Cadastral survey of
Orani,
1. Antonia Reyes (widow) 55.0602
has.
2. Cesar H. Reyes 5.5060
has.
3. Aurelio H. Reyes 5.5060
has.
4. Lourdes R. Mateo 5.5060
has.
5. Teresita H. Reyes 5.5060
has.
6. Gregorio H. Reyes 5.5060
has.
7. Carlos H. Reyes 5.5060
has.
8. Manuel H. Reyes 5.5060
has.
9. Maria Rosario R. Bartolome 5.5060 has.
--------------
99.1082 has.[5]
Said property was originally owned by the spouses
Antonia Reyes and the late Aurelio Reyes (Aurelio), who died in
On
On
Earlier, however, on July 15, 1993, petitioners
filed with the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR), Region III, San Fernando,
Pampanga, their respective applications for retention[9]
over Lot No. 166, at five (5) hectares each, pursuant to Section 6[10]
of Republic Act No. 6657, or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988 (RA
No. 6657).[11]
On
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, an Order is hereby issued:
1. GRANTING the Application for individual
retention of the heirs of Aurelio P. Reyes with each heir to retain not more
than five (5) hectares of their landholding at Barangay Mulawin, Orani, Bataan,
which must be compact and contiguous;
2. DIRECTING the said heirs to make the
segregation of their retainable area at their own expense and to submit the
result thereof to this Office;
3. DIRECTING the parties concerned to initiate
the cancellation of emancipation patent(s), if any has (have) been issued over
the retained landholding before the proper forum; and
4. DIRECTING the DAR personnel concerned to make
provisions for the welfare of the affected farmer-beneficiaries, if any.
SO ORDERED.[13]
On
WHEREFORE, premises
considered, Order is hereby issued setting aside the Order dated
SO
ORDERED.[15]
The DAR Secretary found
that each compulsory heir owns, aside from the 5.5060 has. representing their
1/9 share of the property in dispute, other landholdings presumably used either
as residential, commercial, industrial or for other urban purposes located in
Makati and Manila.[16]
The DAR Secretary further held that
landowners who own lands devoted to non-agricultural purposes are presumed to derive
adequate income therefrom to support themselves and their families.[17]
Accordingly, the DAR Secretary denied
the applications for exemption of petitioners pursuant to DAR Administrative
Order No. 4, series of 1991.[18]
Aggrieved by the Order of
the DAR Secretary, petitioners sought to assail the same via a petition for review before the CA. On
WHEREFORE,
the petition for review is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.[20]
The CA ruled that
Administrative Order No. 4, series of 1991, and Letter of Instruction (LOI) No.
474 restricts the right of retention of landowners, in the wise:
Petitioners’
land has been subjected to land reform under P.D. No. 27. On
Moreover, the CA upheld
the finding of the DAR Secretary, that in addition to the share of petitioners
in the land subject of herein petition, petitioners have other landholdings
presumably used either as residential, commercial, industrial, or for other
urban purposes located in Makati and Manila.[22]
Hence, the CA concluded that petitioners were not entitled to exercise their
retention rights as a result of the restrictions contained in Administrative
Order No. 4, series of 1991, as well as LOI No. 474.
Petitioners then filed a
Motion for Reconsideration, which was, however, denied by the CA in a
Resolution[23]
dated
Hence, herein petition,
with petitioners raising the following grounds in support of the petition, to
wit:
A.
PETITIONERS’
RIGHT TO RETENTION OF PORTIONS OF THEIR LANDHOLDINGS IS NOT FORECLOSED BY ANY
VESTED RIGHT THAT PRIVATE RESPONDENTS MAY CLAIM.
B.
LOI
NO. 474 DATED
C.
DEPARTMENT
OF AGRARIAN REFORM ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 04, SERIES OF 1991, HAS THEREFORE
NO STATUTORY BASIS INSOFAR AS RETENTION RIGHTS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6657 ARE
CONCERNED. SAID ISSUANCE APPLIES ONLY TO RETENTION RIGHTS OF (7) HECTARES UNDER
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 27.[24]
The
petition is not meritorious.
At
the crux of the controversy is the determination of the applicability of the
restrictive conditions found in LOI No. 474 to RA No. 6657.
In
order to understand the case at bar, this Court shall hereunder discuss the
various laws and administrative order pertinent to herein petition and their
relation to one another.
Presidential Decree
No. 27 (PD No. 27),[25]
issued on October 21, 1972 by then President Ferdinand E. Marcos, proclaimed
the entire country as a “land reform area” and decreed the emancipation of
tenants from the bondage of the soil, transferring to them the ownership of the
land they till. To achieve its purpose,
the decree laid down a system for the purchase by
tenant-farmers, long recognized as the backbone of the economy, of the lands they
were tilling. Owners of rice and corn lands that exceeded the minimum retention
area were bound to sell their lands to qualified farmers at liberal terms and
subject to conditions.[26]
More
importantly, PD No. 27 also provides that, “in all cases, the landowner may
retain an area not more than seven (7) hectares if such landowner is
cultivating such area or will now cultivate it.”
Meanwhile, on
To: The Secretary of Agrarian Reform.
WHEREAS,
last year I ordered that small landowners of tenanted rice/corn lands with
areas of less than twenty-four hectares but above seven hectares shall retain
not more than seven hectares of such lands except when they own other
agricultural lands containing more than seven hectares or land used for
residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from which they
derive adequate income to support themselves and their families;
WHEREAS,
the Department of Agrarian Reform found that in the course of implementing my
directive there are many landowners of tenanted rice/corn lands with areas of
seven hectares or less who also own other agricultural lands containing more
than seven hectares or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or
other urban purposes where they derive adequate income to support themselves
and their families;
WHEREAS,
it is therefore necessary to cover said lands under the Land Transfer Program
of the government to emancipate the tenant-farmers therein.
NOW,
THEREFORE, I, PRESIDENT FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the
“1. You shall undertake to place under the
Land Transfer Program of the government pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27,
all tenanted rice/corn lands with areas of seven hectares or less belonging to
landowners who own other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares in
aggregate areas or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other
urban purposes from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and
their families.”[27]
LOI No. 474, thus, amended
PD No. 27 by removing “any right of retention from persons who own other
agricultural lands of more than 7 hectares, or lands used for residential,
commercial, industrial or other purposes from which they derive adequate income
to support themselves and their families.”[28]
After Martial Law, on
SEC. 6. Retention Limits. - Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly, any public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to factors governing a viable family-sized farm, such as commodity produced, terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall the retention by the landowner exceed five (5) hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner, subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15) years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing the farm: Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder; Provided, further, That original homestead grantees or direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they continue to cultivate said homestead.
The right to choose the area to be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall pertain, to the landowner: Provided, however, That in case the area selected for retention by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to choose whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another agricultural land with similar or comparable features. In case the tenant chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be considered a leaseholder and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this Act. In case the tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his right as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must exercise this option within a period of one (1) year from the time the landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention.
In all cases, the security of tenure of the farmers or farm workers on the land prior to the approval of this Act shall be respected.
Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of this Act shall be null and void: Provided, however, That those executed prior to this Act shall be valid only when registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3) months after the effectivity of this Act . Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds shall inform the DAR within thirty (30) days of any transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares.[30]
As
can be observed, Section 6 of RA No. 6657, while providing for a right of
retention of five hectares, does not prescribe the limitation or conditions
provided for in LOI No. 474.
Soon after, Administrative Order No. 4, series of
1991, was issued by the Secretary of the Department of Agrarian Reform, the
pertinent portions of which read:
B. Policy Statements.
1. Landowners covered by P.D. 27 are entitled to retain
seven hectares, except those whose entire tenanted rice and corn lands are
subject of acquisition and distribution under Operation Land Transfer (OLT). An owner of tenanted rice and corn lands
may not retain these lands under the following cases:
a. If he, as of 21 October 1972, owned more than 24 hectares of tenanted rice and corn lands; or by virtue of LOI 474, if he, as of 21 October 1976, owned less than 24 hectares of tenanted rice or corn lands, but additionally owned the following:
- Other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares, whether tenanted or not, whether cultivated or not, and regardless of the income derived therefrom; or
- Lands used for residential, commercial, industrial, or other urban purposes, from which he derives adequate income to support himself and his family.[31]
Based on the foregoing,
petitioners anchor herein petition on their observation that Section 6 of RA
No. 6657 does not provide for the limitation or exception to the exercise of
retention rights previously found in LOI No. 474. Petitioners, thus, posit that those parts of
the section amended, which are omitted in the amendments, are deemed repealed.[32]
Likewise, petitioners contend that LOI No. 474 is inconsistent with the
provisions of RA No. 6657 and was therefore repealed by the latter.[33]
After a judicious
examination of the laws and relevant jurisprudence to the case at bar, this
Court holds that petitioner’s positions are without merit.
LOI No. 474 provides for a restrictive condition on
the exercise of the right of retention, specifically disqualifying landowners
who “own other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares in aggregate
areas, or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban
purposes from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their
families.” Said condition is essentially the same one contained in Administrative
Order No. 4, series of 1991.
In Association
of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform,[34]
this Court upheld the validity of LOI No. 474, in the wise:
The
Court wryly observes that during the past dictatorship, every presidential
issuance, by whatever name it was called, had the force and effect of law
because it came from President Marcos. Such are the ways of despots. Hence, it
is futile to argue, as petitioners do in G.R. No. 79744, that LOI 474 could not
have repealed P.D. No. 27 because the former was only a letter of instruction. The important thing is that it was issued by
President Marcos, whose word was law during the time.
Petitioners, however,
argue that RA No. 6657 has impliedly repealed LOI No. 474 on the theory that
the latter is inconsistent with the former. Consequently, petitioners contend
that Administrative Order No. 4, series of 1991 has no statutory basis.
This Court cannot
subscribe to petitioners’ view. This Court is guided by Social Justice Society v. Atienza Jr.,[35]
wherein the operation of implied repeals was extensively discussed, to wit:
Repeal by implication proceeds on the
premise that where a statute of later date clearly reveals the intention of the
legislature to abrogate a prior act on the subject, that intention must be
given effect.
There are two kinds
of implied repeal. The first is: where the provisions in the two acts on the
same subject matter are irreconcilably contradictory, the latter act, to the
extent of the conflict, constitutes an implied repeal of the earlier one. The
second is: if the later act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and is
clearly intended as a substitute, it will operate to repeal the earlier law. The
oil companies argue that the situation here falls under the first
category.
Implied repeals are
not favored and will not be so declared unless the intent of the legislators is
manifest. As statutes and ordinances are presumed to be passed only after
careful deliberation and with knowledge of all existing ones on the subject, it
follows that, in passing a law, the legislature did not intend to interfere
with or abrogate a former law relating to the same subject matter. If the
intent to repeal is not clear, the later act should be construed as a
continuation of, and not a substitute for, the earlier act.[36]
Based on the foregoing,
this Court disagrees with the theory advanced by petitioners that RA No. 6657
has impliedly repealed LOI No. 474. The congressional deliberations[37]
cited by petitioners are insufficient to indicate an intent to repeal LOI No.
474. A perusal thereof shows that said deliberations were confined only to the
matter of retention limits (i.e., 3,
5 or 7 hectares), and no mention was made of the restrictive conditions found
in LOI No. 474. As a matter of fact,
what is clear from said deliberations is that the framers of RA No. 6657 had
intended to distribute more lands.[38]
While both laws may have
the same subject matter, i.e. agrarian reform and its mechanism, if there is no
intent to repeal the earlier enactment, every effort at a reasonable
construction must be made to reconcile the statutes, so that both can be given
effect.[39]
To stress, RA No. 6657 is
a social justice and poverty alleviation program which seeks to empower the
lives of agrarian reform beneficiaries through equitable distribution and
ownership of the land based on the principle
of land to the tiller. RA No.6657, however, allows landowners to retain five
hectares of their landholding. LOI No. 474,
on the other hand, imposes restrictive conditions on the exercise of the right
of retention by mandating that landowners who possess other lands used for
residential, commercial, industrial, or other urban purposes, from which they
derive adequate income to support themselves and their families are
disqualified from exercising their right of retention.
Respondents, in their
Comment,[40] argue
that LOI No. 474 partakes of a special law, while RA No. 6657 is a general law,
to wit:
It will be noted that LOI No. 474, as implemented by Administrative Order No. 04, Series of 1991, partakes of a special law specifically governing the acquisition of “all tenanted rice/corn lands with [an] area of seven hectares or less belonging to landowners who own other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares in aggregate areas or lands used for residential, commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from which they derive adequate income to support themselves and their families” under the Land Transfer Program of the government pursuant to Presidential Decree No. 27. x x x
On the other hand, Section 6 of R.A. No. 6657, otherwise known as the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law of 1988, merely provides, in relations to lands retained by the landowners under P.D. No. 27, that “landowners whose lands have been covered by Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the area originally retained by them thereunder.” R.A. No. 6657 does not govern nor provide for the manner and conditions by which the right of retention of landowners of rice/corn lands may be exercised. It is, therefore, a general law covering “all public and private agricultural lands as provided in Proclamation No. 131 and Executive Order No. 229, including other lands of the public domain suitable for agriculture. x x x[41]
Respondents also contend that both laws are complementary to
each other such that while RA No. 6657 does not provide for the mechanism for
the exercise of the right of retention of landowners under PD No. 27, LOI No.
474, as implemented by DAR Administrative Order No. 4, series of 1991, supplies
that mechanism.[42] Lastly,
respondents argue that as between a general law (R.A. No. 6657) and a special
law (LOI No. 474), there is no dispute that the latter shall prevail.[43]
The position of respondents
is well-taken. It is a well-settled rule in statutory construction that a subsequent general law does not repeal
a prior special law on the same subject matter unless it clearly appears
that the legislature has intended by the latter general act to modify or repeal
the earlier special law.[44] Generalia
specialibus non derogant (a general law does not nullify a specific or
special law).[45] This is
so even if the provisions of the general law are sufficiently comprehensive to
include what was set forth in the special act.[46]
Moreover, the special act and the general law must stand together, one as the
law of the particular subject and the other as the law of general application.[47]
There is no conflict between RA No. 6675 and LOI No. 474 as
both can be given a reasonable construction so as to give them effect. The
suppletory application of laws is sanctioned under Section 75 of RA No. 6675,
to wit:
SEC. 75. Suppletory Application of Existing Legislation. - The provisions of Republic Act Number 3844, as amended, Presidential Decree Numbers 27 and 266 as amended, Executive Order Numbers 228 and 229, both Series of 1987, and other laws not inconsistent with this Act shall have suppletory effect.
Withal, this Court concludes that while RA No. 6675 is the
law of general application, LOI No. 474 may still be applied to the latter.
Hence, landowners under RA No. 6675 are entitled to retain five hectares of
their landholding; however, if they too own other “lands used for residential,
commercial, industrial or other urban purposes from which they derive adequate
income to support themselves and their families,” they are disqualified from
exercising their right of retention.
For the same reasons previously discussed, this Court cannot
subscribe to petitioners’ view that Section 76,[48]
or the Repealing Clause of RA No. 6675, has repealed LOI No. 474.
Anent petitioners’ claim
that Administrative Order No. 4, series of 1991, has no statutory basis, the
same is without merit.
It is a general rule that the power of administrative
officials to promulgate rules and regulations in the implementation of a
statute is necessarily limited only to carrying into effect what is
provided in the legislative
enactment.[49] Furthermore, it is an elementary rule in
administrative law that administrative regulations and policies enacted by
administrative bodies to interpret the law which they are entrusted to enforce,
have the force of law, and are entitled to great weight and respect.[50] Since the validity of LOI No. 474 and its
suppletory application to RA No. 6675 has been settled, it is clear that
Administrative Order No. 4, series of 1991, is valid as it is merely a
reiteration of LOI No. 474.
Lastly, petitioners
contend that even on the assumption that Administrative Order No. 4 or even LOI
No. 474, may be applied to the retention rights under RA No. 6657, still there
is no substantial evidence to support the finding of respondent Secretary that
petitioners own other lands devoted to non-agricultural uses from which they
derived adequate income to support their family.[51]
On this point, the DAR
Secretary made the following findings, to wit:
Be that as it may,
records however disclosed that Antonia Reyes, the surviving spouse, owned
55.0602 has. tenanted riceland as of
Said findings were also
made by the CA as its basis in affirming the decision of the DAR Secretary. The
same is a question of fact which cannot be the subject of herein petition.[53]
More importantly, the findings of the DAR are accorded not only respect but
even finality by this Court, because it has acquired the necessary expertise on
the matter.[54]
Said findings appear to be supported by substantial evidence which is all that
is required in agrarian cases.[55]
Hence, this Court finds no reason to disturb said findings of the Secretary.
Given the foregoing, it would be unnecessary to
discuss the first issue raised by petitioners as the same is immaterial,
considering this Court’s ruling that LOI No. 474 applies suppletorily to RA No.
6675.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the petition is denied. The April 16, 1997 Decision and
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO
M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
Chairperson
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
Associate Justice
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
ATTESTATION
I attest that the
conclusions in the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the
case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
RENATO C.
CORONA
Associate
Justice
Third Division, Chairperson
CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution
and the Division Chairperson’s Attestation, I certify that the conclusions in
the above Decision had been reached in consultation before the case was
assigned to the writer of the opinion of the Court’s Division.
REYNATO
S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 10-50.
[2] Penned by Associate Justice Oswaldo D. Agcaoili, with Associate Justices Jaime M. Lantin and Buenaventura J. Guerrero, concurring; id. at 53-62.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Annexes E-1 to E-8; id. at 74-81.
[10] SEC.
6. Retention Limits. - Except
as otherwise provided in this Act, no person may own or retain, directly, any
public or private agricultural land, the size of which shall vary according to
factors governing a viable family-sized farm, such as commodity produced,
terrain, infrastructure, and soil fertility as determined by the Presidential
Agrarian Reform Council (PARC) created hereunder, but in no case shall the retention by the landowner exceed five (5)
hectares. Three (3) hectares may be awarded to each child of the landowner,
subject to the following qualifications: (1) that he is at least fifteen (15)
years of age; and (2) that he is actually tilling the land or directly managing
the farm: Provided, That landowners whose lands have been covered by
Presidential Decree No. 27 shall be allowed to keep the area originally
retained by them thereunder; Provided, further, That original homestead
grantees or direct compulsory heirs who still own the original homestead at the
time of the approval of this Act shall retain the same areas as long as they
continue to cultivate said homestead.
The right to choose the area to
be retained, which shall be compact or contiguous, shall pertain, to the
landowner: Provided, however, That in case the area selected for
retention by the landowner is tenanted, the tenant shall have the option to
choose whether to remain therein or be a beneficiary in the same or another
agricultural land with similar or comparable features. In case the tenant
chooses to remain in the retained area, he shall be considered a leaseholder
and shall lose his right to be a beneficiary under this Act. In case the
tenant chooses to be a beneficiary in another agricultural land, he loses his
right as a leaseholder to the land retained by the landowner. The tenant must
exercise this option within a period of one (1) year from the time the
landowner manifests his choice of the area for retention.
In all cases, the security of
tenure of the farmers or farm workers on the land prior to the approval of this
Act shall be respected.
Upon the effectivity of this Act, any sale, disposition, lease, management contract or transfer of possession of private lands executed by the original landowner in violation of this Act shall be null and void: Provided, however, That those executed prior to this Act shall be valid only when registered with the Register of Deeds within a period of three (3) months after the effectivity of this Act . Thereafter, all Registers of Deeds shall inform the DAR within thirty (30) days of any transaction involving agricultural lands in excess of five (5) hectares.
[11] Rollo, p. 67.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] B. Policy Statements.
1. Landowners covered by P.D.
27 are entitled to retain to retain seven hectares, except those whose entire
tenanted rice and corn lands are subject of acquisition and distribution under
Operation Land Transfer (OLT). An owner
of tenanted rice and corn lands may not retain these lands under the following
cases:
a. If he as of
- Other agricultural lands of more than seven hectares, whether
tenanted or not, and regardless of the income derived therefore; or
- Lands used for residential, commercial, industrial, or other urban purposes, from which he derives adequate income to support himself and his family.
[19] Rollo, pp. 53-62.
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25] “Decreeing the Emancipation of Tenants from the Bondage of the Soil Transferring to Them the Ownership of the Land they Till and Providing the Instruments and Mechanism therefore.”
[26] Pagtalunan v. Tamayo, G.R. No. 54281,
[27] Emphasis Supplied.
[28] Association of Small Landowners in the Philippines, Inc. v. Secretary of Agrarian Reform, G.R. No. 78742, July 14, 1989, 175 SCRA 343, 362.
[29] “An Act Instituting a Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program to Promote Social Justice and Industrialization, Providing the Mechanism for its Implementation, and For Other Purposes.”
[30] Emphasis Supplied.
[31] Rollo,
pp. 58-59. See http://www.dar.gov.ph/pdf_files/issuance_91/ao04_91.pdf;
last visited
[32] Rollo, p. 32.
[33]
[34] Supra note 28, at 368-369.
[35] G.R. No. 156052,
[36]
[37] Rep. Jose Roño: “In other words,
what we want to conceive in this specific provision of the House is the
hectarage that a small landowner as of right may retain and that must be
respected. So that it cannot be anywhere between one hectare to seven hectares
depending on what PARCOM or other administrative agencies decide because in
effect, we are abdicating legislative authority to administrative bodies. In
other words, it should be Congress that should decide what is the retention
limit”;
Senator Aquino: “Yes, well, maybe, to clarify to everybody, we are talking here of the retention limits to be retained by the former landowners xxx. I am asking for the basis of the seven (7) hectares, because as far back as I can remember, this has only been the favorite number of the previous regime. That is the reason they chose seven. But there is no scientific, technical or economic basis for seven hectares. And that is the reason why in searching for an economically viable family-size plot, all farmers we have talked to, including the Gentleman, seem to agree that three hectares is economically viable for after all that is also the Gentleman’s award ceiling for beneficiaries”; January 27, 1988; (Rollo, p. 36.)
[38] Rep. Lagman: “Finally, subject to
the duty of the State to promote distributive justice and to intervene when the
common good so demands, House Bill No. 400 would, if enacted into law, put to
efficacy all theses constitutional
mandates and principles. But I would limit my statement this afternoon
to two controversial issues related to agrarian reform which are retention
limits and priorities. On retention limit, Mr. Speaker, honorable colleagues,
let us legislate on it consistent with social justice and distributive justice.
Let us legislate on a retention limit which would maximize the land for
coverage and the number of beneficiaries of agrarian reforms”;
Senator
Aquino: “So, anyway, to summarize, on this retention limit, while we are
proposing three hectares which, right now covers already 69% of all farms in
the Philippines, if we move up to seven hectares’ retention limit, we will be
touching only six per cent of all farms. And as far as the area is covered, we
were interested in the distribution of 70 per cent of agricultural land in the
“If,
however, we stick to the Gentleman’s seven hectares, then we will only be
distributing 32% of agricultural land”;
[39] Social Justice Society (SJS) v. Atienza, Jr., supra note 35, at 131.
[40] Rollo, pp. 152-162.
[41]
[42]
[43]
[44] Emphasis and underscoring supplied.
[45] Social Justice Society v. Atienza Jr., supra note 35, at 132, citing Leynes v. Commission on Audit, 418 SCRA 180, 196 (2003).
[46]
[47]
[48] SEC. 76. Repealing Clause. - Section 35 of
Republic Act Number 3844, Presidential Decree Number 316, the last two
paragraphs of Section 12 of Presidential Decree Number 1038, and all other
laws, decrees, executive orders, rules and regulations, issuances or parts
thereof inconsistent with this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.
[49] See
[50] Rizal
Empire Insurance Group v. NLRC, No.
[51] Rollo, p. 44.
[52]
[53] See The Insular Life Assurance
Company, Ltd. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 126850,
[54] Machete
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 109093,
[55] Castro
v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 34613,